Liberals of Atlas, what type are You?

[OneJ]

Inspired by the recent "staunch Liberal" thread, what type of Liberal you are classified as or think you are?

[Crumpets]

Somewhere between options one and two. I think the distinction is more one of tactics than of policy. Voted option one, since I'm a Clintonite.

[Goldwater]

I could be considered liberal, depending on who you ask and how you define the term, and I voted option 3.

[NeverAgain]

"Progressive who gets things done", so I guess Moderate Liberal

[Green Line]

Classical Liberal

[Intell]

Socialist, of the social democrat varierty, with some socially moralistic tendencies.

[Frodo]

I am best described as a moderate/pragmatic liberal -and I am sure most here would agree with that.  

[Maxwell]

Moderate Left, but I'm starting to side with the Far Left in terms of the direction of the party.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

fiscally conservative but socially liberal

[JA]

Progressive/Far Left, obviously. But I think this dichotomy ignores important distinctions, such as how many Moderates (such as Southern Gothic) would abhor and be abhorred by many other Moderates, while liking and being liked by many of us on the Far-Left.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Moderate left, though I have positions from all three groups.

[Mr. Smith]

My views mostly oppose Barry Goldwater than anything else.

Where do you place his kind of conservatism is precisely where my liberalism opposes him.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Frustrated leftist who thinks that most political solutions to things are either exhausted or unviable.  If forced to pick, progressive.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess ideologically I would still call myself a social democrat (though more in a "can't see any alternative" way than with the enthusiasm I once had). That said, I'm trying to take a step back from ideology and focus on the moral foundations to political action for a little while.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I guess ideologically I would still call myself a social democrat (though more in a "can't see any alternative" way than with the enthusiasm I once had). That said, I'm trying to take a step back from ideology and focus on the moral foundations to political action for a little while.

Could you explain the difference between the two in your eyes?

[Kingpoleon]

I am best described as a moderate/pragmatic liberal -and I am sure most here would agree with that.  

You are a double PP liberal - Pragmatic but Partisan.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Mixed bag. On some topics I'm to the right of most liberals, on some topics I'm well to the left, and on some I'm right with most liberals. Can't identify as either, but I guess moderate fits me more.

[Cynthia]

Establishment-supporting progressive.

[Person Man]

Somewhere between options one and two. I think the distinction is more one of tactics than of policy. Voted option one, since I'm a Clintonite.

Same but I felt the Bern but based mostly on what has happened happening...that the election would become about shadiness and paradoxically the shadiest candidate would win.

[White Trash]

Is it possible to be a mix of options two and three?

[Deblano]

If I was forced to be a Democrat, I'd identify as a Blue Dog/Conservative Democrat.

[Xing]

Progressive for sure.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess ideologically I would still call myself a social democrat (though more in a "can't see any alternative" way than with the enthusiasm I once had). That said, I'm trying to take a step back from ideology and focus on the moral foundations to political action for a little while.

Could you explain the difference between the two in your eyes?

Well, the latter is what provides the basis for the former. An ideology associates certain ethical principles to an analysis of the concrete reality that produces a coherent, far-reaching project aimed at altering said reality in some way. So, a well-thought-out ideology requires sound ethical principles first and foremost. That's why I'm trying to go back to that, asking basic questions like "what is the purpose of a political community?", "what forms of authority are legitimate?" or "what does the State owe its citizens, and what do citizens owe the State?". I'm working on the material analysis too, of course, through my research. When I'll judge that I've been far enough into both tasks, I'll trying to bring the two together into an ideology again.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Progressive/Left, the term "far left" is so absurdly overused.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess ideologically I would still call myself a social democrat (though more in a "can't see any alternative" way than with the enthusiasm I once had). That said, I'm trying to take a step back from ideology and focus on the moral foundations to political action for a little while.

Could you explain the difference between the two in your eyes?

Well, the latter is what provides the basis for the former. An ideology associates certain ethical principles to an analysis of the concrete reality that produces a coherent, far-reaching project aimed at altering said reality in some way. So, a well-thought-out ideology requires sound ethical principles first and foremost. That's why I'm trying to go back to that, asking basic questions like "what is the purpose of a political community?", "what forms of authority are legitimate?" or "what does the State owe its citizens, and what do citizens owe the State?". I'm working on the material analysis too, of course, through my research. When I'll judge that I've been far enough into both tasks, I'll trying to bring the two together into an ideology again.

I think you might come to the conclusion that the current government is way too big, and it's in all the wrong places. At least that's the conclusion I came too.

I thankfully moved past the mistake of considering the "size" of government as being a meaningful political question years ago.

That it's in all the wrong places, I definitely agree.