it really depends on how you are using the term. In the American political/vernacular context it means something completely different than its historical and ideological definition. In the United States it really comes down to social liberalism, vs. conservatism which comes down to social conservatism. Its useful for the American political context since there really is no large, unified left-wing movement that can push an economically left agenda, so most political battles are over social values, as seen in the current culture wars divisions. However, it really serves to mystify the meanings of words, as leftists constantly complain about - everyone on the left is not a "liberal" in the United States.
But liberals and conservatives are all ideologically liberals. Liberalism really at its most basic is a belief in private property (note this is different from personal property). Compare this with socialism, which at its most basic is social ownership of the means of production. Look at Bernie Sanders, probably the furthest left popular politicians the United States has seen in years: He called himself a socialist, maybe to differentiate himself from the other candidates, or maybe to pre-empt being attacked on the grounds of "hE's A sOciAliSt!" (as you can see even Biden, one of the most right-wing Democratic Party politicians, is being attacked in this way also). Who knows. But many on the left rightly pointed out Bernie isn't a socialist, since (at least in his campaign promises) he did not seek to fundamentally change the regime of private property but merely redistribute wealth and combat its worst excesses. Which, as a progressive position, could be based on a Marxian critique of capitalism, but is not actually socialism or Marxism since property, and capital, is left in the hands of the wealthy.
If you go back to Rousseau, Kant and many of the Enlightenment authors, you'll find a general opposition to democracy. This is because to have a true democracy, one had to give power to those who own no property - note that non-propertied white men could not vote until 1828 in the United States. Liberalism is a belief in the supremacy of private property - how could you allow landless people to take part in a political system that is essentially about protecting private property?
it really depends on how you are using the term. In the American political/vernacular context it means something completely different than its historical and ideological definition. In the United States it really comes down to social liberalism, vs. conservatism which comes down to social conservatism. Its useful for the American political context since there really is no large, unified left-wing movement that can push an economically left agenda, so most political battles are over social values, as seen in the current culture wars divisions. However, it really serves to mystify the meanings of words, as leftists constantly complain about - everyone on the left is not a "liberal" in the United States.
But liberals and conservatives are all ideologically liberals. Liberalism really at its most basic is a belief in private property (note this is different from personal property). Compare this with socialism, which at its most basic is social ownership of the means of production. Look at Bernie Sanders, probably the furthest left popular politicians the United States has seen in years: He called himself a socialist, maybe to differentiate himself from the other candidates, or maybe to pre-empt being attacked on the grounds of "hE's A sOciAliSt!" (as you can see even Biden, one of the most right-wing Democratic Party politicians, is being attacked in this way also). Who knows. But many on the left rightly pointed out Bernie isn't a socialist, since (at least in his campaign promises) he did not seek to fundamentally change the regime of private property but merely redistribute wealth and combat its worst excesses. Which, as a progressive position, could be based on a Marxian critique of capitalism, but is not actually socialism or Marxism since property, and capital, is left in the hands of the wealthy.
If you go back to Rousseau, Kant and many of the Enlightenment authors, you'll find a general opposition to democracy. This is because to have a true democracy, one had to give power to those who own no property - note that non-propertied white men could not vote until 1828 in the United States. Liberalism is a belief in the supremacy of private property - how could you allow landless people to take part in a political system that is essentially about protecting private property?