Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business “opportunity” and order over everything else whenever they’re in conflict.
That and it’s common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they’ll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn’t apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn’t something I’m familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The Hewlett Foundation did not reply, either, though the group has explained its donations online, stating that American Compass is “working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry,” eschewing “growth for its own sake” in favor of “widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions.”
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
In a statement for the Omidyar Network Foundation, a spokesperson told The Daily Beast, “We would encourage you to reach out to American Compass directly for comment on the pro-worker elements they were able to advocate for related to Project 2025.” The spokesperson did not reply to follow-ups seeking specific comment on American Compass’ affiliation with anti-democratic groups and ideologies that appear at odds with Omidyar’s historical support for inclusive global development.
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can’t seem to glean, these organizations weren’t able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn’t make sense with their other donations.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
This organization calling itself liberal is acting in the best interest of conservatives by donating to them. So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
Never said that. I’m saying that they’re much more similar than many people think, which is true.
So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
That’s part of what I’m saying: neoliberalism IS economically conservative, so the “conservative or liberal” is mostly only a question of degrees rather than two opposite poles when it comes to economical issues.
It makes PERFECT sense when it comes to social issues, though.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
“economically conservative” is not a real thing. There is economic orthodoxy, and there is not. Modern economics no longer has schools of thought as distinct, competing identities.
My friend who is an economist, when I asked him about economic schools of thought
There are no longer schools of thought (e.g. “Austrian school economist”). Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe economics.
If you don’t know things, maybe just ask questions.
Like many economists, your friend is full of shit.
It sounds like he’s probably a Keynesian who thinks that it’s the one true economics and as a result every other school of thought is illegitimate fringe economics.
Sounds like something a Keynesian or one of those Austrian School nutjobs would do.
As a side note, “Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe” absolutely takes the 2023 Dunning Kruger Award and would have regardless of which field you were talking about.
First of all, being a literal economist doesn’t preclude him from being a literal idiot talking out his ass.
For example, Milton Friedman is a Nobel price winning economist and has been so wrong so many times that he’s probably caused more deaths and economic destruction than most wars.
Ironically, dividing all schools of thought with regards of one of the most hotly debated subjects in the history of humanity into only orthodoxy and fringe is the kind of thing that would be the fringe of the fringe within RELIGION, let alone any academic subject.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn’t the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That’s not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what’s most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It’s far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
Hopefully we are able to entertain several different ideas in our minds at once. You make a valid point, but I think the comment above you is spot on as well and in fact I welcome it as being a little more well thought out than the cheap and superficial sloganeering that’s so typical on Lemmy.
The article is claiming that an organization that is donating to conservatives is liberal.
Why do they claim this organization is liberal?
According to the article:
“Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.”
It’s because this organization donated to a couple charities.
How does that make them liberal?
Answer: it doesn’t
So why is this article making that claim? What motives could they have to do that?
Although, there is a school of thought that Biden’s best chance for a second term is getting to run against Trump in the general. Hating Trump is great for turn out on the left.
Trump’s cult is absolutely fanatical and falsely believe they’re saving the world by supporting their messiah. Nobody except the most ardent party soldiers with no ideological core is that excited about Biden.
Besides, a few tens of thousands TOTAL in swing states was the REAL difference between victory and defeat for Biden in 2020 just like it was for Trump in 2016. Biden actually lost the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did. More in raw numbers, sure, but a smaller percentage of total votes cast.
Add in the fact that voters statistically have ridiculously short memories, making “I’m not the other guy” MUCH less effective for an incumbent than a challenger, as well as not having fully kept most of the more progressive promises, you’d have to be an absolute fool to think that it’s not a risky strategy.
Don’t get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY would rather Biden win than any of the fascists likely to run on the other tickets, which is why I’m so worried about the prospect of him employing such a risky strategy.
Even if it is some 5D chess move (which doesn’t make sense since it can lead to conservatives winning), it’s still not something an organization that acts in line with liberal belief’s, would do.
It’s literally exactly what the DNC does. You can’t just ignore it and pretend they don’t try to boost far right republicans. Unless you’re saying democrats aren’t liberal, which would be ridiculous
No, this is exactly what liberalism is all about. The DNC supported Trump because they thought he would be more likely to lose, a tactic I think they’ve done before and I know they’ve done since
The article claims the organization is liberal because they donated to a couple charities. How does that make them liberal? Especially if they also donate to conservative campaigns.
If they are donating to Conservatives then they are no more liberal than Joe Manchin is Democrat.
Calling themselves liberal doesn’t make it true. It’s the actions that decide what group they fall into.
Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business “opportunity” and order over everything else whenever they’re in conflict.
That and it’s common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they’ll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn’t apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn’t something I’m familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can’t seem to glean, these organizations weren’t able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn’t make sense with their other donations.
These foundations are the personal foundations for the seriously wealthy owners of the associated corporations.
They know exactly what they’re supporting.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
This organization calling itself liberal is acting in the best interest of conservatives by donating to them. So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
A liberal is not necessarily a leftist. I’d comfortably say the liberal Democrats are not at all leftist
Never said that. I’m saying that they’re much more similar than many people think, which is true.
