How does the liberal agenda benefit society?
962166
Well, I agree with what you have said. \n\nI look forward to a response from someone who considers themselves Liberal to address each of your points, not just one. Two responders never addressed any. Unfortunately that is what tends to happen most of the time when you ask them direct questions.  \n\nThis is the perfect opportunity for them to explain their viewpoints.
13443
First, here's a quick definition of what liberalism means as used in America today: \n\n"American liberalism emphasizes mutual collaboration and consensus-building to solve political problems. A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that protect and empower the weak against aggression by the strong and guarantee individual freedom from restrictive social norms. Liberals encourage progressive taxation, minimum wages laws, anti-discrimination laws, and social programs."\n\nMost liberals associate with the Democratic party - Democrats tend to support these sorts of policies. However, not all Democrats are liberals - many are more moderate, and many fiscal conservatives - people who want to minimize government spending in general - have defected from the Republican party recently.\n\nAlso, many people with liberal views may not call themselves liberal - while many liberal views are strongly associated with churches, for example, a number of major churches in the U.S. associate with the Reupublican party due to its stance against abortion. Since the Republican party is currently strongly anti-liberal, many liberal stances have been adopted by the party through the term "compassionate conservativism," which permits the stance without association with the politically charged term "liberal."\n\nCommentators like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reill have recently been involved in a general trend toward writing books which equate liberalism with terrorism, anti-american sentiment, and weakness - for this reason, the word is quite misunderstood now, something that might be apparent in the large amounts of hate present in some of the answers to your question.\n\nI hope this helps give an unbiased view of what liberals believe, and why the word is so politically sensitive right now.
513950
Non-Political. No politics truly benefit the people.
653518
Victim mentality.  Liberals have no interest in working hard.  They criticize those who do and expect them to be required to help those who are "less-fortunate".  Fortune comes from hard work, not from sitting on ones lazy a** expecting it from someone who actually DID work for it!
729093
I just had this conversation with my soon-to-be-of-voting-age daughter yesterday....I guess that I chose a party affiliation after I spent 7 years as a social worker within the federal social welfare system and saw, first hand, that liberal social policies have kept slavery alive and well in the wealthiest country in the world.  The only benefit that I have been awarded because of my party affiliation so far is spirited debate when I wear my "proud to be a republican" T-shirt and I actually leave my house.....and by the way I live in one of THE most liberal states in the nation....Connecticut!!  Other than offending many, enraging others and still making others happy, there are no real benefits to declaring a PARTY AFFILIATION.  You can contact me by sending me an email to the address found on my profile page.  Good luck with your answers....I "watch listed" this question as I am really interested what you will get for responses.
381567
Most liberals think they are good because they want to take things that people work hard for, and give them to people who are 'less fortunate'.  And by less fortunate, I mean people who decided not to go to school and learn something, and people who are too lazy to get a job because they will lose their welfare checks if they do.
446468
Many people go into news broadcasting to try to change the world to make it a better place.  By definition, liberals want change and conservatives don't.
739309
Sounds pretty good to me, that must be why I'm a liberal.\n\nhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism
881484
Nice sources to back your claim\n\nTypical for a liberal
599121
Depends what kind of liberal you mean (classical, American, etc.)\n\nAny way, it's such a huge answer I would just look it up on wikipedia.\n\nHere are some positions Americans liberals *may* take:\n\n    * A social "safety net" to minimize the suffering due to poverty, including welfare, medicare, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and retirement programs.\n    * Increased government role and funding for public education, public transportation, and alternative energy development.\n    * Increased regulation of business practices through OSHA, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, and minimum wage laws.\n    * Strong, government-protected labor unions\n    * Civil rights, including laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.\n    * Affirmative action and transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English.\n    * Broad voting rights\n    * Public assistance for undocumented aliens\n    * A spirit of international community and service to all people\n    * A woman's right to an abortion in private and without interference\n    * The right of the terminally ill to end their life\n    * Laws to protect the environment\n    * The elimination of the death penalty\n    * Animal rights\n    * Gun control\n    * A progressive tax system\n    * Marijuana legalization\n    * Advocacy of stem cell research and support of scientific study\n    * Adherence to the principle of separation of church and state\n\n\n\nShould add that Republicans over the last few decades have successfully turned the word "liberal" into a bad wor. So in politics what is and what is perceived to be "liberal" is not so clear.
156556
You're not a Liberalist, if you know nothing about it.\n\nAnyway, I will try to simplify. Liberalism is the believe that the individual should be free of society and government restriction as long as he  (in the earlier liberalism was based on free men; women, children and slaves weren't included) respect and stop at the others' freedom. Liberty is postive freedom. Liberalism is in favour of individualism. Usually Liberalism is seen to include capitalism.\n\nHope that will help.
481900
Liberalism is a disease.
