If they are donating to Conservatives then they are no more liberal than Joe Manchin is Democrat.
Calling themselves liberal doesn’t make it true. It’s the actions that decide what group they fall into.
Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business “opportunity” and order over everything else whenever they’re in conflict.
That and it’s common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they’ll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn’t apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn’t something I’m familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The Hewlett Foundation did not reply, either, though the group has explained its donations online, stating that American Compass is “working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry,” eschewing “growth for its own sake” in favor of “widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions.”
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
In a statement for the Omidyar Network Foundation, a spokesperson told The Daily Beast, “We would encourage you to reach out to American Compass directly for comment on the pro-worker elements they were able to advocate for related to Project 2025.” The spokesperson did not reply to follow-ups seeking specific comment on American Compass’ affiliation with anti-democratic groups and ideologies that appear at odds with Omidyar’s historical support for inclusive global development.
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can’t seem to glean, these organizations weren’t able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn’t make sense with their other donations.
These foundations are the personal foundations for the seriously wealthy owners of the associated corporations.
They know exactly what they’re supporting.
“economically conservative” is not a real thing. There is economic orthodoxy, and there is not. Modern economics no longer has schools of thought as distinct, competing identities.
Who told you that nonsense? Like every other thing in existence, there’s ABSOLUTELY different schools of thought when it comes to economics.
I don’t know if you have no clue about economics, what most of the descriptive words you used mean or neither.
I’m guessing it’s neither and for a bonus guess, I’m gonna say that you probably think crypto currency is going to save the world 🙄
My friend who is an economist, when I asked him about economic schools of thought
There are no longer schools of thought (e.g. “Austrian school economist”). Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe economics.
If you don’t know things, maybe just ask questions.
Like many economists, your friend is full of shit.
It sounds like he’s probably a Keynesian who thinks that it’s the one true economics and as a result every other school of thought is illegitimate fringe economics.
Sounds like something a Keynesian or one of those Austrian School nutjobs would do.
As a side note, “Their debates have been settled. Now there is simply orthodoxy and fringe” absolutely takes the 2023 Dunning Kruger Award and would have regardless of which field you were talking about.
“this literal economist says my beliefs are fringe so clearly he’s full of shit”
Lmao dude you can just be fringe it’s ok
First of all, being a literal economist doesn’t preclude him from being a literal idiot talking out his ass.
For example, Milton Friedman is a Nobel price winning economist and has been so wrong so many times that he’s probably caused more deaths and economic destruction than most wars.
Ironically, dividing all schools of thought with regards of one of the most hotly debated subjects in the history of humanity into only orthodoxy and fringe is the kind of thing that would be the fringe of the fringe within RELIGION, let alone any academic subject.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
This organization calling itself liberal is acting in the best interest of conservatives by donating to them. So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
A liberal is not necessarily a leftist. I’d comfortably say the liberal Democrats are not at all leftist
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
Never said that. I’m saying that they’re much more similar than many people think, which is true.
So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
That’s part of what I’m saying: neoliberalism IS economically conservative, so the “conservative or liberal” is mostly only a question of degrees rather than two opposite poles when it comes to economical issues.
It makes PERFECT sense when it comes to social issues, though.
Sounds too similar to a both sides are the same argument
Because you’re not paying attention to me specifically saying that they’re NOT the same.
Some issues ≠ everything.
No, because you’re going through a lot of effort to draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context. Which is an article headline calling a group liberal because they donated to both liberal campaigns *and conservative campaigns. When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
you’re going through a lot of effort
Because you’re bending over backwards to dismiss my original simple statement as something it never was so that it’s easier to dismiss as ridiculous falsehood. It’s called a strawman and it’s common amongst those who can’t defend their claims honestly.
draw similarities between the two that are unrelated to the context.
The context is an article about specific neoliberal institutions being economically conservative and people being surprised about that. Pointing out that the same is true of neoliberalism in general is hardly unrelated.
When in reality they aren’t liberal or conservative just because of who they donated to.
And there you go again, pretending that there’s no overlap 🤦
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.
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
In right wing American press, liberal means left. In left wing American press liberal means centrist.
The problem is that the right wing press has a monopoly in the states, and that’s most of what you see here.
Hopefully we are able to entertain several different ideas in our minds at once. You make a valid point, but I think the comment above you is spot on as well and in fact I welcome it as being a little more well thought out than the cheap and superficial sloganeering that’s so typical on Lemmy.
I too ignore the definitions of words whenever corporate media tells me something different! It’s never failed me before!
“Mission accomplished”, I always say (when I’ve just started something!
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?
Maybe they’re “cLaSSiCaL LiBeRaLs”
Although, there is a school of thought that Biden’s best chance for a second term is getting to run against Trump in the general. Hating Trump is great for turn out on the left.
Except that’s probably not true.
Trump’s cult is absolutely fanatical and falsely believe they’re saving the world by supporting their messiah. Nobody except the most ardent party soldiers with no ideological core is that excited about Biden.
