Democrats' Political Views Are Shifting Faster Than Republicans'
A much more liberal left is facing off with a slightly more conservative right.

For those seeking balance in this polarized moment in American politics, Gallup offers news that initially seems good. The polling firm finds Americans are becoming increasingly socially liberal while generally remaining economically conservative. Using a crude definition of libertarian and classical liberal ideas, growing social liberalism paired with economic conservatism sounds encouraging. But the ideological shift is all one-sided, with Democrats moving left much more than Republicans moved to the right—threatening not balance, but a wider partisan divide.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Socially Liberal and Economically Conservative
"Americans have become significantly more likely to identify as liberal in their views on social issues over the past quarter century," Gallup noted earlier this month. "Meanwhile, Americans still lean conservative on economic issues, but the percentage leaning liberal has been trending up slightly."
Whether or not you support specific changes in public opinion, mass ideological shifts are always at least interesting, with potential ramifications for policy and culture. Could these trends help to heal the partisan wounds of recent years? I wouldn't bet on it.
"Both trends toward more liberal views than in the past are driven by U.S. Democrats; neither Republicans nor independents have become more liberal in their views over time," Gallup adds.
…or Just Conservative Republicans and Really Liberal Democrats
Specifically, in 2004, 39 percent of Democrats described their views on social issues as "liberal/very liberal"; in 2024, 69 percent of Democrats describe themselves that way. Four percent of Republicans and 28 percent of independents called themselves "liberal/very liberal" on social issues in 2004, with 3 percent of Republicans and 28 percent of Independents describing themselves that way this year.
Over that time, on social issues, the share of Americans calling themselves "conservative/very conservative" went from 64 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of Independents, and 20 percent of Democrats to 74 percent of Republicans, 23 percent of Independents, and 6 percent of Democrats.
In 2004, 28 percent of Democrats said they were "liberal/very liberal" on economics, which grew to 49 percent in 2024. For Republicans, the number went from 5 percent to 3 percent, and for Independents, from 16 percent to 18 percent.
The ranks of those describing themselves as "conservative/very conservative" on economic issues went from 64 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Democrats to 82 percent of Republicans, 35 percent of Independents, and 5 percent of Democrats.
"Americans" as a whole aren't becoming more liberal on social and economic issues. Independents haven't budged (a plurality are moderate), Republicans are shifting conservative, and Democrats are sliding liberal strongly enough to move the national average—or are describing themselves that way.
These numbers are all based on self-description, not specific positions on trade, abortion, drugs, or regulation. Twenty years ago, "economically conservative" probably meant free markets, low taxes, and cutting red tape. "Socially liberal" could have been interpreted as pro-choice on abortion, tolerant of marijuana, and supportive of civil liberties. In our ideologically messy year of 2024, the Republican party is protectionist and more supportive of state guidance of the economy. Democrats have adopted identitarian concerns and elevated controlling "disinformation" over protecting free speech. Republicans and Democrats describe themselves in increasingly stark contrast, but their reference points for "liberal" and "conservative" might be different than in the past.
Disagreement on Specific Issues Emphasizes the Divide
Interestingly, progressive blogger Kevin Drum looked at the data on support for specific issues in 2021 and also concluded that, while Republicans had shifted right, Democrats had gone left much harder.
"Progressives have been bragging publicly about pushing the Democratic Party leftward since at least 2004—and they've succeeded," he wrote. "Democrats have been moving further and further away from the median voter for years."
On issues including immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, and taxes, he found Democrats drifting strongly towards the liberal position, while Republicans shifted a bit more conservative—or not.
"Among Republicans, the most extreme view on abortion (always illegal) has gone up by about two points since 2000. Among Democrats, the most extreme view (always legal) has gone up by 20 points," he noted. Both Democrats and Republicans strongly increased support for same-sex marriage.
"Over the past two decades Democrats have moved left far more than Republicans have moved right," Drum concluded. He voiced personal satisfaction with a Democratic party drifting closer to his preferred progressive positions but emphasized that this came with a price: "It is not conservatives who have turned American politics into a culture war battle. It is liberals."
Different issues might produce somewhat different results. But Drum's analysis of specific points of political disagreement corresponds closely to shifting ideological self-identification.
It's Also a Battle of the Sexes
Interestingly, that growing divide between Democrats and Republicans parallels findings in an article in January by John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times. He noted ideological shifts in many countries among young men and women.
"The trend in most countries has been one of women shifting left while men stand still," wrote Burn-Murdoch. "In the US,…women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries." By contrast, American men are tending center to center-right in stated ideology and positions on issues.
That could be…interesting, for partisan political contests in the future. As if relations between the sexes weren't already sufficiently fraught.
For people looking for a peaceful resolution to this country's political warfare, and for libertarians seeking a home, there's not much encouragement here. The data suggests the division between the two dominant political parties is deepening, with Democrats drifting ever further to the left. That magic convergence of economic liberty and social freedom has yet to capture either of the major parties.
The widening ideological gap and the challenge of finding political solutions that can bridge that division leaves us living in interesting times. Of course, living in such times has been described as a curse.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Democrats: the NPR (many of us used to listen to but no longer do) tote bag set. I hope the trend continue toward irrelevance.
And yet every time the media talks about the right, it's the "far right". It's like that old New Yorker map of the world from NYC; anything out of their immediate circle is far far away.
“far right” sounds better than "fascist".
Or pedophile.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Especially when the far left is the fascists now.
Quite simply, no they are not.
Your lack of self awareness is astounding. Your support for the democrats, and allegiance to Soros prove YOU to be a textbook fascist.
Even your dumb ass could figure that out if you spent time doing something other than reading Soros propaganda and watching child rape videos.
You're a corporatist who pushes Aktion T4 stuff and thinks Blacks aren't human, are you saying you're far right, Plugly?
Well, you know the far right is busily rehearsing for civil war back up in the hills.
AOC continues to believe her life is in danger, as does that wacky lesbian Madcow.
Anyone to the right of Mao is pretty far right to them.
Look, when cheering transgender swimmers with lady dicks is mainstream, and suitable for preschool story time (and read in person by a drag queen) then anyone who used to be merely left-leaning is now conservative, and conservative is now far-alt-MAGA-Nazi-right.
