Probably worth mentioning that Manchin is one of the most conservative Democratic senators before people start flaming him as a liberal bent on destroying freedom.
Note that Chuck Schumer, who National Journal says* was the most liberal senator in 2013 (well, it was a three-way tie) also has signed letters with Manchin to DOJ complaining that Bitcoin is "untraceable" and demanding a crackdown on Silk Road.
Can the most liberal senator be flamed as one? Or is that label never to be used in polite discourse? :)
The labels aren't nearly as important as understanding that he is part of a power structure that is bent on preventing any sort of challenge to the government's monopoly on currency regulation.
Asking as a non-American, why would someone characterized as "liberal" do this? It seems to me like this is a very thoroughly conservative move and well in line with conservative and reactionary thinking.
Or have the definitions of the words liberal and conservative been swapped recently? A lot of the comments in this thread indicate that this may indeed be the case.
Perhaps a better way to think about this is: pro-stasis and anti-stasis mentality?
Remember that liberals, who in theory are in favor of progress, were behind the Clipper Chip (Bill Clinton's first major tech initiative), banning "indecency" online (Dem. Sen. James Exon, signed by Clinton), banning linking to drug-related web sites (Dem. Sen. Dianne Feinstein), drafting key portions of the Patriot Act (Clinton admin, late 1999s), introducing key portions of the Patriot Act in September 2000 (Dem. Sen. Patrick Leahy), etc.
I can create a similar list for pro-stasis Republicans. Stasis-ism is orthogonal to major party affiliation. Small l-libertarians, on the other hand, tend to be uniformly anti-stasis. :)
Indeed, US "liberal" and "conservative" have little to do with their other meanings. If you trace the history back on the terms you can find where they diverged, and there's some traces of connection, but for the most part you're better off taking them as "just variables" that happen to have leading names. I've also observed that the connection to their usage in other countries/polities are unreliable guides as well.
I mean, here in the EU being conservative means wanting to literally conserve established power structures, with a big emphasis on religious and social rigidity or even regression. It means having the desire to pass laws that benefit powerful centralized interests and marginalize minorities such as poor people or those deemed ethnically inferior. This is absolutely the direction where draconian and arcane laws come from.
Along those lines, I always took "liberal" to mean literally being of a laissez-faire attitude, being secular or at least open to science and advancement, big on personal freedoms and individuality but also often paired with an egalitarian desire for social justice.
I can't shake off the feeling that these words have been redefined in recent discourse in an attempt to prevent people from having a meaningful discussion about issues.
"But the basis is still in there somewhere, right?"
Only historically. US Liberalism, being the dominant political ideology in the US (despite its occasional protests to the contrary) is actually often quite conservative today, trying to preserve its changes from being undone (be that by literally being rolled back, or by being modified into something a liberal doesn't want). However noble or terrible that desire may be, it slots into the "conservative" side of the original meanings. US Conservatism is often about tearing those down and replacing it with something else, and while some of that may be modeled with a "return" to an older status quo (be it fictional or based in reality), a lot of it isn't; what's the historically "conservative" answer about internet issues, for instance? Both ideologies are rather strong on the control and quick to reach for the stick of regulation when in power, albeit for different things, but at the moment it's Liberalism that I'd associate with a huge, huge belief in regulations, and while conservatism is not "laissez-faire", the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the conservative side when forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism in the US at least tolerates the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism at this point openly mocks it.
Thanks for elaborating by the way, this explains a lot of the dissonance I (subjectively) see daily on HN.
However, this is not totally in sync with how those sides are presented to the public, or the international public in any case. When I turn on Fox News, for example, the ideas there are absolutely what I would identify as conservative. Supporting legislative and social measures that disadvantage gay and poor people, for example. Espousing religion over science. How could such an agenda be considered liberal, especially since they themselves use the word "liberal" as a swear word? This looks perfectly conservative to me, and I'm still really confused because you described these people as functionally liberal.
> what's the historically "conservative" answer about internet issues, for instance?
I'm trying not to refer to American conservatism, but to the concept in its original meaning when I say this:
The internet is new and potentially dangerous to traditional values, so one would expect the attitude towards it to be very negative. That's the default conservative stance, right, to keep the social status quo or regress it where possible.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon that threatens to change society, it's a level playing field where ordinary people get access to untold quantities of information practically without oversight. If I had to speculate on a default conservative stance to it, without any prior knowledge, I'd wager they'd be trying to outlaw the free aspects of the internet, ridicule its potential, and generally try to convert it so it can serve traditional power structures. And, now looking at what's happening in real life, that somewhat naive expectation turns out to be a pretty good description of what's actually going on.
> the laissez-faire amongst us generally end up on the conservative side when forced to choose sides on the grounds that conservatism in the US at least tolerates the ideas of laissez-faire, whereas liberalism at this point openly mocks it
Can you give an example where that's happening? Looking in from the outside it seems that US conservatives are the driving force behind a lot of legislation with the explicit goal of limiting freedoms and social stability. Granted, both sides seem to agree on much of the more egregious stuff like mass surveillance and terrorism theater - but from where I stand at least I don't see liberals trying to legislate against gay people. It also looks to me like it's the American conservatives who are more in favor of expanding already sweeping police powers.
I mean, sure, in the end it doesn't matter that much to foreigners like me. But it's still puzzling.
"However, this is not totally in sync with how those sides are presented to the public, or the international public in any case."
The difference is that I look to actions, not words. There's no evidence based on actions that US liberals have a problem with strong police powers; they talk about how bad it is, but monotonically increase the powers, then use them. Conservatives in the US may occasionally grumble about gay people, but they take no action whatsoever to do anything about it, except in very small jurisdictions. The press plays these issues up because it helps the narrative, but they are not a significant force. There is absolutely 0 chance of any sort of "anti-gay" legislation passing through any element of our government right now, and this will most certainly include whoever is elected in a few years.
Since US liberalism controls the US media, and broadly speaking fairly leftist elements control the international media as well, you do not tend to get a straight view of what conservatives are and are up to. Mind you, I'm not saying you're going to like them if you really knew, but it's a very distorted view that you get. In particular, the media carefully seals away anything like a reasonable argument for their positions, and makes sure to play up only dumb ones. For that matter, it is true that it is also a distorted view of US liberalism that you get; you get a lot of the high rhetoric reported, but good luck hearing about their actual actions. (Seriously; watch the news. How much of it is dedicated to politicians just spewing their lines, and how much of it is dedicated to an in-depth report of what's actually happening in the field where the policies are being implemented? You may be shocked.)
Anyhow, yes, I am reporter on the field with my own slant, but one advantage of not really fitting onto the left/right Republican/Democrat axis is that I get a bit of a clearer view from not having a strong allegiance to either side and psychologically needing to defend "my team". US "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" have shifted a lot from the core meaning of the term. (Indeed, there's a thing called a "Classical Liberal", if you look it up, and that puts you firmly on the US Conservative side. Should have used that example earlier.)
People usually assume that only liberals espouse any form of regulation. The truth is that conservatives do too. It just depends on who they're regulating. (Liberals want to regulate Wall Street and the environment. Conservatives want to regulate gays and vaginas, or anything that threatens wealthy people.)
It is true that some liberals have come out against Bitcoin on the grounds that it could disrupt the effectiveness of monetary policy. And of course, "liberals" in Congress - especially Senators - are typically in the pocket of wealthy people who dislike Bitcoin.
