Which is more Important Economic Liberalism or Social Liberalism

[Finch]

It an interesting point, I think that many on the left are considering that social issues are more important than economic ones, I find this a bit worrying myself…

But just to ask, which is more important to you…

Personally I think economic liberalism is the more important and has been a central issue for our party since its inception. I think social issues are a destruction and an issue that is bound to divide populists and liberals so that the GOP gains. Our priorities imho as a party should be tackling poverty, giving everyone and an equal start in life as well as access to a good education and affordable health care (with as much government cover as is practicable).

What do you guys think?

[leftyandproud]

1. economic

Socialism NOW!

damn right I said it!

[trotsky]

2. Tough choice.

I'm inclined to side with you that economic liberalism is slightly more important - as long as worker protections / labor laws are considered economic and not social liberalism.

[w4rma]

3. I agree: economics. (nt)

[Bridget Burke]

4. Why do we have to chose?

What particular leftist social issues do you see damaging the economic issues? How does this work?

And calling social issues a "destruction" was surely a typo. You meant "distraction", didn't you?

[Kinkistyle]

5. Social liberalism is more important - it allows us to push the economic.

Without it and the freedoms that fall under "social" liberalism (i.e. speech, assembly, civil rights, etc.. etc..) we wouldn't have a forum to push the economic liberalism.

[JHB]

8. But without sufficient economic liberalism who has time to push?

They go together. Maybe not hand-in-hand, but if they stray too far apart, both end up losing ground.

[zeemike]

11. I agree with you

They do go together sense the root cause of most social problems is economic.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. I'm against economic liberalism.

But I think this is a semantic problem. To me economic liberalism is neo-liberalism, laissez-faire free-market ideology. I'm not for a planned economy either, but I am for a guided economy.
OK, I'm just being picky, aren't I?

[indigobusiness]

7. Being liberal is a product of personal phisosophy.

Fiscal and social tags are useful in describing policy, not philosophy.

[friendofbenn]

9. social issues arent important....

in the uk to the slightest degree that they seem to be in america. i think this is because historically there is more of a difference with regards to economics between labour and tories than there is between the democrats and the republicans.

[Trajan]

10. False Dilemma ...

Liberalism is MANY things together ... One cannot promote one 'type' of liberalism against another, as if in opposition ...

Why not promote BOTH aspects equally ??? ..

[DaveSZ]

12. Economic issues

I'm willing to compromise on some social issues like gay marriage.

[ithacan]

13. deal with economic issues and you're on the road to

dealing with social issues too.

Social issues cannot be resolved if there is massive economic injustice, poverty etc. in this country.

The problem with too many people on the "left" is that they think that as long as they're "liberal" on social issues they don't have to give two shits about the poor and other exploited in both the US and the rest of the world.

Thus the Log Cabin Republicans...

[Trajan]

30. That's very big of you ...

It's wonderful that you have consciously chosen to NOT stand between two consenting citizens to thwart their wish to exercize their freedom of association .....

I hope this isnt too difficult for you ....

Ehem ....

[Deja Q]

14. Social, by far... but it depends on the context.

Economic liberalism is what we've had ever since Reagan took office. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

The cycle will also continue with the next new trend, before it gets shoved overseas as a nominal and just as purport "cost saving measure".

People should be allowed to be people, provided they do not hurt others.

[JHB]

15. I think we need to defin our terms here

Some people here think of "economic liberalism" as "neoliberalism"/post-reagan economics.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it means "New Deal liberalism" economics: strong worker protections, progressive taxation, publicly-funded "saftey-net" programs -- the kind of economics that produced the largest expansion of the middle class in history, not the kind that's been whittling it away.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. We have not had economic liberalism since Reagan took office

Quite the opposite. We've had the bizarre theory of "trickle down economics."

Economic liberalism is programs like the New Deal and the Great Society.

I've long felt that Democrats made a huge mistake in the late 1970s by allowing themselves to be defined solely as the party of social liberalism, because some of the reforms asked for, such as the sexual issues, were deeply offensive on a gut level to traditionally raised working class voters. They voted for Reagan because he pretended to uphold their "traditional values," and the Republicans have been making hay since then.

At the same time, the Democrats actively or passively betrayed their traditional allies among the working class and family farmers by standing by while Reagan began union busting and by doing nothing to help the thousands of farmers who lost land that had been in their family for generations. Despite having a majority in the House for the entirety of Reagan's two terms, most of them acted like scared rabbits and fled from the term "liberal."

