When/why did "Liberalism=Left" in American politics?

[Progressive Realist]

Surely non-Americans have found this confusing.

[stegosaurus]

The word "liberal", as opposed to "conservative", is defined as abundant or lavish.

ex. "He swears liberally." or "He is very liberal with the chocolate syrup when preparing his ice cream".

To be "conservative" about something means the opposite.

I assume that that particular usage of the word has something to do with the American context of "liberal" in politics. Perhaps as it relates to the willingness to find government-based solutions?

"Candidate A believes in  'liberally' involving the government in Issue X, while Candidate B believes that government involvement should be used more 'conservatively'".

My best guess, any how.

[CathKhan]

I assumed it was always like that. Since the founding days, conservatives were the ones who opposed radical changes. I guess you could compare them to firstly the loyalists, and then secondly the Federalists. On the other hand, Jefferson and his people wanted radical change and were thus liberals.* That's at least what I've been thinking. Was I wrong?

*Although in today's world, some of the changes the Democratic-Republicans may have wanted might now be embraced by a number of conservatives.

[Vasall des Midas]

It's a gradual process, begun in the Progressive Era. Even a few decades ago most people would still have been aware that the term refers to the centre-leftish mainstream of the (non-Southern) Democrats, not their left wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

[Free Palestine]

Because we don't have any communists or socialists anymore.

[ChairmanSanchez]

I assumed it was always like that. Since the founding days, conservatives were the ones who opposed radical changes. I guess you could compare them to firstly the loyalists, and then secondly the Federalists. On the other hand, Jefferson and his people wanted radical change and were thus liberals.* That's at least what I've been thinking. Was I wrong?

*Although in today's world, some of the changes the Democratic-Republicans may have wanted might now be embraced by a number of conservatives.

I would agree with this, and also add that by the time the Progressive movement was growing, they became the "liberals" seeking change. And it has been that way ever since.

[ChairmanSanchez]

It's a gradual process, begun in the Progressive Era. Even a few decades ago most people would still have been aware that the term refers to the centre-leftish mainstream of the (non-Southern) Democrats, not their left wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

'Daw I was going to post that

[Comrade Funk]

Because we don't have any communists or socialists anymore.

It's not like they are doing anything anywhere else in the world.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I assumed it was always like that. Since the founding days, conservatives were the ones who opposed radical changes. I guess you could compare them to firstly the loyalists, and then secondly the Federalists. On the other hand, Jefferson and his people wanted radical change and were thus liberals.* That's at least what I've been thinking. Was I wrong?

*Although in today's world, some of the changes the Democratic-Republicans may have wanted might now be embraced by a number of conservatives.

You are not wrong. Also, we have "organized ideologies" now that amount to a publically defined set of issues. Such wasn't the case back then and people were more about the party and politics. Ideological terms were often relative and thus why you when ideologies started to get defined, the parties were more diverse and maybe evenly split ideologically.

 This gets to my point regarding the bolded in your statement. While both the loyalists and the Federalists could be considered Conservative relative to their opposition, they weren't the same group of people.  The Federalists were the cosmopoliton, commerically oriented wing of the Patriots. They supported a bigger government to protect themselves from the anarchists mobs running about Western Massachusetts, Paris, etc  and advance their economic interests with a stable currency and a navy to protect shipping from piracy and foreign harrassment of trade. 

Another example, Edmund Burke defined Conservatism for the modern era, but he wasn't an abolutist Monarchist, which would have been the more Conservative view prior to 1700's.

Both terms were relative to some comparison, but now they have come to define a set political agenda.

[Free Palestine]

Because we don't have any communists or socialists anymore.

It's not like they are doing anything anywhere else in the world.

At least countries like France and Denmark have sizeable socialist populations.

[Vosem]

Because we don't have any communists or socialists anymore.

It's not like they are doing anything anywhere else in the world.

At least countries like France and Denmark have sizeable socialist populations.

With hope, not for much longer.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

The interesting thing is how limited the American political scene is. There are liberals, there are conservatives and there is everyone else in between. That's basically it. There are other people of other ideologies, but they have little-to-no-influence.

But here in the UK (for example), we've got socialists, greens, social democrats, Blairite third-wayers, populists (both on the left and the right), one nation conservatives, Thatcherite conservatives, orange book liberals, social liberals, nationalists (both civic and ethnic) and so on. Each one of these groups has played a significant role in British politics in modern times.

[True Federalist]

I always thought of it as being because the 19th Century Democratic Party was a liberal party in the classical sense and the term stuck as identifier for Democratic politics even as the party shifted to other ideologies.

[© Tweed the Younger]

good thread

[CathKhan]

The interesting thing is how limited the American political scene is. There are liberals, there are conservatives and there is everyone else in between. That's basically it. There are other people of other ideologies, but they have little-to-no-influence.

But here in the UK (for example), we've got socialists, greens, social democrats, Blairite third-wayers, populists (both on the left and the right), one nation conservatives, Thatcherite conservatives, orange book liberals, social liberals, nationalists (both civic and ethnic) and so on. Each one of these groups has played a significant role in British politics in modern times.

Part of the fact is that our system is sort of geared towards two parrties. But what also must be mentioned is that at one point, the parties had all sorts of ideologies. Gilded Age stuff, but over time, it seems they streamlined. And took up really two sets of opposing principles and everyone just fell in line.

[Misoir]

All the main political ideologies of the United States were Liberal of some stripe throughout our existence as a sovereign nation. The Federalist v. Democratic-Republican issue was over how centralized our system was going to be. Whig v. Democrat was over a more refined Liberalism of the Whigs and a more populist Liberalism of the Democrats. Republican v. Democrat until the Progressive era was almost entirely a regional interest argument (North v. South). The Progressive era through the New Deal era was the transformation of a particular strand of Liberalism into a staunchly reformist and progressive version with the popularity of Evolution spreading such a notion, alongside eugenics.

The Progressive reformers finally won control over the Democratic Party under FDR causing much of the Classical Liberals to be left in the GOP camp. It was not until the 1960-80 period when the remaining force of Progressive Republicans and Classical Liberal Democrats jumped their respective ship. At the same time the Culture Wars began, which is where I believe the first true identification of a large amount of Americans as "Conservative" began. In a book I had read, by Murray Rothbard I believe, he stated the "Old Right" such as Robert A. Taft hated the term Conservative because it was equated with the British Tories whereas he believed all American politics, especially his own, was Liberal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm9ft5HXaUw

[The Mikado]

1930s are as good a point as any to point to as the transition.  Certainly the post WWII "liberals" suddenly had a belief in Keynes and that careful governmental technocratic intervention could lead to bigger booms and shallower busts, along with the idea that rights were things that categories of people had, not just individuals.