Why did "liberal" become a curse word?

Your freedoms are their freedoms. I like to think of liberal as generous and peace loving. In order for us to keep all of our freedoms, we must allow freedom for all. Freedom for the liberal, conservative, poor, disenfranchised, uneducated, and capitalists. Is this even possible? Now that is liberal.

Yes, absolutely.

But maybe not the capitalists ;-)

:-) too inclusive?

Just a bit.

progressive was their original term.
the destruction of the word liberal was planned.. it is NLP
all it takes is repeating the word enough with a negative connotation before it becomes a negative word.. it helps to have the media in your pocket (while complainign they are all liberal) heck look at the word Gay, same sort of thing but its destruction was natural.

... because they are "liberal" with other people's money.

... because they are concerned with assuaging their feelings and not with actually accomplishing something good for the public.

I notice you are having much trouble with defining conservatives in your article - perhaps that is also the problem with the word "Liberal"; too many definitions.

For example: do all "Liberals" believe in abortion rights in the same way - a woman's right to choose, or is the technology there to - instead of aborting - transplant the fetus to a woman who wants that baby; and then who's priority comes first? Is this something that anyone else has a right to get involved in? More importantly; how do you define what the "Liberal" position is, and what the "conservative" position is (Libertarian conservatives should say that it is not government's job to get involved; social and religious conservatives already are involved; etc.)

You could say that "Liberal" became a dirty word because Liberals allowed it to; they allowed certain people to define it negatively and didn't contest it. You could easily blame the "Liberal" leaders of that day for not fighting back.

Well yes, sort of. They first cursed, corrupted the social, revolutionary liberals of the Enlightenment, and thus became class liberals, class apologists. Since they are all over the map, on corporate and imperial policies, witness the history of liberal class appeasers, the social liberals, or social libertarians reconstructed its macro theories, social values under Hegel and Marx, and became the socialists, real socialists, not social democrats, class appeasers, just as the Labor party and democrats have become today.

Class corrupts freedom...and class liberals participate in this process. Just look how much Liberalism has moved to the corporate imperial class centers, that justifies corporate fascism, the Patriot Act, the negation of civil law, and the Habeus Corpus, and serviel groveling as liberal warhawks, as Obama, has done. Yes they too hate our freedoms.

I have actually started conversations about taking this country back to it's roots of "individual liberty" and get a strong chorus of agreement. Delve into the specifics and I will start getting blank stares and even alarmed looks. Those conversations are fewer and fewer, as people try to avoid me.

You can see it, in their eyes and the way they talk..... "I will fight, to the death, for your rights, as long as it benefits me." Tthat might be acceptable, if the opinion were given with a long term view. Unfortunately, we live in an age of instant gratification, with no thought of what might be lurking in the future.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. - Benjamin Franklin

Fear is a strange thing.

July 3, 2008 — The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow. We are mindful of the recent tapes and propaganda messages allegedly from Al Qaeda regarding increased attacks. At this time there is no credible information warning of an imminent, specific threat to the homeland.

With the exception of the date, this has been on the DHS website for months. Imagine having a color coded system, starting 30 years ago.

Pre 9/11, it probably would have been green, based on the description of threat.
Post 9/11, it is considered "yellow". Somehow, that seems appropriate.

Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

gatorhater--

It's always amusing that the same people who absolutely scream that the ACLU is a dirty word (although there are some areas I do not at all agree with)these are the very same people who will BEG for help when they're in trouble. I don't think many are aware that this is truly one of the only if not the only organizations that still exist for the defense of an individual's rights. They only know that that's the organization that is seen as trying to take Christ out of Christmas and that's enough and the limit to what they know. If you know of another American organization that defends in additon to the ACLU I would like to know. I know that my neighbors have such a bad opinion of the ACLU that you can't even whisper it and they go NUTS!!! (Of course you can't say liberal either--lol)

Gatorhater - I have to take a few issues with what you said in comment 2

1) The Libertarian party came into being long before "Liberal" became a dirty word and had nothing to do with "Liberalism"; in fact it had to do with "conservatism" as Libertarians consider themselves to be the true conservatives

