What do these (political) words even mean?

First, my context: It is solidly centered on the US. The only time I have lived abroad, I was too young to be politically aware. Also, I'm 54 -- so all of my impressions of these words basically percolated out of the American gestalt since 1980 (when I was ten) or so. I'm more educated on political science than the average person, but not like someone who studied it seriously.

Now, there are some words that get used a lot in discussions of politics around me. They're words that have at various times had technical definitions that have flown the coop from the common vernacular. They're words that I think everyone sort of knows what they mean and so they work (poorly) for getting points across, but I think they leave a lot of wiggle room for misunderstanding. And I was curious if it was possible to work toward an understanding of the core of what the words mean and pick at the edges where we disagree. If anyone else thinks this is interesting, maybe we'll have a good conversation work toward clarity.

This is the Cider Press. That means only some Permies have the ability to participate because you've proven with your history of participation that you get how things work and can handle regulating yourself. Remember though, the rule at Permies is Be Nice.

The words that I have in mind are: socialist, leftist, liberal, conservative. And is there some other word for people on the right wing that differentiates them from "conservatives"? Why does the left get three words and the right only one?

socialist - This word is confusing because it is so polarizing in America. To me, a socialist program is any where The People aggregate their wealth for some common good. The fire department is socialism. But it is also used as a grave epithet and the people who do so seem to think they mean something but have thus far failed to explain it to me. Right now, in America, my sense is that a socialist is someone who favors expanding socialist programs beyond what rank-and-file Democrats favor as expressed in the party platform.

leftist - I think a lot of people, particularly liberals and conservatives, think that leftist is a perfect synonym for liberal and some on the right seem to think socialist is too. But that's not how I see it. Leftists are much more likely than liberals to be interested in direct action and to have read some of the socialist cannon. Leftists are more likely to agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. Some leftists identify as communists and some others as anarchists.

liberal - This term seems to very closely map to the set of people who proudly identify as Democrats. I think they are in general less aware of the division between management and labor (because they align with and aspire to management) than leftists and socialists. They are generally in favor of big government and more likely than any of these other groups to favor Modern Monetary Theory. The first response of a reflexive liberal (unlike any of the other groups) is to regulate behavior by law.

conservative - This is hard because it is so obviously a moving target. (On both policy and demeanor, Reagan and Hillary Clinton are more alike than either are with Trump.) So it's unclear how much I should describe the MAGA crowd vs. Republicans of my youth. But I'll take a crack at it - the central feature that distinguishes conservatives from the others is a reverence for the way things have worked in the past. I don't mean they oppose all change, but the bar for showing that change is needed is higher and they prefer smaller steps. Conservatives seem to experience loyalty and morality as strong motivators compared to the others.

I hope that I've characterized each group using friendly descriptions. I'm interested to see where you all think I have details (or fundamental foundations, I suppose) wrong.

I focused my studies in college towards American constitutional law. The vast difference between textual definitions and how people use them everyday is vast in my experience. I have accepted the continuing changing morphology of the words and just try my best depending on the context that they are used in.

socialist - This is a tricky word in the USA because it has, in some crowds, become more of a type of slur than something that has a true definition. The folks who I have talked to that self describe as being socialist tend to be folks who take views for society and the distribution of wealth that challenge the current version of capitalism that we live in. Issues are viewed through the lens of community needs and how systematically those can be solved through collective effort.

leftist - A modern day leftist, to me, is much closer to a libertarian than a liberal. The political scale is not a line from left to right, but rather a horseshoe. Many leftists that I am acquainted with view direct action and community support as key attributes to change. In a way, they focus on more local political institutions to fix issues rather than federal intervention while focusing on the working class rather than 'big' entities.

liberal - Liberal has become quite a bit of a catch-all term for anyone left of center but I still think it holds true to the idea that government should be active in supporting social/political change that the constituents want.

conservative - Conservative has also become quite a bit of a catch-all term for anyone right of center. Limited government and religious freedoms come up quite a bit with those who self identify as conservatives.  

Your use of "right of center" and "left of center" points out to me that "center" needs to be defined too. By world standards, Harris and Biden were very centrist candidates and Clinton was sort of center-right. But in America, Harris' Senate voting history puts her as arguably the most left-leaning member of the Senate. (I've checked the numbers and they're legit on this, but I think it's small-sample statistics....Sanders and Warren are both left of Harris.)

