• Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?