2) Homeowners Associations - many don't want to belong to one but it is a requirement as the "community" (i.e. the builder of the tract) built the houses and created the deeds with these C & C's (Covenants and conventions - strictly speaking, these parts of a deed can limit what you can do in your own home - including having magazines like Playboy, etc. in your own home - and what you must do - like maintaining your property in a certain manner, requiring a lawn of a certain square footage - and what you may not do - restricting what kind of trees you may have, banning pools, even banning drying your laundry outside)

Communism is an economic system, not a political system; perhaps you meant to say "Call an HOA, a dictatorship ... " as the dictator is often the builder or a small group

As far as the ACLU - each side often sees them as belonging to the other - the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of the American Nazi party, Oliver North (as his conviction was tainted by coerced testimony), Westboro Baptist Church and Shirley Phelps-Roper for their free speech rights when picketing outside of Veteran's funerals; yet conservative groups ignore these and other actions and label the organization as "Liberal", "Communist" and other tags for their support of abortion rights, equality of sexual orientation, the Separation of Church and State; etc. It was interesting when they recruited representative Tom Delay (R-TX) for his stands.

Eric, 1. The word "liberal" was used as a smear in the sixties. I lived it. The libertarian party was formed in the 70's. The concept of the word liberal being "dirty" can be traced to the 50's.

The phrase liberal and conservative have certainly transposed themselves in their meanings, if you think the Libertarian Party was formed by conservatives of the modern day type.

As for communism, you do not have individual property, therefore no individual property rights. HOA's are a big step in that direction.

the ACLU forgets that sometimes the minority can be wrong

I think the ACLU believes the minority has a right to be wrong. Correct me if I'm way off the mark here, but didn't the ACLU once defend the rights of the KKK? (Or was that just a bad dream I had?)

just another bunch of oxymoronic logic of the right, like american journalism is liberal, what a joke....but it's working for them, Biggest lie of all tax and spend is bull@!$%#,Repub. gets in office and borrows money from chinese to war and uses all of Clinton's surplus on giveing the top 1 percent a tax break, at least liberals want to spend money on things like road repair,where did your 1600 refund from bush come from, our road repair,but anyway the liberals spend on american people and repub's love to spend on compamies,tax break for companies,and unjustified war. when was the last republican pres. to actually make america some money? this century please.....fascism ...omg
another buzzwords to use when speaking of liberal ideas,actions speak louder than words here only hitler like followings is you the right ,following blindly like herd animals behind your party,America needs no more party's like this

Excellent!

to recap - (although it actually started in the late 70's in California and spread from there) it was a PR thing: Reagan (the Great Communicator) was able to label democrats as "tax and spend Liberals", a straw man. Democrats, especially Ted Kennedy as the leading liberal within the democratic party, should have but did not respond; which, as we now know, is bad PR. They left this unanswered and Reagan won.

The rest of what you said really is not true; the cold war wasn't an issue but the economy was. Our military was not in tatters (in fact we were selling of surplus equipment; RIF (reduction in force) was the buzzword in the military as was closing surplus military bases), welfare was not out of control, the economy's problem was not a mid east oil crisis but something that can not happen in free markets - stagflation: rising prices and falling sales.

Carter could not understand this or how to fix it, again because it is something that can't happen in a free market, free enterprise system (which should have triggered the obvious question: what then do we have) and Kennedy was running against him in the Democratic primaries. Add in the Iran hostage crisis, the taking of our diplomats, the ill advised and failed rescue attempt, and Carter looked inadequate while Reagan, with all the experience of an actor, looked presidential and had a great command of PR skills; blamed "Tax and Spend Liberals" for all evils.

The Media fawned over Reagan, ignoring such ridiculous comments as the well known "trees pollute" and others, Reagan won in a landslide.

Oh no. I have started a sort of pay it forward thing on my own that is exactly that. Things are bad when a do-gooder is demonized. And what about "bleeding heart liberal?" I actually want to be that. If you don't have compassion, then you're just a cold heartless stone.

Words like altruism and empathy are seldom heard any more.

