"Liberal" in the US used to mean (and still does outside the US) someone with a "live and let live" mentality, where things/actions are generally allowed unless there is a very good reason for restricting them. "Classically liberal" is a better match for the term in modern US English. So things like decriminalizing drugs, allowing gay marriage, being pro-gun/self-defense as a human right, privacy as a human right, etc, all fall under "classically liberal". It might help to read the word "liberal" in a philosophical sense, where it means "liberally applying the idea of freedom for everyone, only restricting that freedom where absolutely necessary, where one persons freedom begins to infringe on the liberty of others".
Joe Rogan is an American commenting almost exclusively in the American political context. Referring to him as a liberal in this context is misleading, as the term here is almost exclusively understood to mean “center-left relative to American politics” and is almost never used in the economic or philosophical sense in mainstream political commentary.
I'm aware of who he is, and the context of "liberal" when referring to him and his views. I'm offering an explanation as to why someone might describe him as "liberal", because if anyone outside the US listened to his viewpoints they would describe him as "liberal". I'd be willing to bet that the original commenter is not American, and that's why they chose "liberal", not to be misleading, but because literally the entire rest of the world uses the word differently.
"USA: the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European and worldwide usage. In the United States today, it is most associated with the definition of modern liberalism, which is a combination of social liberalism, public welfare and a mixed economy,[12] which is in contrast to classical liberalism."
> because literally the entire rest of the world uses the word differently
This assumed cultural hegemony by some US citizens is frustrating as hell; they are incredibly quick to assume (or demand even) the rest of the world knows their cultural references/idioms/etc., yet make zero effort to discover what the rest of the world is doing. Unfortunately they are also loud and so it's easy to come to the false conclusion all US citizens are like that.
I'm a Brit, I would no think of Joe as a liberal, and I only read this thread as I was so shocked to hear he might be a left leaning commentator. Obviously reading this, he is not.
I'm also a Brit, and to be honest, the term "liberal" in a political context has lost all meaning for me since everyone seems to have their own definition of what it actually entails.
People usually call Rogan liberal because he occasionally showed(s?) some sympathy for the US left - like him inviting Bernie Sanders on during his primary campaign. I think this is far more likely than applying a non-US definition of liberalism to him - especially since many right-wingers the GGP is referring to are also liberal based on this other definition.
Yeah because many GOP members are liberals. The entire world has a definition for a word. Following that definition which has been the definition for many many years makes sense.
"Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.[10] Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, it was used under the name of economic liberalism. As a term, classical liberalism was applied in retronym to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[11] By modern standards, in the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, simple liberalism often means classical liberalism.[12][13]
...
In the United States, classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal". Despite this context, classical liberalism rejects conservatism's higher tolerance for protectionism and social liberalism's inclination for collective group rights, due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism.[14] Classical liberalism is also considered closely tied with right-libertarianism in the United States.[15] In Europe, liberalism, whether social (especially radical) or conservative, is classical liberalism in itself, so the term classical liberalism mainly refers to centre-right economic liberalism.[16]
"
"Liberal" in the US -> some social freedoms, but restricted in certain ways + economic restrictions.
"Liberal" outside the US -> social freedoms + economic freedoms.
I learned this as an American abroad when someone called me, who would generally be seen as conservative / libertarian in the US, "very liberal" when discussing gay rights (pro), gun rights / armed self-defense (pro), and abortion rights (pro-choice).
Again, it's just a fine point when discussing in an international context (like on HN). When speaking only with Americans, you'll never need this distinction, it's just good to be aware of it when discussing with non-Americans or when reading about foreign politics (e.g. FDP in Germany is a "liberal party" in the European sense of the word, but their policies are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If an American reads "liberal party", they would be surprised to learn that they campaign on cutting taxes, pro free market, privatization, etc., yet are also pro gay marriage and are for legalizing marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany...)
> me, who would generally be seen as conservative / libertarian in the US, "very liberal" when discussing gay rights (pro), gun rights / armed self-defense (pro), and abortion rights (pro-choice)
Supporting gay rights and being pro-choice is seen as conservative??
> only restricting that freedom where absolutely necessary
I used to believe this as well. I was thaught a lesson... In fact, now I understand that liberals, when given the power, will corrupt into totalitarism in a few months.
> liberals, when given the power, will corrupt into totalitarism in a few months.
Is your complaint an actual example of that? I've never actually heard the argument - I've heard "billionaires should not exist", but never "we should have a 100% tax on those making more than $100m", so I don't know if the claim you're making is as popular as you're making it out to be, nor do I believe is it an example of totalitarianism.
I also don't see actual examples of liberal governments doing that. People say lots of crazy stuff online, but "liberals say the darndest thing" is not the claim here.
> nor do I believe is it an example of totalitarianism
These conversations never go anywhere. The battlelines are already drawn. It just becomes a semantic debate around loosely defined terms like totalitarianism.
Agreed with you on "modern liberalism" devolving into totalitarianism. "Classical liberalism" doesn't allow for that though. In practice, I don't think anyone in the US follows the latter strictly enough for prevent the same decay anyway though.
You might find "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen interesting if you haven't read it already. He argues that modern liberalism is the inevitable successor to classical liberalism.