Besides, a few tens of thousands TOTAL in swing states was the REAL difference between victory and defeat for Biden in 2020 just like it was for Trump in 2016. Biden actually lost the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did. More in raw numbers, sure, but a smaller percentage of total votes cast.
Add in the fact that voters statistically have ridiculously short memories, making “I’m not the other guy” MUCH less effective for an incumbent than a challenger, as well as not having fully kept most of the more progressive promises, you’d have to be an absolute fool to think that it’s not a risky strategy.
Don’t get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY would rather Biden win than any of the fascists likely to run on the other tickets, which is why I’m so worried about the prospect of him employing such a risky strategy.
Even if it is some 5D chess move (which doesn’t make sense since it can lead to conservatives winning), it’s still not something an organization that acts in line with liberal belief’s, would do.
It’s literally exactly what the DNC does. You can’t just ignore it and pretend they don’t try to boost far right republicans. Unless you’re saying democrats aren’t liberal, which would be ridiculous
No, this is exactly what liberalism is all about. The DNC supported Trump because they thought he would be more likely to lose, a tactic I think they’ve done before and I know they’ve done since
No, that has nothing to do with liberalism. It’s politicking.
You really haven’t been paying attention to liberals the past decade have you?
firstly, you’re batshit insane.
Secondly, even if for a second I was to humor your insanity, I said “liberalism” not “liberals”, which by your mental retardation means liberals don’t follow liberalism, but again - you’re insane. Also, you don’t know what liberalism is, or what liberals are or do. You suck on Fox news’ teat, slurping down that delicious Russian propaganda like the mindless drone you are.
Lastly - yes, I have.
What does the DNC have to do with this article? Or did you not read it?
He’s responding to your comment, not to the author of the article.
He’s an idiot though, so don’t put too much effort in.
The DNC is liberal, and liberals support fascists they think they can win against
The article claims the organization is liberal because they donated to a couple charities. How does that make them liberal? Especially if they also donate to conservative campaigns.
You heard it first here, people! 🤡
Neo-liberals are conservatives.
Hillary Clinton is very much not a conservative lol
You are lying. Her policies are in alignment with the definition of conservative by more than 30 of the the globe’s 40 developed nations. Most of her fiscal policies are aligned with Reagan’s.
The Overton window in the U.S. has shifted so far right, that anyone slightly left of fascist is considered a “liberal” by conservatives.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Never, ever trust the word of a conservative. Never.
Clinton proposed to raise taxes on the rich 5 different ways. Reagan cut taxes on the rich.
It’s incredible how effective the anti Clinton propaganda still is
Anyone slightly left of fascist is a liberal.
Lol Hillary Clinton was the first major candidate to push health care reform.
Then when she was running against Bernie, she claimed he was proposing unicorns and rainbows for daring to ask for single payer.
Yep, and she also had to adopt Bernie’s entire rhetorical platform verbatim by the second debate because she was getting absolutely murdered in the polls.
It was great when she asked “Where was Bernie when I was fighting for this” and they found a picture of him standing right behind her at a press conference in the 90s.
Trump also ran on healthcare reform. So, what’s your point?
He called it “Repeal and Replace”. He swore he would put “the greatest health care system ever” in place. Just like every other conservative, he lied. He did nothing.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Lol leftists are crazy man
Once again, George Carlin - The Big Club
(NSFW - language)
Carlin is the best that ever was, and possibly the best that ever will be.
I don’t like selling the future short, but you may be right.
Carlin was the best that ever had been.
And yeah, it may be one of the best forever and ever.
Death didn’t stop him from being the best, so present tense is correct.
Concur. My words were not flippantly chosen.
And we ain’t in it.
deleted by creator
What makes something a “liberal org”?
Just because an organization donates to NPR doesn’t mean it’s a “liberal org” lol
Hot take:
This is the problem with the public not knowing what liberal means, or having some nebulous understanding that basically means “Democrat”
It comes also from the word’s meaning shifting over time. I stopped calling myself liberal and started calling myself leftist. It slaps harder and lets people know where I stand.
Oh, so you think capitalism should be abolished?
Yes
I’m talking to the liberal seeking minority status, bro
Did I say that? I think we should change our system to be more equitable.
I find that people who ask that question don’t want to discuss alternatives in a constructive way.
So you’re a typical liberal who both doesn’t like being called liberal, because the mean old Republicans keep using it as an insult, and doesn’t know what the terms mean, having mostly arrived at your the political beliefs by being born in a liberal society and going with the flow.
A leftist is a socialist. Even under American terminology. You are a lefty under American standards, but that’s just not the same thing.
Came here to say this.
When you look at American politics from Europe, you only see two sides: Nazis and Nazis. Word “liberal” doesn’t mean anything in US.
That’s sad to hear. I have heard that our left wing politics are pretty much on the same spectrum as European right wing politics. That makes our right wing politics way farther right… Basically fascists / Nazis, which makes sense considering the insurrection and the fact that Donald Trump may get elected again 🤮🤮🤮
Edit: I probably look like a communist compared to the right wing here in USA.
You do not because there’s a term for this:
The US is more progressive than the EU on several issues though.