Ohh yes, I do agree that we don't talk about the center enough. The political extremes are 'sexy' to talk about on the news because many times they are at odds with each other. The center tends to take these far-wing ideas and put a milder touch on them. I honestly think that if government were working 'correctly' that debate and voting would force many policies to be more appealing to center than either of the fringes.

I agree with the Oxford definition given here:

"noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

In practical terms, that means the government controlling all those aspects of life.

Trace, when you say you agree with that, do you mean you think that's what everyone means when they use that word or that's what you wish they would mean? Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist but he seems pretty far "right" from the definition you've provided.

Christopher Weeks wrote:Trace, when you say you agree with that, do you mean you think that's what everyone means when they use that word or that's what you wish they would mean? Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist but he seems pretty far "right" from the definition you've provided.

I don't know if that is what everyone means when they use the word, but it is what I believe the definition truly is.  If people are using it in a way that doesn't agree with that definition, I believe they are using the word incorrectly.

I always think that if everyone is using a word one way, and I'm using it a different way, I'm the one using it wrong. And dictionaries are expressly descriptive, not prescriptive. I guess that's sort of the point of this thread. I've detected some communication difficulties around these terms and I hope that by airing what we think about them, I can understand better what people mean. It's not exactly building a consensus, but sort of.

Christopher Weeks wrote:I always think that if everyone is using a word one way, and I'm using it a different way, I'm the one using it wrong. And dictionaries are expressly descriptive, not prescriptive. I guess that's sort of the point of this thread. I've detected some communication difficulties around these terms and I hope that by airing what we think about them, I can understand better what people mean. It's not exactly building a consensus, but sort of.

I guess my feeling is that if a word has been used to mean something for 200 years, and the definition is changed to mean something else, especially to coincide with a political agenda, my best bet is to ignore that change regardless of the number of people that use it differently.  Culturally, words change over time certainly.  But changing to coincide with some agenda rubs me the wrong way.  For me, the terms you mentioned have become so ambiguous, I'm not certain you can get any number of people to agree to a definition without each putting some small spin or another on it.  It's an interesting intellectual discussion, but I doubt it can have any meaningful conclusion.  It's very hard to even get people to agree on which current governments are "socialist" given the many, many variables that come into play.  Terms like "left" or "right" can only be defined in relation to something else, not really as a stand alone term.  Is Donald Trump "right"?  Sure, in relation to AOC.  But in an absolute?  I'm sure he is not "as right as it gets".  

I found these definitions of liberal and conservative on this page Student news daily and I largely agree with them.

"Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems."

"Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems."

This page goes on to have a pretty good summary of what each side thinks of the various issues like abortion, the economy, the death penalty, energy, gun control, etc.  It's an interesting read.

A good question Christopher. In order to hold a dialogue, one must at least understand what the other person means by the word... and hopefully come to an agreement on that word's definition. Here is how I understand these words.

Left wing and right wing (now shortened to simply left and right) goes back to the French revolution where the two different factions would generally sit on the left or the right of the king, based on their political beliefs. It was simply related to where they sat in the room and to differentiate between two political ideologies.

I think it is fair to generalize the democrats as left and the republicans as right... with the knowledge that there is crossover. One person might have opinions that match either side, but we have to allow generalizations in order to have conversations.

Liberal - really just means more. He sprinkled parmesan cheese liberally onto his spaghetti.
Conservative - really just means less. She dressed more conservatively than her peers. (less flashy, less skin showing, etc).

In the context of politics, Liberals generally want more government and conservatives generally want less government. In the US, most democrats are liberal and most republicans are conservative.

My father was a history buff, always used to say that socialism was an ideology while communism was a form of government built on socialism.

Socialism - I believe the formal definition is something to the effect of seeking the equal distribution of wealth (also the definition Trace gave is another version of the formal definition). Generally this is done with or without the consent of the people who have different amounts of wealth. Today I believe this is muddled up with anything that is done as a community, which is different than the formal definition of socialism. In other words, in my scope, socialism is forced, but I believe there can be voluntary community efforts for things, which is different from how I view socialism.

I don't want to get sucked into the semantics. I just felt it worth highlighting tools like the Political Compass.

The political compass gives you a series of propositions and you rank them on your reaction. It spits out a score on two axes, which splits out an economic axis from a social axis. Its helpful for a conversation like this because common conversation often conflates two very different sets of values.