"New Yorkers" (meaning those who live in Manhattan and Brooklyn) would never describe themselves as "flat earthers", but they do frequently think that there's a hard end to existence just east of the Turnpike (I95), and that human civilization only exists east of the Hudson River.
Since no one knows what respondents mean by "conservative on economic issues", it's not clear this poll signifies very much.
No one knows what “socially liberal” means either, for that matter.
That's true. Decades ago already, the culture war was prominent enough that libertarians found that description confused people and so started adopting "socially tolerant" instead. "Socially liberal" in at least North America made sense up until at least the middle 1980s, but by the middle 1990s was associated with a lot of intolerant ideas. However, firearms issues since the 1960s had already been an exception, wherein the "liberal" and "tolerant" positions were at odds. Now it's a whole complex of opinions that shift mercurially enough that it's hard to keep up.
Socially liberal, at least the libertarian variety, should mean "you do what is right for you, and leave me alone". But now socially liberal means I have to celebrate your deviance, and disavow any of my own feelings that offend you.
I now say fuck them--not so much for their deviance as for their demands of ideological compliance.
The disinformation during the COVID pandemic killed people.
The government has controlled medical information for over a century. Should we return to the days when snake oil salesmen could sell any product with any bogus health claim? Should we go further and abolish the FDA?
I am one of those old fashioned economically conservative social liberals. Free markets and free trade have brought more people out of poverty than any economic system in the history of humankind. Trump wants to blow all this up and unfortunately Biden is now blowing up pieces of it.
Taxes have to be high enough to pay for the functions of government and they aren't at the moment, at least in the US. But we shouldn't even think about returning to the Eisenhower years with 90% income tax rates. I would rather have higher income taxes than the high property taxes much of the US is facing today.
The disinformation during the COVID pandemic killed people.
Bull-fucking-shit. Most of the shitty ideas and information came from governments like your precious Fascist Democrats.
Arizona has a Democratic Attorney General today because her Republican predecessor was an anti-vaxxer, and enough Republican voters died of COVID at a greater rate than Democrats to swing the election.
But continue your disinformation. Killing off your voters isn't a good campaign strategy.
So much retardation in two paragraphs.
“If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the IC unit, and you’re not going to die.” - Joe Biden
Yeah, about that...
Well, disinformation ("the vaccine is 100% safe" and "if young people don't get the vaccine they will die") did kill people--young people specifically who would be alive today had they not taken the vaccine.
Well, if 10% was good enough for Caesar then it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam.
"The disinformation during the COVID pandemic killed people."
Is this in reference to the "disinformation" which the FBI and DHS was instructing social media companies to censor on their platforms, which in many cases was actually more in accordance with the actual data and has since been proven to have been relatively accurate?
Or is it in reference to the alleged "science" as parroted by luminaries with names like Fauci, Biden and Walensky which has since mostly been proven to have always been at best unsupported by actual data and at worst knowingly false?
"The government has controlled medical information for over a century. Should we return to the days when snake oil salesmen could sell any product with any bogus health claim? Should we go further and abolish the FDA? "
Where's the benefit of having "government control of medical information" (I'm assuming you meant that there's been regulation intended to prevent false claims from gaining credence) when it's those very regulators themselves who are spreading the false claims and also providing liability immunity to the manufacturers of the products they're lying about?
Anyone who read past the headlines about the progress of the "effectivity trials" of the Covid vaccine variants could have known that those tests measured only the incidence of "severe symptoms" among those testing positive for the virus, but that no data was collected and no attempt was ever made to measure the effect of the shots at preventing transmission and re-transmission of the virus. Anyone within the FDA, NIH, or CDC should have understood that the claims "if you're vaccinated, you can't get the virus, and you can't spread the virus" were unsupported by the data before the vaccines received emergency use approval. Biden might not have known this claim was unsupported, nor would his wife the "doctor" be likely to know, but Fauci and Walensky either should have known or aren't qualified for the jobs they held when they both made the same claims in public and told the President to parrot the idea.
There was also never any qualitative consideration given to the potential that if the virus only suppressed symptoms but didn't do much to prevent transmission/re-transmission that it could actually accelerate the spread by increasing the number of asymptomatic carriers among the vaccinated population. It's possible that this was largely ignored on the basis that if the vax really did reduce symptomatic cases by 95%, then there was little to no real danger in allowing the virus to spread rapidly among the vaccinated since the vast majority would potentially be unaffected by it.
Once the need for one or more "boosters" due to the fading of the "vax immunity" became clear, the continued promotion by the "authorites" that vax immunity was superior to natural immunity because the natural version faded (and the suppression of any reference to natural immunity among the recovered online) should be considered to be a case of those figures knowingly spreading false information (and suppressing the more accurate interpretation of the available information).
The original WHO published mortality/morbidity data from Wuhan indicated that the median age of those dying from Covid was well over 65 years, and that severe outcomes for those under 50 were statistically very rare; one of the early theories as to why the virus caused so many deaths in Milan, Italy was the very high median age of the population in that city and area of the country. Every claim which implied that school-aged children and college students were statistically in any significant danger from the virus, which were the basis for protracted school shutdowns/online "learning" and vax/mask mandates by school districts and colleges/universities was at best unrealistic (predecated on the idea that "any danger is too much" standard which would destroy humanity if it were applied to daily life in any other aspect) and more likely something that the "authorities" spreading it should have been aware was baseless and/or outright false.
I don't know where they came from, but I know people who had come to believe by March of 2021 that the vaccines were "proven to have no significant side effects". This is something which could not have possibly been proven at that point in time, and which meta-analysis of the data from the safety trials has apparently shown should have been considered proven false; some review of the raw data from the original Pfizer and Moderna studies has reportedly come up with a rate of "adverse effects" of 1 in 800 patients receiving the drugs, which is a rate which the FDA would generally never accept for a vaccine candidate to be approved as "safe" (chemotherapy drugs are probably allowed a higher rate that that, but that's a treatment regime in which the hope is that the poison being administered kills the tumor cells faster than it kills the healthy ones).