Like? Asking as an American
LGBT rights, cannabis legalization, and certain disability rights are the big ones. Particularly the last one IMO - Europe is not great about having wheelchair ramps.
Overall I agree that the EU does tend to be more politically progressive, but the idea that it is a complete wash in either direction is pretty misleading.
I keep saying this to my friends but no one believes me. We talk about moving out of the country to look for a better place, but as a queer person there’s really no place better than the US and that’s saying something. It’s not even good here but it’s better than most places.
I’m afraid you’re under some serious misconceptions. Both my kids are trans, so this is something near to my heart. The US doesn’t even get listed in the top 10.
I’m trans too, but my experiences in other countries did not leave me with a good taste in my mouth. Maybe I just didn’t find the right circles, but people here are a lot more “live your life” than in certain other places. The nail that sticks out will be hammered down, and all.
That’s not to say the us is good for trans people, it’s not. Where did you/your kids have good experiences?
I have no clue what rights LGBT people want, but cannabis is legal in many EU countries, and even if it’s illegal then usually selling and growing is illegal while consumption is ok. Not sure about disability rights as well, but we usually have free medicine here, so I’m not sure what you mean at all. Ramps might be as common as in the US, but you can usually arrange an assistant who will either push you to your destination and even drive you around for free. I also know a few Americans who moved to the UK specifically because they can’t afford treatment for chronic diseases and will die in the US.
The personal foundations for the owners of the Omidyar Group and Hewlett Packard. (Commonly referred to as HP).
Yup totally not rich people bullshit.
Can we stop being surprised the wealthy back fascists?
If there’s nobody fashionable doing anything right, then there’s nobody to follow who’s doing anything right. Therefore the whole world is gearing up for the apocalypse instead of bothering to take the simple steps that would prevent it. We get Elon Musk instead of another Tesla, who died penniless and robbed of his legacy. The apocalypse becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The world gets worse because no one is trying to make it better.
A world populated by nothing more than gorillas is a waste.
What do you mean no one is trying to make it better?
You’re guilty of what you’re accusing others of.
Elon Musk has virtually no influence on your life other than being a famous person.
Why don’t you start following the Nobel Prize winners? Why don’t you start following the people who are actively involved in politics or humanitarian projects?
You sit there and judge the world and the people in it becuse you are too lazy to actually move your head away from the trough of social media.
You think anything is going to stop the masses from indulging in convenience, instant gratification, and dopamine rushes when there’s no incentive in their eyes to do anything else? Who do you think are behind the companies which promote such behavior for their own gains? It’s working as designed and the average person cannot get their heads around it long enough to care.
“what can I do?”
Hopefully the strikes and protests around wages become more frequent. The only place to fight the greedy is by affecting their profit margins.
Yeah, these orgs fund both sides so they have a say no matter what side is in power.
The surprise.
I doubt I can burn them to the FUCKING ground on my own, but every day I start to wonder more and more if the cost of my personal freedom is a worthy price to pay to purge these aristocratic scum from our country…
world
They do this everywhere.
The Hewlett Foundation lists the grants they’ve given to American Compass, they list all their grants.
https://hewlett.org/grants/?keyword=American compass&sort=relevance¤t_page=1
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.
Wow I’m so surprised -_-
That was basically my reaction.
So, we know which groups can’t be trusted with donations.
And if we’re looking to sow discord among Republicans, we know which recipient to repeatedly out as filthy RINOs who are beholden to librul donors.
Not for nothing, but these “groups” are really just oligarchs with too much money. They fund things to buy influence. One of them is the guy who founded eBay. He doesn’t give a shit who is in the White House as long as they take his phone calls.
Oligarchs with too much money
Modern day aristocracy.
the french had the right idea.
we need some fucking guillotines up in here.
They forget that an egalitarian society is the alternative to violence.
Not surprised that rich people support other rich people
What’s max headroom got to do with it.
deleted by creator
What is this, a gif for ants?
To the surprise of absolutely nobody who’s not been uncritically supporting a private corporation masquerading as a public political party 🙄
The lesser evil is BY DEFINITION STILL EVIL.
Not sure how you’re attempting to tie this to Dems in general.
It’s specific organizations that often support sane (and left) causes also supporting Trump.
Naming those orgs is valuable reporting. Trying to tie it to Dems in general is weird.
Just because the article is focusing on specific orgs doesn’t mean that it’s not a systemic issue. Just like there being articles about specific cops being abusive doesn’t mean there isn’t a systemic problem.
Hey look, another thing liberals will completely ignore while whining that anyone who doesn’t VBNMH is a horrible person
anyone who doesn’t VBNMH is a horrible person
If they vote for Trump or RFK Jr., they are, in fact, a horrible person.
Good thing you don’t have to vote for either
With the pretty much two parties system the US has this is easy to happen.
You currently have a side that has profitted from your back, is being judged for it after getting kicked out, and is trying now to return and profit for even more personal gain disregarding what you want and need. Are you really sure you want to vote someone that has been shown to have no problem with commiting treason to his own country?
That is the current logic behind the no matter what. In the US you actually have a candidate that shouldn’t run for president of any country.
deleted by creator