Eg you can be economically left leaning while being authoritarian socially - like North Korea.

But people use the terms uncritically and conflate the unrelated issues when doing so. This is what makes the conversation so fraught I think, because even if we all think we know the dictionary definitions few people seem to have a good understanding of how they relate to actual policies.

Political Compass Test

Eg "Liberal" vrs "Authoritarian" is a social axis, but you often see "liberal" used as a slur regarding economic issues. A liberal, on social issues, would tend to believe that people should be able to make their own choices about how to live their lives. An authoritarian would tend to believe that everyone should conform to (usually their own) views of how to behave.

Various criticisms are leveled at the Political Compass test. Americans in particular often complain that it is biased, but the test attempts to be balanced internationally and in comparison to the rest of the world all American parties are economically right leaning.  

Matt McSpadden wrote:

Liberal - really just means more. He sprinkled parmesan cheese liberally onto his spaghetti.
Conservative - really just means less. She dressed more conservatively than her peers. (less flashy, less skin showing, etc).

I always understood liberal in this context to mean "free". A person who considered themselves to be "Liberal" is someone who believes that they and others should be free to live their lives as they choose. It's not an economic philosophy, its a world view about how people (and society and government) should treat each other day to day.  The opposite of a "liberal" philosophy therefore is "authoritarian" - there is a "right" way for people to live and others should conform to my view of what that is. It doesn't really have a direct association with the economic axis.

That said people who are more liberal socially may tend towards more left-leaning economic policies - but that is definitely not always the case. It is not at all incompatible to be socially liberally while simultaneously believing that capitalism is a good thing for the world. It is definitely not the case that being socially liberal leads automatically being "socialist", as seems to be a common accusation that gets thrown around at the moment.

Michael Cox wrote:Eg "Liberal" vrs "Authoritarian" is a social axis...

Just injecting a point of clarification -- the opposite of authoritarian is libertarian, not liberal. Does that mess up your argument?

As I understand it, the sense that Michael is using liberal is what the rest of the English-speaking world means, but in America (I'm not sure if this is one place where Canada matches us or not) we have taken to calling that "Classical Liberal" (at least in my Libertarian circles and I think somewhat more broadly) and liberal to the common man means more or less what everyone up thread other than Michael has described.

Y'know...just to make communication harder...

Michael Cox wrote:A person who considered themselves to be "Liberal" is someone who believes that they and others should be free to live their lives as they choose. It's not an economic philosophy, its a world view about how people (and society and government) should treat each other day to day.  

From my point of view, in the US at least, nearly the exact opposite is true.  

Oh yuck.

Liberal vrs libertarian vrs classical liberal...

I'm not sure that those distinctions would be the same outside of America either. I'm a Brit.

Way up at the top, I mentioned that these words have semi-archaic technical meanings that aren't really how people around me use them. I was specifically thinking of the origin of the right and left wings of the French parliment as Matt pointed out (the left wing supported the French revolution and the right wing supported the divine right of kings) and liberalism as Michael has raised. In this last term, it isn't even really archaic, it's just that from a world perspective and for specific US-historical reasons, the US has decided to use it "wrong" (as Trace would say :-) ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11 

In this sense Liberalism is the same thing as Western Culture.

But no one in America, except maybe in specific academic contexts, uses the terms like that.

 And is there some other word for people on the right wing that differentiates them from "conservatives"? Why does the left get three words and the right only one?  

Continuing to the right of Conservative here are two more I hear used a lot.

MAGA (an acronym commonly used as a word in recent US politics)

and Christian Nationalist

Both to the right of traditional 'conservatives'.

It is easy to get into U.S. centric thinking when talking politics and you live there but sometimes the words/phrases are a bit too local.

I view MAGA as I view the Tea Party being a US-centric subset of the Republican Party. I could be off base but I view it as a group with specific issues in sight that they are focused on inside the walls of the political group. Kind of like the Democrats "Squad" but more established?

Looking towards the right in my mind you have Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, and perhaps Anarcho-Capitalists but that is kind of a subset of Libertarians in my view.

*Edit*

I found an image that explains the idea of horseshoe theory when it comes to political spectrum.