It's hard to get reliable data about any of it, since the regulators and most "experts" now answer to politicians who have staked their own reputation on the public's acceptance of many of these lies, but it's entirely possible that for men under 30 years of age, getting the MRNA vaccines along with boosters is statistically more dangerous than being infected multiple times with the Covid-19 virus (especially the "delta" and later variants which are now pretty much the dominant strains)
That one is even worse. Could mean anything from basic libertarian "live and let live" approach to not interfering with other people's business to government sponsored indoctrination on progressive orthodoxy.
Mostly it means killing babies and deviant sex.
Fetuses aren't babies.
" the most extreme view (always legal) "
I see any restrictions on abortion as extreme. It isn't the government's business.
They're still separate beings.
Not until they are born. The government needs to keep out of this.
Is there genetics different? Do they have separate organs (hint the placenta is actually a fetal organ not a maternal organ)? Ergo they are separate beings. Biology is a bitch that doesn't care about your uninformed semantics exercise.
So what? It's a separate being. So is the cow that provided your cheeseburger. So is a pig that provided your pork chops.
If life is so fucking precious then why aren't you fighting for the rights of food animals?
Why are you not differing human life from those of non-humans? We're being very consistent with the science.
And even then, what would be your response if you knew soldiermedic76 was a vegetarian?
If he was a vegetarian then at least he'd be consistent. Pro Life seems to really mean pro human pre birth life.
BEHOLD THE MAGIC BIRTH CANAL FAIRY AND HER ANNOINTMENT OF PERSONHOOD!
Why start restricting actions by the mother at birth? Why not give her another 9 months to off her kid if she decides it oppresses her too much?
Good idea. Infanticide has a long tradition in western civilization. Why break with that tradition, after all traditions are so important.
Now you see what Democrats have wanted this entire time! No accountability for one's own actions.
I'm pointing out that infanticide has a long tradition in the west. Since traditions are important to conservatives then why not support that tradition as well?
Yeah they are, you stupid shit.
So what if they are. Does that justify enslaving the woman to carry the "baby"? How far are you willing to go to insure she doesn't manage to kill the little parasite off either accidentally or on purpose?
Until they can survive outside the womb, and detached from the umbilical cord, they're not an independent organism.
If you'd deny a woman the choice to detach herself from a fetus at 10 weeks, would you also deny her the option to rid her body of a tapeworm?
Past 26 weeks, the State of California allows abortions, but also requires a death certificate for pregnancies lost to unintended causes such as physical trauma or pre-eclampsia. I can't help but wonder how those laws are reconciled or what "cause of death" is listed for cases in which a pregnancy is deliberately ended past the point of "viability".
This is why I don't generally attempt to debate around this issue. At its core, it comes down to a relatively subjective choice that's part of someone's personal beliefs and there's not really enough conclusive empirical data to prove/disprove whatever point someone personally chooses to believe indicates the onset of "life". I believe what I believe, but can't make a logical case as to why anyone who chooses not to should believe the same (nor can they make an empirical case as to why I should change my position).
The key point is that the modern left isn't dominated by liberals, so much as progressives. Liberals on the left still fundamentally want lots of government intervention in the economy to make life "fairer". But, they still generally make the individual the center of their politics. Progressives, on the other hand, have a much more specific ideology. Progressives share liberals' skepticism of tradition, organic hierarchies, and "folk knowledge"/common sense. But, progressives fundamentally believe that all institutions should be subordinated to a centralized authority rejecting those things that can apply managerialism, "science" and technocracy to better organize civilization.
The thing is, when out of power, progressives will pose as liberals.
Just today I made campaign contributions to two liberal Democrats challenging progressive Democrats in primaries. I put my money where my ideology is.
"“folk knowledge”/common sense."
A lot of "common sense" isn't based on anything other than ones prejudices and beliefs. We saw that in the COVID pandemic. Common sense would be to take precautions when people are dying by the thousands.
“science”
I am not interested in organizing anything, but had we followed science rather than our selfish unwillingness to be inconvenienced, we could have saved the lives of about half a million Americans.
Just today I made campaign contributions to two liberal Democrats challenging progressive Democrats in primaries. I put my money where my ideology is.
Then what the fuck are you doing on a theoretically libertarian website?
You should ask that question to the many Trump supporters here and the many anti-abortion zealots here. I want the government out of the abortion restriction business. I want the government to relax or eliminate zoning restrictions that artificially prop up the prices of existing real estate. Trump loves that propping up because he is, after all, a big real estate tycoon, and has politically weaponized that in the past. I want an end to tariffs. I want lower property taxes everywhere. I want an end to corporate welfare. I want marijuana legalized, period. And I don't want someone in the White House who has openly said he wants to be a dictator and to imprison his political opponents.
I would have thought that libertarians would agree with me on these issues.
For someone who follows the science you're vastly mistaken about both COVID and reproductive biology. Thanks for playing.
It is a libertine retard.
He gets his science from MSNBC
He’s beyond stupid.
You followed the government and Facui. Who he is book so lab theory is conspiracy but than in front of congress says that is what happened.
Closed the parks even though covid, different strains have been around since time became and sun light killed them.
Let's see another example ivermectin was mocked remember? Guess what they give now.
Oh and remember when Trump wanted to stop foreign traveller's. The democrats marched hand and hand in NY calling it racist.
So many follow the science examples like BLM riots are ok. Or double masking. Or masking at all.
I know you aren't bright enough to understand. Just keep doing what the Democrats say. They think people are dumb and know better
“….but had we….”
“….rather than our….”
“….we could have…..”
Lol. Can’t you do anything on your own? Who helps you tie your shoes? Does the government send someone over for that?
Haha. What a doosh.
"Classical" liberalism is free minds and free markets. 60s liberalism began to make the government's safety net increasingly bigger replacing the private safety net. But it still had the Alan Derschowitz defenders of free speech and other civil liberties. The Progressivism that started with Woodrow Wilson has little in common with either. It likes power for its own sake and uses issues to further its power. It also expanded during FDR. Now it is doing it again under the current Progressive Democrats. It is no longer pretending to be liberal. AOC mocks liberalism as a Progressive Democratic Socialist. Biden no longer can be claimed to be a moderate as he is leading that charge. It is simply the left. There are still some in the party trying to salvage the party of 50 years ago, but very few.
