Moreover, his biggest personal cause is gay rights and legalizing gay marriage. He has virulently attacked everything we’ve done in the war on terror, not just in regard to torture (although I’m certain he will ease up now that his man is the one in charge).

Here is what I consider to be important parts of liberalism:
1. Focus on individual liberty, with an understanding that society as a whole has effects upon the freedom of individuals
2. Argument from reason and logic with a healthy respect for ability and intelligence.
3. Limited governmental powers, especially in the regulation of morality and police powers.
4. Legal tolerance for other viewpoints and speech.
5. Mistrust of appeals to faith and authority.
6. Support for basic services for citizens.
7. Reluctance towards the use of force outside of defensive situations.

Claudia: I know that liberals often do this too and I’ve written about it. Particularly on the case of Joe Lieberman.

Michael: I was thinking after I wrote my post last night. There were bunch of conservatives angry with Bush, from the far-right (angry with his support of the bailouts) to the moderates (angry on terms of the handling of the Iraq War, like Chuck Hagel). The again, they are American conservatives, so maybe the criteria is different there.

Which got me to thinking. I think Sully has been in the U.S. for about 20 years or so. Maybe he’s no longer a European conservative but some flavor of an American one. He supports the Ron Paul philosophy, after all. Though he’s not nearly as rabid as most of his supporters (well, usually).

That said, I have never supported some of his attitudes, particularly during his Palin Derangement Syndrome period (which hasn’t really ended but just slowed down).

We can read. Ok, that just means we are capable of humor.

We are not dogmatic. The fervor of the religious right can only be matched by the people at DailyKos and HuffPo. I would also point out that you can be pro-traditional marriage and anti-abortion and still not oppress gays or women.

We are practical. For example, I have zero confidence the progressive tax system actually works. Our tax code is, by and large, a tome of donation fueled exceptions.

We understand there is a root commonality between liberal and libertarian. This does not only reflects a stand on a particular issue but allows for differences in viewpoints. We liberals think political variety is a good thing that should be preserved.

I am sure there are many other differences between liberals and progressives and would like to see others list theirs.

I would argue though that these standards are hurting the fiscally conservative but socially liberal (or libertarian) more. I’ve never seen Huckabee or anyone who was populist in economic issues but a bona-fide member of the Religious Right (pro-life, anti-gay, anti-secular) described as a liberal. But I have seen people who were fiscally conservative but pro-choice, pro-marriage equality etc. described as liberals. Though this article seems to imply that you have to be both socially and fiscally conservative, I think that social conservatism has dominated the political identity.

This is not entirely the fault of conservatives naturally. The liberal side has a mirror-image of the same issue. You can be for progressive taxation, large social programs, universal health-care, conservationism, the whole nine-yards. But if you are all that and anti-gay and pro-life you will not be welcome, generally speaking.

I’m wondering, because over here we typically separate the policies you support and the attitude you take. You can be liberal in policies, but take a conservative approach to things. The two often do go together, but not always.

As a European conservative I can speak quite easily about Andrew; what he is, where he stands, etc. He was a conservative, but he has become anything but; his approach, his support for Obama – a European conservative cannot support Obama; he’s way too progressive – his complete ignoring of conservative principles because he was angry with Bush… If he would have applied the principles he seemingly still believes in, yes, but he stopped applying them years ago.