For those who do not know, MAGA stands for "Make America Great Again", and has been Donald Trump's tagline for his campaign. I don't suspect you will hear much about it after his second term. However, I think this is another example of we want the same thing, but argue about how to get there. All the people I know from both sides would like America to be great. All the people I know from both sides do not think America is as great right now as it could be. We differ on HOW to make America great, but I would like to believe that we agree on the desire to make our own country great.

Christian Nationalist is something newer. I hear it most from people who compare Christian Nationalists to Nazis. I would have called patriotism and nationalism the same thing and a good thing. Google seems to disagree. Google seems to think of Patriotism as good and Nationalist as potentially negative.

What does Christian Nationalist mean to you? I am a Christian and I care about my country... does that mean I am a Christian nationalist? Is a Christian Nationalist any better or worse than a mere conservative?

We're outside of my comfort zone with these terms, so I feel like I'm going a little out on a limb. But I have the sense that a Christian Nationalist among other things, wants to make America a theocracy with a state church and penalties for those who aren't sufficiently performative in their obeisance to that institution. And I also think it's closely tied to the oppression of anyone who can be tarred as outsiders. I imagine, based on current discourse, that that would start with women, foreigners, queerfolk, non-Christians, and "pinkos". But if such an institution were successful, I have no doubt it would also punish Christians of flavors that did not comport precisely enough with the theological philosophy at the center of the institution. It is a very white institution in my mind's eye, but I'm not clear what its view of black Americans is.

Also, I was raised in a serious Libertarian household and I disagree that it is a conservative segment. My parents tended to agree with Republicans on how federal dollars should be spent (except they were more extreme than the GOP on downsizing) and tended to agree with Democrats on social issues.

Christopher Weeks wrote:We're outside of my comfort zone with these terms, so I feel like I'm going a little out on a limb. But I have the sense that a Christian Nationalist among other things, wants to make America a theocracy with a state church and penalties for those who aren't sufficiently performative in their obeisance to that institution. And I also think it's closely tied to the oppression of anyone who can be tarred as outsiders. I imagine, based on current discourse, that that would start with women, foreigners, queerfolk, non-Christians, and "pinkos". But if such an institution were successful, I have no doubt it would also punish Christians of flavors that did not comport precisely enough with the theological philosophy at the center of the institution. It is a very white institution in my mind's eye, but I'm not clear what its view of black Americans is.

Wow... that is quite a description :)

I think your description is probably what people are thinking of when the media use the term. Based on your description, I am NOT one. I can also say that based on that description, that I do not know, nor know of anyone who would be a Christian Nationalist.

Christopher Weeks wrote:
Also, I was raised in a serious Libertarian household and I disagree that it is a conservative segment. My parents tended to agree with Republicans on how federal dollars should be spent (except they were more extreme than the GOP on downsizing) and tended to agree with Democrats on social issues.

I agree that Libertarian is not necessarily Republican, but I am puzzled by your parent's split beliefs. Most social issues result in people wanting the government to help, which results in spending money. How would that coincide with downsizing?

Matt McSpadden wrote:Most social issues result in people wanting the government to help, which results in spending money. How would that coincide with downsizing?

When I was little, it was illegal for women to get credit cards or IUDs without a husband's approval or for homosexual couples to marry. Black people were still casually murdered in the south. They remembered the recent end of anti-miscegenation in the US. My father was drafted for Vietnam. Those are the social policies on which Libertarians were always on the side of freedom (with the Democrats). I guess you were imagining the establishment of a 'social' safety net like welfare programs and those are economic policies about which they agreed with Republicans (but more so).

I guess you were imagining the establishment of a 'social' safety net like welfare programs and those are economic policies about which they agreed with Republicans (but more so).

That is exactly right. I was thinking more of the social healthcare, social security, welfare, etc. What you describe makes more sense.

Matt McSpadden wrote:

I guess you were imagining the establishment of a 'social' safety net like welfare programs and those are economic policies about which they agreed with Republicans (but more so).

That is exactly right. I was thinking more of the social healthcare, social security, welfare, etc.

Please don't include Social Security in the same catagory as welfare.
We paid into SS for years and in addition also paid income taxes.  
SS is based on what we put in and is not what some consider a handout.  

On the other hand I do very much support 'social safety nets'.
Those for basic needs like medical, food and housing.

Christopher,

I really like the way this thread is working.  Like you, I was a young child of the 70s, but I came of age in the 80s.  I was born in 1971.