625893
The role of the government is to provide structure and consistency. Looking at the Constitution (Preamble), there are five things that were the goal of the federal government: "establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty".\n\nLiberals as a party focus mainly on the "promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty". Conservatives focus more on the "ensure domestic Tranquility [and] provide for the common Defense". But let's look at each of these five goals relative to morality.\n\nIf your goal is promoting welfare, then morality isn't much of an issue. People generally agree that feeding people is good, that murder/mayhem in the streets is bad, that paved roads and clean drinking water are good, that driving 90 in a school zone or residential neighborhood is bad, and so on.\n\nFor defense, again generally people agree that being safe is good, police (as a concept) are good, a strong military (for defense) is good, buildings blowing up is bad, etc. How much can be sacrificed to achieve these is a different issue (see liberty, below). So again, morality isn't a big factor in these issues.\n\nFor "establish Justice", it doesn't matter what your morality is, justice is good. What constitutes justice may vary, but that goes more to the other issues (liberty and tranquility, see below). So again, the concept of wanting justice by itself is not morality-dependent.\n\nWhich leaves us with the balance between ensuring domestic tranquility and ensuring the blessings of liberty. Here's where we get interesting. \n\nConservatives want tranquility, harmony, consistency, even at the expense of some liberty interests. Liberals want greater personal liberties, even if that means letting some criminals go free or not regulating certain behaviors, thus impacting tranquility. \n\nMorality is the set of beliefs that determine what is more important to us. Valuing liberty over tranquility means allowing other people to do things you don't approve of, while holding tranquility over liberty means that you want your values to apply to everyone, in order to avoid conflict.\n\nIs the right to choose who you want to marry (regardless of race or gender) more important than preserving a traditional historical opposite-sex same-race marriage? Until 1967, mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states (mostly conservative ones) because marriage was "by definition" a union between people of the same race. It was a moral issue, because their religions didn't favor mixed-race marriage. The US Supreme Court said that legal restrictions shouldn't be based on religions dogma, and that the right to marry who you want isn't subject to state controls. So far, that ruling only applies relative to race-based decisions, not gender-based decisions.\n\nIs it right for a woman to choose what happens inside her own body? The conservative view is that society as a whole mandates controls, and that based on religious beliefs since the embryo can become a person it should be treated as already being a person. Hence abortion is immoral. However, let's say you don't share the same religious perspective. Let's say you believe that it is the soul that makes someone human, and the soul doesn't show up until the fetus is capable of independent life (viability). In that case, based on your religious beliefs, terminating a pregnancy before the soul enters the body is not murder. How can you prove when the soul enters the body (conception, viability, birth)? You can't. It's a religious issue. So the US Supreme Court went with a medical (not religious) definition of life, and said that states cannot dictate religious definitions as a matter of law.\n\nAmerica is a republic. That means we collectively get together and elect people to make decisions for us. In a p
1163856
I just finished Coulter's new book, a must read!  It really opened my eyes to a few new connections between liberalism and tyranny.  Plus I had to completely reconsider my views on Darwinism!  I really enjoy books that make you think!\n\nOh, to answer your question: liberals also like to protect any speech that is pro choice, pro gay, pro tax, probiggovernment, etc...\n\nhope that helps!
342798
Modern liberal theory can be best understood by reading Elizabeth Anderson's posts referred to below.  It is solidly grounded in capitalism, it is highly critical of central planning of every aspect of economic life, but it is far more intellectually sound than modern libertarian and conservative economic theory, which has an almost fundamentalist mindset when it comes to free-markets and taxation.  One may be right in accusing the extreme left-wing in American politics of flirting with profoundly anti-capitalistic sentiments, but one would be a fool to pretend that modern liberal theory is anti-capitalist.  If you wish to attack modern liberal theory, start by reading up on it.  There is a reason why the academic world is not dominated by libertarians and conservatives, and it has to do more with the relative value of their ideas--which have not done quite so well in the free marketplace of intellectual inquiry--and less to do with inherent bias in the academic system.  One way to learn about both liberalism and conservatism is to read Rawls, Nozick, Hayek (whom I actually admire quite a bit), Sen, Dworkin, etc.  And once you have read the careful and intellectually stimulating discussions between these people, it becomes incredibly silly to suggest that modern liberal theory believes in socialism.
961897
An anarchists dream come true.\n\nThis is more like it.\n\nThe Liberal Agenda\n\n•attack American traditions, specifically Christian traditions and the traditional American family\n•engage in "get-even" policies that support discrimination when it benefits historically disadvantaged groups\n•punish and/or discourage achievement through taxation and fiscal policies\n•use the rulings of the Judicial branch of the government as de facto law, irrevocable by anything short of Constitutional amendment or a future court ruling, thus bypassing the legislative process. Roe V. Wade is the most frequently cited example of "judicial activism". (48 million dead and counting)\n•weaken the military strength and morale of the country by vilifying the practice of armed combat and hesitating to use force when it appears necessary\n•use regulatory bodies over private enterprise to accomplish social goals and restrict competition (government, education, labor and health care)\n•establish secular and progressive social policy, including support for gay marriage, abortion, liberal drug policy, euthanasia and prostitution legalization.\n•implement a foreign policy supporting the selected protection of human rights and multiculturalism through activism, social intervention and violence (social anarchism)
1067650
It can't work.\n\nYou can not reward apathy..  if you are given everything, and dont need to work hard to get ahead..  then you wont.  If you dont work hard then the society does not move forward, if society doesn't move forward, then the society crumbles.........\n\nCapitalism is the light