It requires special achievements to attain the status of bleeding heart liberal, typically entailing several election cycles of homemade bumper stickers decrying successive Republican nominees, a subscription to The Nation for at least two managing editors, at least local media recognition of self-denial of food or hygiene in the name of a mammal other than man, and finally at least one tour as a van driver on election day for disenfranchised voters, as told as testimony by an oppressed segment of our population. Start by car-pooling to work in your SUV, the personal renewal from this event alone will inspire you to demand BBC from your cable provider.

Words like altruism and empathy are seldom heard any more.

Neither is solidarity and responsibility. I do hear from time to time that Americans are the world's most generous people. Who wants to dispute it! I haven't seen any stats to back up this claim.

Quiet you freethinker!

I believe it would.

I find this interesting because 35 years ago when I began paying attention to what was going on outside my narrow sphere I considered myself liberal in that I did not want government getting involved in day to day life. I believed in the Constitution in that there were certain rights granted to the government but these were very limited and that it enumerated very broad individual rights. I believed that all people deserved an equal opportunity to excel and that if they squandered that opportunity they must live with the consequences of their actions. I believed that everyone had the right to their own beliefs and to voice those beliefs regardless of whether I agreed with them. I chose to register as a Republican because they espoused those same values. It was the Republican party that pushed for and passed the Civil Rights Bill against strong Democratic opposition. It was the Republican party that supported the rights of individuals to be successful in their endeavors. Both very liberal ideas.

Imagine my confusion when I began paying attention to the labels of "Liberal" and "Conservative". It was like someone had flipped the definitions. Those who are labeled Liberal today wish to maintain the status quo. No new media, government in charge of everything, and no individualism. They choose to put people in groups by race, by sex, by ethnicity, or by social class. Those who are labeled Conservative believe in not grouping people but rather allowing each individual to achieve based on the effort they are willing to put forth. They believe that there is but one group and that is the group called Humans.

Today's conservative is more like the classic liberal while todays liberal is more like a combination of a socialist and a facist if that is posssible.

Your comment points out one thing -- that people who park themselves in one of the camps assign positive qualities to their own side and negative qualities te other.

Most people choose a political party or philosophy based on a few issues important to themselve. For the conservative / Republican camp today, that means more of a desire to judge other countries, to threaten with military force and to attack. It means a desire to spend less money for the common good -- things like parks, social services, sidewalks etc -- and more on themselves. It means to pick short-term gain. In business that means making more money by disregarding long-term damage to the environment, and by keeping the minimum wage blow a subsistence level in order that business owners have more money.

After choosing a party based on that party's choices for the issues, many party members then assign negative qualities to the other party. They don't care if what they assign is true. They do it to add support for their party. It's as old as politics itself.

For the sake of discussion, let's just say there are operatives in all the parties trying to alter their base. That with forethought they slowly alter the definitions.

Well, they're both true!

Liberals and conservatives are just two sides of the same coin, at least in terms of economic issues (including war). They're all capitalists, they just disagree about how much regulation is involved and how much help to give the people capitalism @!$%#s on. Liberals can, in good conscience, oppose the Iraq War while wanting to strengthen the military -- they're "anti-this-war," not "anti-war." Liberals can, in good conscience, oppose the complete disaster of modern health care while still advocating a market-based solution that will be equally catastrophic but cover more people in the calamity.

There are legitimate differences between liberals and conservatives on the role of government, and on tolerance for various social issues, but those differences are more or less token, and used to give the illusion of vigorous debate. If they just admitted, "Yeah, we're basically in favor of all the same stuff and quibble on the details," there would be room for alternatives, and they certainly don't want that to happen. The key to limiting debate is to make the margins as narrow as possible while making the differences within those margins as dichotomous as possible. That's liberalism and conservatism, barking between the narrow margins of capitalist American hegemony.