So the main point I am making is definitions and the use of Venn diagrams. There is some intersectionality between liberalism and progressivism but people using them interchangeably are not helping anyone. There is an intersectionality between liberalism and conservativism. Listen to Mark Levin and Alan Dershowitz's discussions. But liberalism should not be used interchangeably with progressivism.
But now we live in a world of Trumpism and Trump derangement people who have extended Progressivism even further left. And people are still thinking of the liberal/conservative of the 60s.
Exactly. Without clear definitions the results are clear as mud.
But still significant. The fact that people eagerly identify with a label whose meaning they may not know says something.
They went to a government school?
To a Democrat, “conservative on economic issues” means “raise taxes until the budget is balanced.”
To a Republican, it means “cut taxes and keep spending as much as the Democrats did”.
Government budgets should, in general, be balanced, and we don't adequately fund many public services in most of the country.
Did cutting unnecessary government waste ever cross your tiny mind?
Yes but the actual waste is much smaller than people realize. I wanted to end the F-35 which is the largest corporate welfare program in history, but its total cost is now projected at $2 trillion over eighty (!) years, and the federal budget deficit is about $2 trillion EVERY year. The people who claim to want to end waste just can't find much of it in dollar terms compared to $2 trillion deficits.
I also publicly called for closing schools in New York City because of declining enrollment. You can guess how well that went over. We have government waste because voters like it. 🙁
That's the dirty secret. Say anything about cutting the military budget and watch the sparks fly. Talk about ending the war on drugs and all those savings and again you won't get agreement from a lot of the supposed Libertarians on this site. Hell, they want bigger government to regulate the uterus. Imagine those costs.
But student loans? These assholes want to cut them out tommorow and let the chips fall where they may. They want to end Social Security and Medicare even if it will mean anyone with Kidney Failure will then die since dialysis is really expensive and private insurance won't cover it.
– Territory protection is one of the most important aspects at maintaining a society; hence, military cuts should be one of the last things to discuss budget spending.
– Much of the drug use has turned out to be way more costly for individuals than anything prevention does.
– Student loans should not be paid by someone else. Cut it from federal spending.
– Removing a system that’s failing in enormous ways needs to be cut out. No exceptions. No spending was going to help those kidneys… maybe they should get better insurance for a start.
– So you want a change from government money to protect life… to ending them at the will of someone else. Not a wise plan. How about no government money be used at all?
We have mitart bases in over 100 nations. Are they all US territory? Imagine the savings from shutting down those bases and retiring the troops who manned them?
You're full of shit about drug use. But that's not uncommon on the right. You just prove my point.
Student Loans ARE paid by the people who take them out in the vast majority of cases. What Biden has done is expensive but it isn't forgiving 100 percent of the loans. Stop his forgiveness plans because that's the problem.
The point of cutting welfare and entitlements off suddenly and abruptly is that you are willing to let those chips fall where they may, many of those chips being dead people. So much for a right to life. The problem is insurance companies aren't required to cover the majoriry of kidney related expenses. They made a deal that that's what Medicare and Social Security would cover. You can't find "better" insurance because by law it doesn't have to exist.
You just said you gave money to 2 democrats.
How are the governments of NY and CA doing?
You don't care about waste as long as it goes to your causes
How is that different than the sacred cows of the right?
Republican run states function much better.
Congratulations. They are better than the only other option available. Wow, what an accomplishment.
If there are only two options, Republicans vote for the second worst and Democrats for the worst - judging by results, not by ideology.
Agree. The article itself says that people are self-describing the label for the pigeonhole not the contents of that pigeonhole. But that most likely means people are simply going along with what the MEDIA labels are.
This sort of article is very common in politics. The horse race and the 'positioning of the crowd' and the color of their uniforms is all. There is never anything drilled down like - should pot be legal and if so how? or should we spend money by going into debt - or raise taxes - or is the specific item not even worth spending on? Just - pro D or pro R - and what label fits those.
Our lack of drill down is why imo nothing positive ever happens re those sorts of specifics. It's why I believe in random selection not elections now. Real people don't talk to each other using those labels. They might not talk to those with whom they disagree - but if they are talking about labels they are purely acting as useful idiots for the partisan manipulator crowd. Random selection would force them to talk with others during their time on jury-critter service. But not in the shallow terms we use for elections/voting.
This is social progressivism not "liberalism", as it is extremely illiberal in its intolerance of dissent. Again, look at specifically defacing "Pride" iconography a felony, even when it is painted on active streets. The continued lawfare by Colorado against Jack Philips for continuing to resist submitting to progressive ideology. There is a general hostility to freedom of speech by competing ideas. A general disregard for rights of the accused for out of ffavor groups, as seen in Biden's Title IX regulations. In DEI, an explicitly race conscious aganda that actively discriminates against whites, heterosexuals, and men. Social "liberalism" is, currently, an awful anti-liberty set of beliefs.
Yeah, I'd like to think that "socially liberal" means being tolerant of other people doing or believing things you don't like. But I'm pretty sure that's not what most people mean.
Was ready to contribute exactly your comment.
and - as to the specific definitions... it is in the interests of the progressives NOT to define anything but to leave words ambiguous so that people fill in their own meaning AS THOSE 'OPINIONS' OF WORD OR PHRASE DEFINITIONS ARE INFORMED BY THE CORRUPT LEGACY MEDIA and amplified by corrupt internet oligarch search algorithms and corrupt education and entertainment types.
Fucking Progs refuse to define what a Woman is ...
Get rid of the progs.
This is social progressivism not “liberalism”, as it is extremely illiberal in its intolerance of dissent.
See my comment above.
Agree
I am Jewish and I am intolerant of anti-Semites. I do not apologize for that. The pro-Hamas protesters have a First Amendment right to spout their Nazi propaganda, but they don't have a right to not have consequences. And when they break the law as they often do, they need to be prosecuted.
Nobody is going to argue. But if they don't break the law, than there can be no government actions taken against them. That's what free speech means. Sure, if their bosses fire them, that isn't covered by free speech. If they lose their private scholarships etc, then that's on them.
Has it sunk in yet that all those people are democrats, or at least align with democrats? If your Democrat brethren had their way you would be a lampshade by now.
The Left is *not* more liberal, and probably fewer on the Left call themselves liberals than at any point in my life.
"Liberal" was going out of fashion with Dukakis. Most self described "liberals" on the Left are pushing 60 or more, have already been canceled, and are appalled at the Maoists.
