I think liberal has become a messy word. I prefer 'progressive.'

On a side note, I hate the word socialist. Stop saying you're a socialist and say that you're progressive. Get rid of the "loaded" words so we can make progress.

Liberal all the way. Raised that way, never heard an argument to make me feel any differently. Conservatives HATE change. That is the reason they are lousy at governance. They are always looking to the past and trying to drag the rest of us with them.

Your question is so wide open that there is no way that I can respond to it.

I'm pretty liberal. I believe in diversity, inclusion, LGBTQ rights, and social justice.

I'm definitely a Progressive living in a Red State. Healthcare for all, and I honestly don't understand how the USA can call itself the richest country in the world and have homeless people, people with food insecurity, and people dying of TREATABLE medical conditions.

I have them. They're disliked by those without them. I find if the government is for the people, then the people should be foremost on their agenda. If the government is supposed to be by the people, our government fails to represent the will of the people. I guess that makes me a liberal.

Does 'liberal' in this context mean the American Democrat progressive left? Or a free market individualist ideology?
I do not think of myself as a liberal, personally, because while I believe in socially progressive ideals, I do not think certain ideas about free-speech, freedom-of-the-market, freedom-of-choice and civil rights hold much meaning in the context that most of us experience them. I don't believe in Civil Rights very much, because who gives us these rights? God certainly doesn't give them to us, so it must be the State who gives us these rights.
But what giveth the State the authority to give or take away rights as the State should choose? Democracy? We know politicians can be bought, so what does democracy even mean if the elected representatives can't be trusted?
The will of the people? I'm not certain I can convince my friends to come to my house for dinner, let alone the will of the people directing an entire nation.
The mere existence of the State? Does the State, simply by virtue of having access to the workings of politics derive it's own auto-existence? Does a monopoly on violence, on energy production, on legislature or any number of other things allow the State to gain a meaningful existence?

I am a pinko bleeding heart liberal with a strong hippie background.

I see that you are a 'newbie'...glad you are here!

I'm all in favor of them.