Capitalist American hegemony is the best thing to happen to the otherwise pathetic planet since the Renaissance

wbf--"Liberals are, as always, more taxes, more goverment, less personal responsibility. "

This rethoric above is why "Liberal" became a dirty word. Repeated over and over and over again, alot of citizens bought in to it. Tell someone you love them every single day, they will stat to believe you after a while. You see the problem with this kind of statement, although; half true. Is your left with nothing but gloom? For instance. Conservatives want more taxes, just in different ways. Federally they cut them, "states" make up the difference. By the way Liberals don't want a "WHOLE" lot more government? What Liberals do want is for the " Government" to be used in a different way. Take Health care, does anyone really thing, if some how they could come up with a way to provide health care, and make money on it, conservatives would not jump on the ban wagon? Of course they would, same as democrats. As for as "less personal responsibility" ? That is what a conservative says, when they run out of things to say.. Its like saying you should pull yourself up by the boot straps, GREAT PLAN!! Now please give me a pair of boots..

I find the whole debate somewhat amusing, since the differences between the two are more stylistic than anything.
To the extent that liberal has acquired a pejorative, it's only because we (the society as a whole) allowed the right wing to kidnap political discourse. That's actually the fault of liberals, who, in an admirable attempt at toleration, allowed that all views should be expressed. The right wing was thus never @!$%# slapped into submission and have now entrenched themselves with comic parodies of pundits like Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, and the other clowns.
Regrettably--I say regrettably because I would prefer there to be more--there seems to be only two schools of political thought in this country. One wants in your wallet; the other, in your bedroom. Which you embrace depends more upon which incurs your outrage. I prefer the former because they're already in my wallet, and never going to get out; they can at least stay the hell out of my bedroom.
Both sides claim they want lower taxes; they're both lying. The righties want to throw money at the pentagon for weapons systems that don't work; the left prefers social programs that don't work. They both claim they want less government; they're both lying. The right wants more eavesdropping; the left wants more employment quotas.
Need I go on with this? There's a point here, and it's this--why can't I have an actual choice here? Why not a third, fourth, fifth party? Why not something other than just liberal and conservative, with only slight variations in those flavors?

Good point, have you ever seen a movie called southland tales? It's about the end of the world and it makes fun of both left and right in the extremes,the rock and that chick from buffy the vampire hunter,what was her name,ughnnn...sarah someting anyway i enjoyed it and your post reminded me of it

Radical, Libertarian, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative... what's in a name? (your good article reflects the ideas and history of many groups and an interesting idea about fear of communicating our true selves.) The job description for citizen is... fill in the blanks- passionate for love of humanity, country, self... Words, definitions help us communicate, but then words and symbols can build for good or for evil. What is the goal? To life, liberty and the pursuit of individual and group, happiness, prosperity, and freedom or are those things reserved for a special few? Regretfully, names limit, peg, judge, and then the dialogs diminish. What does a healthy world community look like? What does productivity look like? Give me a passionate, visionary citizen ready to roll up their literal and figurative sleeves an equal opportunity citizen, a human rights for everybody kind of citizen. Names limit, regretfully, but unless we can gather our political strengths into a very large healthy political group we will have even less of a voice in the political process. How does the song go? only words, but words are all I have, so may our collective word power increase. Call me a &%@#% Liberal and let's keep the conversations alive.

lol i am gonna keep calling myself independant lol i enjoyed your post

Socrates1, so nice to give your myopic opinion. But who? History is clear. Any orwellian attempt to rewrite it is doomed to fail, unless all the History books are burned and America becomes a myth.

America was established as the world leader in the advancement of Democracy, not because of any superior Military, But because we fostered the Liberal idea that we can have a revolution every 4 years, change our leaders without firing a shot, and continue on to the betterment of all it's people, then made it work. Democracy spread by example, not force. Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, were some of the counter measures used to stop this world revolution. This is indicative of the subterfuge and turpitude that the Far-Right have used against Liberals since Joseph McCarthy.