Maoists are not "liberals", and don't call themselves liberals either. Their phrase for liberals is "liberals get the bullet too".
Some on the left might have been liberal (or at least thought they were), but all have now been captured by the woke cultural Marxists. As they told us they would.
cultural Marxism isn't a thing
Bunk.
Self-deception you got there, charliehall.
What do think honk all those anti Jewish Democrat protestors are?
Liberal is like Socialist. It means what you want it to mean.
Why would anyone care which party is moving away from the other faster? The size of the gap is the only thing that matters. No right minded person would vote for either of them anyway. The faster either (or both) of them spin themselves into irrelevance the better.
The take away is the DNC is moving farther from center meaning moderate Democrats are looking for a new home. However it is doubtful that that home will be with the Republicans since they continue with their conservative social beliefs.
The Democrat party now considers anyone to the right of Marx a right wing extremist.
The DNC has been infiltrated and taken over by radical left wing extremists and neo-Marxists.
neo Marxism isn't a thing.
Watch the primary results in NY-16 this Tuesday.
You're heavily mistaken. Look up the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory.
Exactly why there are a growing body of Democrat voters who are looking for a new place to go. The Libertarian Party can be a home for them, we just need to get these right wing asswipes to fuck off.
It would no longer be a libertarian party if that happens. You are not one.
Libertarians are Pro Choice on everything. All we have in common with the right is guns. With the moderate left we have drug legalization, abortion access, police reform, gay rights, separation of church and state… The list is a lot longer. To get the right wingers on our side we have to change them on a lot of topics. For the left we just need to get them to lay off guns, which most already don’t consider to be a serious contention point, and to not look to government for all solutions. That’s a lot easier than shifting the right.
It isn't conservative social beliefs that trouble me about Republicans today. It is that the entire Republican Party is now backing a bigoted morally degenerate delusional organized crime boss who has now been convicted of 34 felonies.
I dont hink Trump is a bigot. I think his die hard supporters are. As far as morally degenerate, who in DC isn't?
If you're going to gripe about Trump focus on his real faults, not the bullshit ones.
Ah, the classic "both sides" deflection. Sorry, the fact that one side is sprinting to cultural destruction but the other side is at best walking towards responsibility isn't something you care about or find relevant? Guess as long as you can sprint to the center, wherever that is, is good enough for you.
When both sides want to ass fuck you, but they have different reasons for doing so, does it really matter which side gets to do the fucking?
Pollsters care. That's why all stories like this only exist as the result of a poll and only encompass how a pollster wants a poll interpreted.
So the Marxists are sociopathic extremists. Welcome to what every person with an above room temperature iq has been saying.
And that means we are now all "far-right".
I can live with that.
Dem liberal today means all white people are racists and the cause of all socities ills, gender is fluid, men can get pregnant, immigrants are all positive with no downside, and muslims are the most oppressed people on Earth.
Also, GOP fiscal conservativism today is corporate welfare via endless QE, forever wars, and agreement with dems that government should do something, i.e. spend money, on issues like 'healthcare'.
Don’t forget import taxes. High import taxes are now a conservative value. And if you poll the people who support them I'll bet most believe they are taxes on China, not on Americans who buy stuff from China.
"High import taxes are now a conservative value."
Biden's a conservative?
*shhhhh* You’re not supposed to acknowledge that he’s continued and expanded upon Trump’s economic policies. That would mean principled Trump supporters (oxymoron I know) would have to give him credit. So you hush up about it until Trump is back in office, then praise Trump while attacking critics of those policies with accusations of TDS.
Wasn't higher taxes what the Democrats always wanted? Who would've thought Trump did them a favor? There's nothing conservative about this.
Pno Drunky, this has been explained to you. So now you’re just lying.
As usual.
The Republican Party has been mainly about Corporate Welfare since 1854.
Cite and link?
The 1856 and 1860 Republican platforms.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1856
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1860
Nothing in those documents suggest what you claim. The term "corporate" isn't even in them.
Why are you being so dishonest right now?
"Why are you being so dishonest right now?"
Right now?
When is he not dishonest?
Truth is malleable in service of the Cause.
Huh. So the reason the Right is now the “Far” Right is because the Left is sailing further and further out to sea.
Makes sense.
I wouldn't call them "liberal." That's an insult to classical liberals. If you must, let's use "liberal fascists."
"illiberal fascists" is more accurate.
AFAICT, if the interaction between the MC and the LP doesn't clearly indicates that the whole “classical liberal” label is it’s own problem (or it’s own microcosm of the larger problem), I don’t know what does.
You don’t get to quote Hume and Locke and Voltaire and Mill to each other like your mostly-white, mostly-religious/religiosity Founding Fathers did, invite a bunch of Ukrainian, African, Palestinian, La Razan, Rastafarian, First World Peoples, etc., in "for diversity purposes" and then get all surprised when they don’t give a shit about your old, dead, white racists and everyone else thinks your “classical liberal” label is about as meaningful and objective as your “golden oldies” record collection.
The book Liberal Fascism never made sense as a term. They are simply Progressives. We need to stop equating liberalism and progressivism.
The main factor is the liberals and progressives do not live in the real world. The fantasies they conjure up then implement as policy fail time and again.
All you have to do is consider the crime statistics for every liberal run city. It is so bad liberals have taken to distorting and even falsifying crime reports, and even ignoring crime and allowing criminals free range in their cities.
You are equating liberals and progressives. There are few liberal-run cities but there are a whole lot of progressive-run cities - by their own mouths. Progressives used to pretend to be liberals but no longer.
But, many of the Reason staffers will still "reluctantly and strategically" vote for them.
And swallow.
What was “socially liberal” in 2004?
Gay marriage? Title 9?
First term Obama would be a Republican now. He was calling for civil unions, not marriage, in 2008.
Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy (1993) is considered far right now.
Donald Trump was the first major party nominee to openly support gay marriage
He also tried to talk his mistress into having an abortion after he knocked her up.
Donald Trump was a Democrat at one time. You left that part out.
He probably still is, at least by what we in flyover country define as Democrats. A New York Republican isn't much different than a South Dakota Democrat.
Some labels are meaningless.
