One thing, as an American, that I feel I have to mention is how often California is the target of scorn in our political campaigns because of its very tolerance and openness. Our Republicans (particularly those who are also members of the Religious Right) scorn the state, and urban San Francisco in particular, as hells-on-earth that the wicked (re: gay) will reshape good, honest small towns as.

It’s ironic, really. The Right Wing likes to denigrate those of us on the Left as America Haters, yet they build entire platforms on spitting the sort of vitriol that would make bin Laden grin at major United States cities. Not once will a Democrat or liberal hasten to chide a small town or rural America, but Republicans lob insults at California (Also Boston, Massachusetts, and Vermont) to gleeful, hate-filled hoops and hollers from their small-town audiences.

They talk about their acceptance of the so-called “homosexual agenda”, their radical ideas of church and state separation, that they murder fetuses and ban the Bible, and cast them as worse terrorists than Al-Qaeda and Saddam combined. And once they have spent their load, and the crowd has returned with their own orgiastic climax of loathing, they say that they are not the “America Haters” because that is not the REAL America. Not those cities, oh no, because their values do not, cannot, coalesce with the heartland.

It is a depressing sight for any progressive minded individual, no matter his or her sexual orientation. That we could be considered a first world country, with the sort of access to information that our ancestors only dreamed of, and yet shirk that in favor of remaining a bigoted, uneducated peoples.

It makes me glad that the American empire is crumbling. Not because I hate my country; but because I am frustrated with it. Whenever I see a news item like this, I weep for her ideals and hope against hope that perhaps a coming dark age brought on by our derision of knowledge and tolerance will humble us. And then, maybe, just maybe, we will collectively see the light.

In Europe Social Liberals largely believe in the redistribution of wealth by lowering the relative tax burden on the poor and increasing the relative tax burden on the rich.

The UK Liberal Democrats for example have recently approved a policy of slashing the basic rate of income tax by 4%, yet have sought to close loopholes in the tax and private pension system exploited by the super-rich. The policy is revenue neutral and the party do not believe is cutting funding to key public services.

By the definitions I’m familiar with both Social and Economic Liberals share similar values on personal and economic freedoms. The difference if any is on the level of freedom allowed to the market. Generally I consider myself a centrist on economic policy. Namely that the market shouldn’t be allowed to abuse its position, by forming controlling monopolies. But a free and fair market is preferable to one controlled by a nationalised government monopoly, which tend to be lazy, inefficient and singularly fail to produce or allow for any level of innovation.

My loathing of socialism stems from its “job for life culture” and market protectionism, if an industry is failing because its weak, then it should make way for stronger more innovative enterprise, not kept alive for the sake of its workers. In a free market there will always be better jobs.

Protectionism is also bad for consumers it means we pay a premium for buying from failing businesses. Subsidies except where used to reward good practices (EG: environmentalism) are a tax payer’s premium paid to protect failing or uncompetitive businesses.

I’ve yet to meet a social liberal who disagrees with me as my views on free and fair trade also support the case for international development and assist third world countries struggling to break into the major world economies which are both decidedly exploitative of third world countries and extremely protectionist of their own.

So I guess what I’m saying that social and economic liberalism are not incompatible, or mutually exclusive.

US “liberals” tend to believe in redistribution of wealth because the more fortunate have an obligation to take care of the less fortunate, and that the government should facilitate this process through taxation and welfare programs; hence some of the association with socialism. Whereas US “libertarians” believe that people can take care of themselves and each other without forceful interference from the government, and should be left alone to do as they please unless they infringe on the rights of someone else. L/libertarians hold a wide spectrum of specific ideals and values but at minimum tend to classify themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which seems to fit more closely with the UK’s definition of liberalism.

On topic, I’m glad that there are voices like yours to speak out for this. I don’t live in California, but I know many that do and intend to spread the word as much as possible; but beyond that, people need to hear that it’s not just California that feels this way. I live in Arizona, and we are facing a similar measure (Prop 102), which – in addition to being a hateful message in itself – is a waste of time, because Arizona already has state law that prevents same-sex marriage. The more voices we have to fight measures like these, the more people will listen (even if it’s eventually), and just because you don’t have a vote doesn’t mean you don’t have any power. Thank you for speaking up and speaking out.

But, true the blog is about bisexuality. However, making the distinction between liberalism and socialism is important if liberalism is to succeed as a political movement, just as its important to make the distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality, if bisexuality is to be accepted as a unique identity.

And as bisexuals I think we need liberalism and respect for individually to succeed if bisexuality is to stand any chance of obtaining wider acceptance in society. So bisexuality and liberalism are intrinsically linked, whether we care to discuss it or not.

Why make the distinction? 1) Well I’m a liberal and I don’t like to see socialists take credit for our progressive policies and 2) because there is a distinction. Socialism is characterised by shared ownership, collectivism, the homogeny of equal misery and the Nanny State.

In contrast liberalism is about personal freedom (including the freedom to make mistakes), individualism, equal rights, equal opportunities. Liberalism as a philosophy, reserves the rights to restrict the freedom of the individual only where allowing the individual to exercise such freedoms would impinge the rights of others.

It annoys me that in the US socialism and liberalism are continuously confused, even though they are ideologically opposed. This largely because conservatives in the US see to sully liberalism by associating it with socialism and by proxy with communism.

Bizarrely conservatism, with the exception of fiscal conservatism (aka economic liberalism or laissez faire economics) has more in common with socialism and communism than liberalism. As like the former, Conservatism seeks to impose a shared set of values and beliefs on a population which has the effect of repressing diversity. Something liberalism is ideologically bound to protect.

OK – I’m getting off my political soapbox now.

I think I’ll be blogging more on the issue of Gay marriage over the coming weeks. Its something which in view of the largely tolerant European position on this issue, I’ve rather neglected to cover.