limerLiberals are catalysts to catastrophe, again
Bla bla liberals bad amirite?
I believe there’s a language issue here. This article (and Lemmy in general) uses a more global definition of “Liberal” which is completely different from the meaning the word has in the US. After arriving here (Lemmy) I’ve learned that the meaning it has in the article is a specific political position which is distinct from “leftist” or “progressive” - it’s based more on economic policy than social policy, and basically means something like “maybe slightly left of conservative capitalist” - which I now understand US Democrats pretty much are economically.
Before learning that, this article would have made zero sense, and sounded like it was written by an ally of
The word ‘leftist’ entered the American lexicon in the lead-up to Trump’s first term. Before that it was commonly understood as a European word meaning something similar to liberal but more extreme and more locally focused within their respective countries. Now it seems to be still in flux, finding its particular American meaning without any previous word to replace.
“Leftist” in 2000s Italy meant either a) communist or socialist party outside the established Communist parties, also mostly excluded from parliamentary politics…or b) lifestyle progressive in the extended network of ‘a’, also understood as “lite center-left”. There is no way to quantify the “amount of Left” since these two meanings of the word are in opposite directions.
Understanding this in terms of US politics is a lost cause. This is the only correct response so far:
As for the US, it actually uses the term “liberal” correctly, the US just has thoroughly shut out the left to the point that liberal is the farthest “left” mainstream discourse is traditionally allowed to go.
Different culture, different meaning. But if I had to, I would say that “b” above is the one introduced by the American far-right into the political discourse.