Left / Right
Liberal / Conservative
The distinguishing characteristic is how individual freedom is viewed.
Those in favor of individual freedoms are opposed by those who prefer government control.
I prefer 'Sons of Liberty' .vs 'fascists'.
What does any of that even mean? The terms have been rendered meaningless.
The progressive mindset is this:
“Don’t be mean to people.” It’s a ridiculous concept but it explains almost everything.
Any hint of racism toward blacks is “mean.” This includes recognizing crime statistics that there is a certain subset of the population that is many times more likely to be a violent criminal.
On the other hand, acknowledging or complaining any racism towards Asian or whites is also “mean.” We have to tolerate making up for several hundred years of history, to be nice.
Trans…..the most common liberal comment I see in open fora is “why is it so hard to be polite and a decent human?” To them, agreeing with someone else’s delusions is polite, decent. Nice.
Abortion is the most important modern sacrament in the world of the female left. It is mean, repressive, Handmaid’s Tale, to restrict this sacrament.
Stopping third world folks from coming to our country (legally or illegally) from their current hellholes is HELLA MEAN.
Truly anyone who dislikes Republicans has as their #1 thought that “Republicans are mean.” They don’t want to be mean, or don’t regard themselves as mean.
Of course in real life practice, progressives are the meanest, shittiest people you will ever encounter. But so what, they hold the right “attitudes” and “values.” And they’re not mean old religious Republicans.
The progressive mindset sees a world of oppressors and victims. Racism is racists oppressing minorities, abortion is moralists oppressing women, and so on.
The solution is always more government coercion and violence.
The conservative mindset sees a world full of existential threats to society. Those threats include immigrants, trans people, and baby killers.
The solution is always more government coercion and violence.
They both hate libertarians because libertarians seek to solve problems with cooperation, not more government coercion and violence.
A little bit of both-sidesism there, but one distinguishing factor is that leftists/progressives do not view their positions as "politics." Tying into my mean/nice analysis, they view their positions as "human," "kindness," "the right side of history," basically the only possible position that can be taken on an issue if you're not a Nazi.
You missed my point so I’ll try to restate it in a different way.
For progressives, disagreement equals siding with the oppressors, and that makes you a terrible human being.
For conservatives, disagreement means you want to destroy society, and that makes you the enemy.
Meanwhile small-l libertarians say “Fuck off slaver, cut spending” to them both.
Then why are you a democrat?
A little bit of both-sidesism there
Probably because I see conservatives and progressives as two sides of the same coin. Both see aggression as a legitimate means of getting what they want. They differ not in principle, but in what they want, who they want it from, what is to be controlled, who is to be controlled, and who does the controlling.
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Got to love Heinlein.
Hey Think: It is about both sides, and what they have in common. Both the far left and far right think that they are "morally superior," therefore Big Brother aught to be enforcing their "superior" moral values onto everyone else. Both say it's ok when "my side" does it because blah, blah, blah. But when those other guys do it, they're dangerous.
Dead balls accurate. And that is an industry term.
What you two left out is that one is more readily accepted by universities, corporations, governments, etc. and is currently promoted throughout society. The "mean old religious Republicans" did not reach far places like the SJW left has.
You're missing the forest because there are too many trees in the way.
So, Louisiana has just made the posting of the Christian Ten Commandments required in all government schools. Kentucky is watching this close to see how the courts rule hoping they can reenact their law regarding religion mixing in education. Donald Trump said on his own Truth platform that he supports mandating the commandments in schools nation wide.
The reason the left has been more successful is they point to the right as bad guys and most people agree that you are the bad guys. Hypocritical bad guys. You have a history of pushing for Creationism in government schools. Prayer meetings in government schools. All sorts of mixing of religion and education.
Most people aren't your brand of religious. There are a lot of people who tell pollsters that they are religious but don't attend a church. Those are really non believers lying to avoid trouble. You're extreme views are not the norm. Even Iowa and Nebraska have affirmed a woman's right to abortion access by ballot initiative.
Many vote Democrat while holding their noses because their brand of oppression is slightly more tolerable than yours.
I see you are a Big Government Conservative.
You're deeply mistaken. The progressive mindset wants government to promote their viewpoints and punish those who criticize it. You defend them. To point that out is not indicative of a "Big Government Conservative".
You are just as bad as leftists who assume if you're not with us, you're against us. There are a lot of people who honestly don't like either of you. Some hold their noses and vote for the least distasteful to them but most just realize it doesn't matter which side is doing the ass fucking because it's an ass fucking no matter who does it.
Sometimes you have to play the cards you’re dealt.
Which is why the Democrats get elected. Their type of ass fucking is more acceptable than the Republican type to many people.
I agree with everything except your last paragraph. I have met very few mean progressives, significantly more but still not that many mean Republicans. The reason why I agree with with the rest of your comment is that many progressives have this issue with generalizing meanness as the norm among Republicans (which may be true of a large proportion of their elected politicians but it isn't true in general), and the problem with viewing everyone else as mean is that it makes it very difficult for you to work with people of a different mindset. In fact, it's something you have to find a way to set aside or contain even if the person you're dealing with really is mean. Think of the difference between road rage and generosity in driving and apply that to politics, across the political spectrum.
Think of it also in terms of forums and social media. Across the entire political spectrum they need to be SHARPLY toned down. It genuinely is nasty out there and that's part of what's giving people such a bad impression of those who think differently from them.
I take turns playing around on forums that are political in nature. I will joust with leftists until they boot me from the site and then joust with conservatives.
The first thing I've learned is disagreement of any kind or degree gets you labeled as the extreme enemy. Conservatives will decide you are a far leftist who wants children raped and Leftists will decide you are a far right extremist who wants to drink Trumps urine. Either way there is no middle ground with either group.
The second thing I've learned is thry all seem trained by the same master. They use the same techniques in arguing, firdt dismiss as a paid troll, second resort to name calling and if that doesn't work decide that you are a sock puppet of some infamous offender in the past.
Sound familiar? I've gotten it from both sides. I've seen both sides blame the other for everything including the weather. There is no real difference worth mentioning.
When you are part of a tribe you naturally conform lest you be cast out. As a result people within the tribes share most of the same stances. Another part of being a tribe is assuming that anyone who is not in your tribe is part of the enemy tribe. Since members of the enemy tribe are also tribal, they tend to share most of the same stances.