If I were a Dem candidate, I would say nothing about social issues unless asked and would pound away on economic issues that are either major topics of conversation among ordinary people (health care, affordable housing, child care) or are seething just below public awareness (corporate power--every one I know has a horror story about being treated shabbily by a corporation). If asked about social issues, I would state my position truthfully and briefly and then say, "But why are we wasting time on hot button issues when we have all these problems that are harming your quality of life?"

Besides, I'm convinced that a lot of the fretting about abortion or gay rights or guns on the part of working class and rural voters is a sublimation of their anxiety about economic issues. They feel powerless to do anything about their corporate bosses or the agribusinesses, so they try to control what feels more controllable: people's personal behavior.

If they have no economic security AND all the traditional values that they were raised on are being swept aside, then they feel that there's nothing left, so they cling to some mythical golden past when no one had sex outside of marriage and everyone was straight. (Yes, I know there was no such past, but it's easy to believe that there was if you're remembering your own childhood when no one talked about such things.)

Happy people don't fret about other people's sex lives or feel that they have to accumulate private arsenals.

If people could feel that their economic security was guaranteed, that they would not be forced onto the streets for lack of affordable housing, that they would not be bankrupted by health care costs, that they could trust the schools to provide a good education in a safe environment, that they could support a family at a reasonable level on one income, that they had recourse against unreasonable employers, that they could have safe, convenient, and pleasant communities--then they would as a matter of course relax about the social issues.

But forcing social issues on a population that is already terrified about economic issues is a recipe for growing fascist parties--which is exactly what we're seeing.

If you stress the personal freedom issues at the expense of economic issues, then you're really more of a libertarian than a Democrat.

[JHB]

22. The social issues have been a deliberate Republican tool...

...to break up the Dem's New Deal coalition. While the issues had their heartfelt core supporters, they weren't so strictly politicized until the late 70's and 80's, to break up the union vote and other groups that had voted Dem for the previous 40 years.

[rman]

16. not a choice

economy is (or should be) in service of society.

Society would collapse without a good economy.
where "good economy" is an economy that benefits every member of society, not the Bush kind of "good economy" where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. they both go hand in hand

It's hard to be a social liberal without being an economic liberal to back it up. Which is why the Howard Dean "social liberal - fiscal conservative" model was such a turn-off to me.

How can you call for progressive social programs without calling for the adequate funding of them?

[Nederland]

18. Economic Liberalism

In the classic sense of the term, i.e. pushing for free trade and free markets.

[radwriter0555]

19. how about any plan that evolves as the needs of the populace change,

evolve and vary?

Why stick a name on it? Do what's right to make things work well, regardless of silly names that have been demonized.

The whole idea is to do what's best for everyone.

[Bandit]

20. I believe in people first capital second

I believe there is nothing more important in this life than relationships and people in general. Property is only material stuff and not as important as life. Social issues are far more important than capital issues and that is why I'm a Liberal and not a Conservative who believe money is the end all of life. I believe happiness can be found without money or property but money can't buy you happiness or true love.

[Delano]

24. Only a person who has "enough" would say that.

Millions are barely able to keep a roof over their head in this country, and millions more have no health insurance. It is those bread-and-butter issues that need to be attended to FIRST if you want the vast working class on board to support the interests of the disparate social goups (gays, blacks, etc.)

For many years now the interests of the working class have been ignored by the democratic party in favor of PC happytalk initiatives that face less resistance from the right. (In fact the right love PC, it gives them something to ridicule on their little shows) - at its peril, in my opinion.

[Delano]

23. Economic Liberalism. DEFINITELY.

At this point anyway. The concerns of gays & minorities have gotten PLENTY of attention for the last 15 years or so, while the neeeds of the working class have been completely ignored. Outsourcing and the destruction of unions are destroying whole communities without a whisper. Even here in "liberal" San Francisco, kids are encouraged to make posters promoting tolerance of gays and other races, and bashing cigarettes - naming brand names! All well and good, but even here I cannot IMAGINE school-age kids being taught about the importance of organized labor or progressive taxation to any real degree.

Even the most liberal parts of the country have given up on any attempt at economic egalitarianism. Where economics is concerned, even San Francisco is far more right-wing than any place in Europe.