As long as we maintain the "Balance of Government" between the three Branches of power [four if you count the free press, whose purpose is to watch the other three, being the eyes and ears of the people], a well educated population, and have meaningful and honest elections, the "vote" of the "People" who are the only true rulers and Sovereigns, (the main difference between Marxism and Democracy), Marxism or any form of it, can never take root here in America. It is also important to remember that No system of Government has ever existed, EVER, that was Marxist. Or has there been a Socialist, or Communist government. Anyone who knows dick about Marxism and history knows the "USSR" (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and "The People's Republic of China" were not run by Socialist, or Communist, NEVER, although they "called themselves this". They were, and in the case of China, Korea and Cuba still are, despotic tyrannies. Marxism and Socialism were, and are still "The carrot on a stick" used by Tyrants and egomaniacs to lure the people away from the promise of American style Democracy that was spreading across Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Now it is used to promote "Fear" of the "Leftist" and Marxist based philosophy. Used as a tool by the Far-Right to undermine that same Democracy. "Liberal" has been turned into a dirty word by the Right, and they have gone to such lenghts to advance their position as to distort and even undermine the Founding Principles of America. Being a liberal is not promoting change for the sake of change. Or is it promoting Socialism.

Anyone who claims otherwise is very ignorant of world politics, history, political science and the influence of American Democracy. So my advise. Stay away for wiki and go to the library or take some classes. Because it is an axiom that, Only the educated are free.
Epictetus So, explain away why Progressive/Liberal Democrats oppose the Far-Right and consider them borderline Fascist by saying they are "Leftist" when they are actually Red Blooded Americans, the Roots of Americans who follow the tenets that established America? This is an acusation coming form who? The obdurate quondam Far-Right who's rule has so screwed up this country over the past two terms that it will take decades to recover? Of course they will try avoid all responsibility and try to blame someone else...a further display of their veracity and character

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington, 1789

Actually many of the founding fathers did not believe in democracy, but rather a consitutional republic.

I want you to go to the dictionary and look up "Democracy" and "Republic".

The USA is a Democratic-Republic. The Democratic Party started out as being called, the Democratic Republican Party....

Democratic in the form of Local and State elections and government, from Dog Catcher to Federal elections of Congressmen and Senators in Washington, (Federal Elections are not Democratic.} Then a Republic of Free and Sovereign States, with their own State Constitutions. Every State is equally to all the others, regardless of it's size, wealth or populations, (this is why we have the Electoral College and different numbers of representatives, as an equalizer) and must honor the laws of the other States, as long as those laws adhere to the United States Constitution, "Federal Law". Any immigrant who applies for American citizenship, and has learned and passed the Citizens test knows this. Any student who did not sleep through his Civics class in the 5th grade should know this.

As the populatio grows, the "Representatives grow. "Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning." ~Benjamin Franklin "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington, 1789

"The advance of liberalism... [encourages] the hope that the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821.

what agenda does the right have? to bash so called liberals,cuz they seem to call anyone a liberal that doesnt want to follow their herd drive,Now the right likes to pretend it's about small government but it keeps picking and protecting bush and his policies,he has added more agencies,forced goverment wiretapping,which they used for political purposes,used our judical system to target democrats,when lawyers working for our gov, refused to go for it,they were fired,attorney general was never supposed to be a presidents political hitman,the right seems to be ok that the white house used the RNC server to pass "secret" emails,when caught the admin. is like, oh my bad we didnt realise that all white house correspondance must be accounted for,guess bush forgot all about nixon,and no we cant get those emails back,oooppss,and bush's crony's are above the law even when caught,scooter libby gets a parden from bush,Rove is still in contempt of not showing up to talk to congress yet again,Yet at same time karl rove is being qouted on fox and is actually showing up on t.v shows like wolf blitzer,why in the hell should anything he has to say be spread all over the networks when he is still above the law,sorry i went on and on,but my point is the right likes to pretend to it's supporters that it's small goverment but it's more like a fungus on a tree, it just seems to be small, when you see that little mushroom on the outside of a tree,inside the tree is infected and or rotten,at least the dem's have some variety in it's presidents,some good or bad but hearts in right place,like carter great guy,just too nice to be pres,and clinton proved you can actually run america and balence he budget,what does the right have??nixion?Regan?Bush sen.,Bush jr.powerhungrey war mongering cant balence a budget,and regan might have been something,i am not sure what though,he was a pretty good guy in his first term but he defintely was a diseased mental case for his 2nd term and had no right being pres.

Government has increased 60% since Bush. New security Agencies, Sky Marshals...ect..

...what agenda does the right have? to bash so called liberals,...