What neither tribe can understand is independent thought. It does not compute. It would mean being cast out. So if some independent thinker says something that the other tribe agrees with, then they are part of that tribe. If they follow with something the same tribe agrees with, then they must be liars because they already outed themselves as members of the enemy tribe.
I find the so called Libertarian who want a drug war and a new war on abortion especially funny when they say I can't possibly be a Libertarian. I've done work for the party in Colorado and served on a couple of different county level libertarian boards. I've run as a Libertarian for public office twice. I even wasted time at county board and city council meeting to oppose stupid power grabs and wastes of tax money.
But some shithead on this site says I'm not a Libertarian because I happen to understand that we can't just end several government charity programs overnight because a lot of people currently depend on them and will not thank us for their instant elimination. Yeah, his word means about the same to me as the shit I took while typing this. No, actually the shit means more to me because I need to watch for blood in the stool.
Cool story, bro. Did you tell that one to the patrons of the coffee shop who all needed their own personal fainting couches after hearing you read aloud your own psych eval, shocking them to their core as if you were James Bond, Albert Einstein and Lee Harvey Oswald all rolled into one incredibly complex guy who can’t spell?
Haha. Stay extreme, dude. It’s all you know.
Are you stalking me?
Huh, another "Ok, it's happening, and it might be as bad as you say" article from Reason?
Also, as Michael Malice says, Republicans are progressives going the speed limit.
The right isn't moving further to the right... it's just Einstein's relativity in action. The right is moving to the left, they're just moving so much slower to the left that from the left perspective, it appears to be accelerating away from the left. This causes the left to perceive so-called conservatives as having a "redshift".
Interesting way of viewing it. I think that it may miss a few points but that's the problem with Grand Unification Theories.
The parties are about finding a batch of voters either too stupid to realize that their issue will never really be solved or focused enough that they won't care about how the other issues in your platform actually work against them. The issues slide back and forth.
On social issues, maybe (though this turn against abortion and contraception is a major exception). On economic and regulatory issues, no. The Republican fetish for tariffs is a particular case in point.
The Democratic Party, which in Europe or elsewhere would be center-right may be leaning to the center (which Trump calls "far left radical commie)) but the right has already moved so far to the right that it is dishonest to call them conservatives (they do not want to conserve but to tear down)......
What is happening is that while Dems move to the center (on global terms) the Republicans are so far right they are flirting with fascism.
How do you come to these conclusions? Choose a few issues to establish your assertions.
Are Republicans locking people up for driving over a pride flag on the road?
What about using the government to punish people they don't like?
Jack Phillips would like to have a word with ruffsoft.
No, Republicans are locking people up for enjoying the wrong chemical compounds. It costs us taxpayers a lot more money than some pride flag arrests. So to be honest I just can't care about what you see as your right to shit on someone else's stuff because your god says they are icky.
Haha. Well, the left wanted to make it illegal for millions of people to work and support themselves for the sin of not submitting to the injection(s) of “chemical compounds” that they were uncomfortable with. So to be honest I just don’t care about your outdated grievances that a morality police exists to give a fuck about junkies killing themselves, apart from the mess they leave in their wake.
Keep living in the past, dude. It’s all you’ve got.
Yup. You're a stalker.
So…. No response?
Why bother?
Democrats and Republicans both supported the war on some drugs up until 2020 - and Biden still doesn't want to even fully legalize marijuana. (That is, he supports throwing people in prison for possessing a joint and a gun at the same time. Maybe he's now rethinking that law where cocaine is concerned, but I haven't seen any sign of a change for those whose name is not "Hunter Biden".)
Polarization is lethal to the country an d both MAGA and Wokeism are responsible. A nation may only be governed from the Center.
Prior to the Civil War that was the rule rather than the exception. There were a lot of famous compromises. Both sides got something they wanted and lost something as well. We applauded those who compromised.
Polarization is just an effect of the "everyone must be forced into lockstep" by a tyrannical government.
Republicans in Kentucky just passed a law REQUIRING the Christian Ten Commandments be posted at all government schools. That sounds like a strong shift to the right to me. Pretty much means no more votes for Republicans for me. I may still vote for Trump, but to be honest Trump Supporters here are really turning my stomach and making a vote for their guy even more repulsive than before.
Try Louisiana which until 2010 was a major Democrat strong hold.
And tell us again how the ten-commandments of Leftardism hasn't been getting pushed into school systems for years. Just because the left doesn't identify their "We love poopy butt-holes" as a religion doesn't make it not a religious commandment.
1) Thou shalt have different sorts of rainbow flags before all government buildings.
2) Thou shalt make unto thee icons of George Floyd and Taylor Swift.
3) Thou shalt take the name of Israel and its God only in a contemptuous manner.
4) Remember Juneteenth and Transgender Day of Visibility, to keep them holy.
5) Honor those who reject the concept of "father" and "mother" and use "birthing persons" instead.
6) Thou shalt kill fetuses, old people and suicidal individuals, as well as young men in proxy wars, as thou pleasest.
7) Thou shalt sexualize your lifestyle in whatsoever way thou desirest, and share it with children.
8) Thou shalt take from others through taxation and support thyself and thy allies through those funds.
9) Thou shalt sue and defame others with the help of the ACLU.
10) Thou shalt be envious of them who thou perceivest as oppressors.
And the Great Commandment: All people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Want that, MrMxyzptlk?
I don't want either. But I guess I don't have that option. We either get the tyranny of the left or the tyranny of the right.
Perfect.
Perfect bullshit.
Fuck off and DIAF, you lying Prog.
Yes, your right. It was Louisiana that passed the latest law, but Kentucky is looking to follow the trend. If the courts don't shut down Louisiana then Kentucky is ready to reenact their law that was stuck down.
What it being a Democrat stronghold for a while has to do with any of this I've no idea.
You are entirely correct.
Commie-Indoctrination camps should've never existed in the first place.
When I went to those camps in the 70s and 80s they were Christian Indoctrination Camps. Which is why Christian Conservatives don't want to shut down the government schools, they want to be in position to take advantage of the indoctrination features of the schools. Give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.
Incorrect. The left is the one's who don't want to shut down government schools.