That’s part of what I’m saying: neoliberalism IS economically conservative, so the “conservative or liberal” is mostly only a question of degrees rather than two opposite poles when it comes to economical issues.
It makes PERFECT sense when it comes to social issues, though.
Sounds too similar to a both sides are the same argument
Because you’re not paying attention to me specifically saying that they’re NOT the same.
Some issues ≠ everything.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
lib·er·al·ism /ˈlib(ə)rəˌliz(ə)m/ See definitions in: All Theology Politics noun 1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
If them donating to conservatives does not meet the definition above then they are literally not a liberal organization. I can’t explain it any simpler for you.
“economically conservative” is not a real thing. There is economic orthodoxy, and there is not. Modern economics no longer has schools of thought as distinct, competing identities.
Who told you that nonsense? Like every other thing in existence, there’s ABSOLUTELY different schools of thought when it comes to economics.
I don’t know if you have no clue about economics, what most of the descriptive words you used mean or neither.
I’m guessing it’s neither and for a bonus guess, I’m gonna say that you probably think crypto currency is going to save the world 🙄
My friend who is an economist, when I asked him about economic schools of thought
There are no longer schools of thought (e.g. “Austrian school economist”). Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe economics.
If you don’t know things, maybe just ask questions.
Like many economists, your friend is full of shit.
It sounds like he’s probably a Keynesian who thinks that it’s the one true economics and as a result every other school of thought is illegitimate fringe economics.
Sounds like something a Keynesian or one of those Austrian School nutjobs would do.
As a side note, “Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe” absolutely takes the 2023 Dunning Kruger Award and would have regardless of which field you were talking about.
“this literal economist says my beliefs are fringe so clearly he’s full of shit”
Lmao dude you can just be fringe it’s ok
First of all, being a literal economist doesn’t preclude him from being a literal idiot talking out his ass.
For example, Milton Friedman is a Nobel price winning economist and has been so wrong so many times that he’s probably caused more deaths and economic destruction than most wars.
Ironically, dividing all schools of thought with regards of one of the most hotly debated subjects in the history of humanity into only orthodoxy and fringe is the kind of thing that would be the fringe of the fringe within RELIGION, let alone any academic subject.
Sorry communism isn’t taken seriously by serious economists. I know that hurts.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn’t the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That’s not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what’s most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It’s far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
Hopefully we are able to entertain several different ideas in our minds at once. You make a valid point, but I think the comment above you is spot on as well and in fact I welcome it as being a little more well thought out than the cheap and superficial sloganeering that’s so typical on Lemmy.
In right wing American press, liberal means left. In left wing American press liberal means centrist.
The problem is that the right wing press has a monopoly in the states, and that’s most of what you see here.
Liberals are not necessarily leftists. In the US they seem to express right-leaning opinions and policy pretty frequently.
I too ignore the definitions of words whenever corporate media tells me something different! It’s never failed me before!
“Mission accomplished”, I always say (when I’ve just started something!
The article is claiming that an organization that is donating to conservatives is liberal.
Why do they claim this organization is liberal?
According to the article:
“Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.”
It’s because this organization donated to a couple charities.
How does that make them liberal? Answer: it doesn’t
So why is this article making that claim? What motives could they have to do that?
Maybe they’re “cLaSSiCaL LiBeRaLs”
Although, there is a school of thought that Biden’s best chance for a second term is getting to run against Trump in the general. Hating Trump is great for turn out on the left.
Except that’s probably not true.
Trump’s cult is absolutely fanatical and falsely believe they’re saving the world by supporting their messiah. Nobody except the most ardent party soldiers with no ideological core is that excited about Biden.
Besides, a few tens of thousands TOTAL in swing states was the REAL difference between victory and defeat for Biden in 2020 just like it was for Trump in 2016. Biden actually lost the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did. More in raw numbers, sure, but a smaller percentage of total votes cast.
Add in the fact that voters statistically have ridiculously short memories, making “I’m not the other guy” MUCH less effective for an incumbent than a challenger, as well as not having fully kept most of the more progressive promises, you’d have to be an absolute fool to think that it’s not a risky strategy.
Don’t get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY would rather Biden win than any of the fascists likely to run on the other tickets, which is why I’m so worried about the prospect of him employing such a risky strategy.
Even if it is some 5D chess move (which doesn’t make sense since it can lead to conservatives winning), it’s still not something an organization that acts in line with liberal belief’s, would do.
It’s literally exactly what the DNC does. You can’t just ignore it and pretend they don’t try to boost far right republicans. Unless you’re saying democrats aren’t liberal, which would be ridiculous
No, this is exactly what liberalism is all about. The DNC supported Trump because they thought he would be more likely to lose, a tactic I think they’ve done before and I know they’ve done since
Removed by mod
You really haven’t been paying attention to liberals the past decade have you?
Removed by mod
What does the DNC have to do with this article? Or did you not read it?
Removed by mod
The DNC is liberal, and liberals support fascists they think they can win against
The article claims the organization is liberal because they donated to a couple charities. How does that make them liberal? Especially if they also donate to conservative campaigns.
Removed by mod