The policies they support, the way of their behavior, the function of their political philosophy is all different. This is a new era of something so detached from its definition that it should be considered and renamed a different thing.
The policies they support, the way of their behavior, the function of their political philosophy is all different. This is a new era of something so detached from its definition that it should be considered and renamed a different thing.
If you’re not from the US, unqualified “liberal” in the US started to refer to “social liberal” back around FDR.
This has been a source of irritation to some; CATO, which I’d call moderate right-libertarian, complains that they should get the title and self-describes as “classic liberal”. Meanwhile, in, say, Germany, an unqualified “liberal” tends to refer to the latter, so you get confusion when people accustomed to the two uses meet.
An unqualified “libertarian” in the US usually refers to right-libertarianism, whereas in some places, it would historically have referred to left-libertarianism; that can also be a source of confusion.
Some parties in Europe on the left side of the spectrum self-describe as “socialist” when they don’t really advocate for socialist policies any more, but rather for things like a larger welfare state. I’d call them “social democratic”; this branding is a legacy of older forms of those parties, when they did advocate for socialist policy.
I’m not from the US, where is FDR?
FDR is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a US President.
CATO is an organization that pushes for small-government, market-oriented policy. Thryld be, economically, on the right side of the US political spectrum, whereas typically, an American using the term “liberal” would be talking about a social liberal, somone who would be, economically, on the left side of the US political spectrum, would favor a larger government.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (possibly the last decent president they had, is my impression). Can’t help you with CATO.