Sure they are. Yet again the political right can do no wrong.
When the left demonstrates any desire at-all to stop conquering the USA for their '[Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire building' then perhaps the rights flaws (which are many granite) will start to show and get the right amount of cursing.
It just doesn't make sense to pick at a mosquito with a jack*ss (lol. donkey party) in the room.
Can you repeat that in English? I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
He’s saying you have no sense of proportion when it comes to the parties flaws and that it isn’t a priority to be concerned with the republican’s deficits. He isn’t wrong.
You’re conflating the republicans, who want life to be more like it was in 1950’s middle America with the democrats, who want life to be very much like life in 1950’s Soviet Union.
Is that clear enough?
If you enjoy the Republican brand of ass fucking then I guess they don't seem so bad. I'm not a fan of their ass fucking. I'm not a big fan of the Democrats either. I'd like a no ass fucking option. If forced between the two then why should I take the Christian fascism of the right over the disorganized fascism of the left?
So your conclusion is one-single LA governor who demands Christian commandments be posted on the wall at Commie-Indoctrination (a system sponsored by the left) is a bigger concern than a party who literally is proud to lobby for 'democratically' conquering the USA (defined by the US Constitution) for [Na]tional (Federal) So[zi]al[ism].
Think about it; What policies are FORCING Christianity? then contrast that to what policies are FORCING 'butt-sex' recognition, 'climate' religions (the sky is falling), 'sexist' religions (feminism), 'racist' religions (Black entitlement). One side is by and far more fascist than the other.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/06/theres-nothing-loving-about-dolly-partons-false-gospel/
The right just attacked Dolly Parton. This means war. They are forcing their faith on others in this case. Trying to say that you can't love people who aren't hetro. Fuck them. No votes for Trump. No one messes with Dolly.
See TJ, when you leave out the gov-guns and parentheses your posts are almost readable.
I knew you had it in ya.
The Ten Commandments are observed by more than just Christians.
So what. They don't mean shit to Bhudists. Not to mention a lot of other world religions. It's sending a clear message that only Christians are welcome.
It’s an interesting situation. The Democrats, for once, are relatively easier to explain. The Democratic base, for their part, has had it with Reaganomics. The Democratic political class is still partially bought into Reaganomics and that creates a tension. (They’re both pretty unified at this point on social issues in a way that conservatives find morally offensive and libertarians find overbearing).
On the Republican side, the elected political class is extremely far to the right, punch drunk on oil money and evangelical direct mail fundraising and concerned overwhelmingly with power in a way that’s fascistic; the GOP base simply wants to know that the world they recognize isn’t going to change out of all recognition, and that what they feel they’ve already lost will be restored in some way, but they are themselves split between a politically active MAGA subset and increasingly inactive moderates. But overall, this is a change from, say, 20 years ago, when the GOP base was solidly to the right of its elected officials.
Neither of these, by the way, is hospitable territory for libertarianism, but then again a country that’s deeply in debt and where a majority of the population is in deeply uncertain shape for retirement is never going to be of a libertarian orientation, because there are only two ways that situation can be resolved; tax hikes on the rich to bring in some revenue and incentivize corporations to shift compensation down the feeding chain to people more likely to spend it and therefore circulate money back into the economy, or a clear answer that “you’re on your own” in the form of substantial benefit cuts; establishment and conservative politicians will fight the first; the public will fight the second.
You're quite mistaken. Look up the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory—a far-left philosophy that has become the dominant thought in the current Democratic Party.
If anyone else wants to refute this guy, be my guest.
Contrast his "far-right" with the definition of the USA (US Constitution).
I find it laughable how the frogs hot-tubing in their pot don't seem to realize how 'left' (hot the pot) the nation has gotten. The "extreme far right" would be considered left by the founders.
To people like him, the left is always reasonable but sometimes misguided. The right is always ‘extreme’, ‘far right’, or ‘alt right’. This telegraphs your bias.
Curious if anyone on this thread has read Project 2025.
Back in the 90s, I could comfortably say that I was economically conservative and socially liberal. By that I meant that I would be happy with a combination of Gingrich's economic views (lower taxes, lower spending, lower debt, less regulation) and Clinton's social views (pro-choice on abortion, tolerant of gay people, pro-immigration, and mostly in favor of free speech). This brief moment when Clinton was president and Republicans controlled Congress was also the only time in recent history when the Federal Government managed to balance the budget -- and actually run a surplus.
Now, being economically "conservative" in the GOP has come to mean being protectionist, anti-immigration, opposed to any sort of Social Security or Medicare reform, and in favor of the President being able to unilaterally tell corporations where they can build factories. At the same time, being socially "liberal" means having the government censor "harmful" speech, having people "cancelled" if they do anything that offends progressive orthodoxy, and declaring that traits like individualism and ambition promote white supremacy.
Republicans aren’t ’anti immigration’. Republicans ARE anti illegal, and pro legal immigration.
+Republicans wrote Roe v Wade. How does the very party who actually established the Individual Right become the enemy of it? Democrats did nothing to establish that right at all. In fact; historically Democrats initiated the Pro-Life movement.
+You don't need 'entitled' to everyone's okay by Gun-Force. Republicans have never been 'against being gay' they just don't see Government recognition of poking poppy-buttholes or anything else sexist and racist the left wants to 'lockstep' society on.
The left advertises socially liberal while every policy they make is Anti-liberty even socially. These observations are precisely the BS indoctrination the left sells that doesn't match reality what-so-ever.
Over on X, the people at Project Liberal are trying to "reclaim" the word "liberal" to mean something closer to "classical liberal". That's much closer to my beliefs, but I think it will be an uphill climb when pollsters like Gallup are still stuck with "liberal" meaning "progressive" meaning "left-wing".
I think the name Libertarian-Leaning-Republican fits that bill already.
The real issue is "what does 'Liberal/Very Liberal'" actually mean? In 2004, it meant that you thought marriage was between a man and a woman, but same sex couples should have the same tax treatment as married couples and should not otherwise be discriminated against. In 2024 it means you think it is perfectly okay for biological men to compete in (and dominate) women's sports, and that doctors should be able to mutilate children for profit. So it is not just the increasing numbers selecting that label, but the real radically leftward movement has been in what the label stands for.