[Burma Jones]

25. Economic Liberalism and Social Libertarianism

I believe that the government is here primarily to protect individuals from undue coercion. Public Service projects such as Roads, Dams, Parks etc serve to lessen economic hardship all around and reduce economic coercion. Economic coercion is rampant in the USA as the wealthy use their money to buy elections. I am sure we could come up with a long list of economic injustices that arise over more than just some folks having more money than others - offshore tax dodges, corporate welfare, etc. Health Care is being handled right now in such a way as to make a few of us wealthy while imposing hardship on many. This is undue economic coercion.

I am Most Definitely with the Libertarians as far as Social Issues are concerned. IF YOU AREN"T IMPOSING ON MY RIGHTS (i.e., not engaging in coercion) then you should do whatever the hell you want to do. This is why it's perfectly fine with me if you get drunk, but NOT if you drive drunk. You can extrapolate. It's OK to have Guns. It's not OK to treat them irresponsibly.

[Nederland]

31. Question

Is the government's confiscation of 1/3 of my income coercion?

[Burma Jones]

33. Ideally, no

Because "we" are the Government and have decided to spend this money.

Realistically, yes, because of the lack of accountability and the lies that have been told in order to obtain this money.

[Nederland]

39. Realistically, never

Even in the best case, government money and taxes are determined by what the majority believes is proper. As a result, minorities will always see their money confiscated by government and used in ways that they disagree with. That's the inevitable result of democracy.

[Burma Jones]

41. Yeah, but that's the Social Compact

At some point you have to allow your local, state or national government to spend a certain amount on your behalf and not consider that coercion. That's part of the "consent of the governed" deal

[Nederland]

42. Agreed

But what should happen when the federal government decides, without my approval, to increase that "certain amount"?

[Burma Jones]

43. This is why I say the wealthy are using economic coercion

Those that can buy a little influence are using that ability to force an increasingly inequitable share of the burden on the lower income folks. So when you get that certain amount increased, someone may very well have bought their way to a lesser payment.

On the other hand, the middle and lower classes aren't voting in enough numbers to make their voices count. So, who's to blame?

[Progressive420]

26. Social is more important

but i can't see why we can't be both!

[Finch]

27. WHAT I MEAN...

by Economic Liberalism = In the sense of classical Keynesianism...

[markses]

28. The difference between the two is illusory

We can no longer separate culture from economics.

[FlaGranny]

29. "Love and marriage.

Love and marriage
Go together
Like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other"

[corporatewhore]

32. Oh My!! alotta of people are Pro Neoliberalism/free trade !!!!

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=376
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

[corporatewhore]

34. Just to clear things up for me here isthe definition of economic

liberalism and neo liberalism
What is Neoliberalism?

A Brief Definition for Activists

By Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
January 1, 1997


"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=376

[JHB]

40. Sorry, we're using RealPeopleSpeak, not strict EconoBlab...

...so forgive us if we loosely use "economic liberalism" to mean "the type of economics preferred by liberals", not the academic definition.

[blindpig]

35. If we don't adopt ecosocialism soon....

social concerns will be a moot point as society will be shattered.

[Bombtrack]

36. Economic is defenetly the more important component I believe

there are some issues of which it's ambiguous which category they go in.

But overall budget, tax, and bussiness regulation(including environmental) are more important to me than abortion rights(which I fully support), gun control((which I fully support), gay rights(which I fully support), and even foreign policy, which I'm not sure is social economic or neither.

[tom_paine]

37. Social. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 12:26:33PM EDT, Friday, May 14, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
2 days,
11 hours,
33 minutes, and
27 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

44. Economic.

It benefits the most people and is a common ground.

[Cleita]

45. If you don't look at the social issues, you can't have a good

economical growth. Having a portion of the population struggling because of lack of jobs, health care, safety nets and other social issues, drags the whole population down as a result. Look what happens in third world countries that have a small, wealthy elite and a large poverty stricken population. They breed crime and disease and even the elite are not immune from those social ills.

[ulysses]

46. yes.

Liberalism is most important. Period. All else is crap.

I think social issues are a destruction and an issue that is bound to divide populists and liberals so that the GOP gains.

Social issues like what? Abortion rights? African-American civil rights?

"A destruction"? No.

[troublemaker]

47. Social liberalism is a precondition of all progress

You can expand the rights of the poor with meaningful effect but what's the point of redistributing money to people lacking fundamental rights?