The Right take everything to the extreams, and love to call social services or public projects another step to marxism, And they undermine and hack away at the EPA, FDA, you name it,... education, Social Security, FEMA, every time they get into office. The Goal is to manage them into the ground, then come back latter and say " We tried that before and it didn't work, remember!" what happens when you put someone in charge of a project who was against it from the start? How can they even PRETEND to know how to make it work, when they never believed in ti in the first place.

But if you you see the extremes it leads to, Corporate Fasism...Have you ever worked for a company that was a Democracy? What form of Government would you call a Corporation or a Business? Dictatorships! Tyrannies? But we keep electing Businessmen iand number crunchers nto government expecting them to represent the people, not make us "Human Resources". and then we wonder why they whittle away our rights?

This is a country of laws, our best Presidents have been Lawyers.

The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building.

Benito Mussolini

Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal.

Benito Mussolini

So it's only fair, if you Take the right to it's ultimate conclusion...dystopia.

To start...

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

I don not wish to live in a Democratic Republic nor do I believe that that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Sorry, you should move. This is not the country for you, and we are not going to change it for you. But it is a Democratic Republic, and it is what the founders hoped it would be, Not perfect, but progressive, moving forward, getting better. As the people become more and more sophisticated/educated, they become more capable, read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance, the Magna Carta. The jefferson Letters, the Adams letters, James Madison, Thomas Payne, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin...

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence; as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our States, in a great one. 3. Under governments of force; as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem not clear in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that, enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too; the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

To paraphrase Jefferson...democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

Not true, he never said this, Hamilton did, he was a tory, a Federalist, a Monarchist the father of Conservatism. He was an aristocrat who thought the people were ignorante rabble.

Further we are ruled by law and the Consitution not simply majority rules, even through representation.

ahmm, read the preamble to the Constitution.

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

The word "preamble" is a legal term, and is the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification. The following is from a synopsis of the Preamble to the Constitution I received on my first day of class in Political Science, and I have used it as a guide for over 30 years. We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group - among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king - it was created by the people.

in Order to form a more perfect Union The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so - only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

provide for the common defence

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides - and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty - something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climatic, but it is important for a few reasons - it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here - not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That is it "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before - the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).

What does Liberalism stand for today and how do they intend to work towards that view?

Just what it has always stood for, find a dictionary used in the days of the founders, Noah Websters, Liberal means the same then as it did then. Jefferson was the Founding Father of the Democratic Party. American Liberalism is not the same as in Europe. As for the Liberials I know, this is what we stand for and promote.

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809. ME 16:359
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:135

"The first object of human association [is] the full improvement of their condition." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:444

"The happiness and prosperity of our citizens... is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

"The energies of the nation... shall be reserved for improvement of the condition of man, not wasted in his destruction." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248

"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his own will." --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:237

"The freedom and happiness of man... [are] the sole objects of all legitimate government." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810. ME 12:369

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"To preserve the peace of our fellow citizens, promote their prosperity and happiness, reunite opinion, cultivate a spirit of candor, moderation, charity and forbearance toward one another, are objects calling for the efforts and sacrifices of every good man and patriot. Our religion enjoins it; our happiness demands it; and no sacrifice is requisite but of passions hostile to both." --Thomas Jefferson: to Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

"All religions are equally independent here, our laws knowing no distinction of country, of classes among individuals and with nations, our [creed] is justice and reciprocity." --Thomas Jefferson to the Emperor of Morocco, 1803. ME 19:136

And

"A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792.

A better explanation of Liberalism, has never been written.

I find it really interesting that you prefer a democracy over the Constitutional system which we have now.

You are creating a chicken-and-egg situation here. The Constitution is there to protect democracy and democracy is there to protect the Constitution. If the Constitution failed to protect democracy, then it no longer serves a purpose. All democratic nations in the world except the USA get along without the US Constitution. Most are ruled by a prime minister in stead of an independently elected president.

Show me a democracy, of any size, which has withstood the test of time.

In historical terms, Democracy is not old, so I suppose none have truly "withstood the test of time". - but you will find very old democracies on Iceland and the Isle of Man. Rudimentary, to be sure, and without the profusion of institutions that we today see as an integral part of government.