My education was largely in history, not political science and while there are a lot of overlapping concepts, I thought I would point out some of the historical roots behind these terms.  For context, most of these and similar terms had their origins in the aftermath of the French Revolution and generally described French politics in the early 1800s.  As a word of caution. I have always found it tricky to dangerous to use one nation’s political terminology to describe another.  Something always seems to get lost in translation and these terms are no exception.

So I will start here

CONSERVATIVE—Conservatives were those in France who supported the authority of both the Monarchy and the Church (as in Catholic Church).  The monarchy and Church sort of relied on one-another to justify each other’s authority.  Specifically, conservatives supported the right of BOTH the monarchy AND the Church to enact taxation for the purposes of running government, maintaining a military, and support social programs.  It is interesting to contrast the interests of early 1800s French conservatives with modern day American conservatives.  I am not sure that they have anything in common but the name.

LIBERAL—Liberals were those that wanted freedom from the Monarchy and the Church.  Now specifically, they were not strictly opposed to either a monarchy or church, but they were dead-set opposed to taxation from either which was considerable.  It is a bit difficult to measure the exact tax burden one bears, but the general consensus is that early 1800s French taxation was extreme by comparison to American taxation of just about any time.  Exceptions vary.  

Generally, liberals were businessmen who despised taxation, regulation, just about any type of government and/or church interference and strongly supported a sort of unrestricted capitalism! Liberals wanted freedom—from interference in their business affairs.  Again, contrast this version of liberals with modern-day American liberals and it might make your head spin!

SOCIALISM—Socialism was a vague and ill-defined concept in 1800s France, somewhat like today in America and around the world.  At its core was the notion that a group of individuals were better off ruling themselves and pooling their collective assets and labor efforts.  The exact form that socialism would/could/might take varied widely.  

By mid-century (1800s), the term COMMUNISM entered the lexicon.  Actually it had existed for some time but the exact definition varied so wildly that it was a practically unusable term.  If a word means everything at once, it means nothing!  Communism (new version) is widely credited to Karl Marx, a German exile living in England with a large family, all in pretty severe poverty.  Marx took the basic idea of Socialism and ran with it, devising a philosophy that predicted the inevitable end of Capitalism, the rise of Communism, a sort of Socialism in which **ALL** property was communally owned, absolutely NONE privately owned (Right down to socks and underwear.  Theoretically, the underwear you were wearing did not belong to you personally, but to everyone, and if someone else had a greater need, then not only were you expected to give your underwear to that other person but according to communist principles, you would give it up happily!).  According to communism, all of societies ills were caused by capitalism and money.  Communism would solve this.  Under communism, all assets would be redistributed, everyone would have what they needed, no-one would be left wanting, and no one would have an unfair advantage.  Everyone would be happy!! There would be no crime!! Or need police.  The whole need for government would vanish!  It never happened or even came anywhere remotely close!!

In a nutshell, one way of looking at Socialism and Communism was that Communism was a more extreme form of Socialism.  Under Socialism, money was permitted and personal property was acceptable.  Under Communism, money lost all significance as no one person owned any property privately.

DEMOCRATS—Somewhat as the name suggests, Democrats supported voting rights.  But not all Democrats agreed as to who should have voting rights.  For instance, Liberal Democrats wanted there to be a minimum amount of property and/or assets to own before one could have the right to vote.  Conservatives basically rejected the whole idea of voting out of hand.

REPUBLICANS—Republicans were a sort of radical of the day that are totally acceptable today.  Early 1800s French Republicans were dead-set opposed to the rule of the Monarch and/or Church.  They were highly nationalistic.  They believed in a representative form of government.  Many of their ideals were shaped by the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson (Both of whom spent considerable time in France either during or immediately after the American Revolution).  Despite this, French histories tend to downplay the American influence.  Republicans **MIGHT** be the term which has changed the least between early 1800s France and present day America.

I will stop there.  Most of these terms have definitions wildly different at origin than present day America.  Socialism/Communism continues to evolve and its meaning is quite different today than during the end of the Cold War just 35 years ago.  And while I have based these definitions on historical precedents, these are the precedents to which I was exposed during my time studying history as an undergraduate (I think I learned these in the Spring of 1993!).  If these don’t match your concept of their definition, then I think that you may have made my point—these terms are constantly being reshaped.

Eric