A liberal vs. a liberal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaylee

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,749
Location
The Last Homely House
Found this last night in my reading, and I thought y'all would like it. Source is "The Commanding Heights" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw. Thanks to the TFLer who posted a link to the PBS version of this book!


In the United States, liberalism means the embrace of an activist, interventionist government, expanding its involvment and responsibility in the economy. In the rest of the world, liberalism means almost exactly the opposite -- what an American liberal would, in fact, describe as conservatism. This kind of liberalism supports a reduced role for the state, the maximization of individual liberty, economic freedom and reliance on the market, and decentralized decision making. It has its intellectual roots in such thinkers as John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. It emphasizes the importance of property rights and sees government's role as the facilitation and adjudication of civil society.

++++++++++

(footnote)
How was the meaning of the word altered so dramatically in the United States? During the First World War, some of the leading Progressive writers began to use the word liberalism as a substitute for progressivism, which had become tarnished by its association with thier fallen hero, Theodore Roosevelt, who had run and lost on a Progressive third-party ticket. Traditional liberals were not happy to see their label transformed. In the 1920s, the New York Times criticised "the expropriation of the time-honored word 'liberal' " and argued that "the Radical-Red school of thought... hand back the word 'liberal' to its original owners." During the early 1930's, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt duked it out as to who was the true liberal. Roosevelt won, adopting the term to ward off accusations of being left-wing. He could declare that liberalism was "plain English for a changed concept of the duty and responsibility of government toward economic life." And since the New Deal, liberalism in the United States has been indentified with an expansion of government's role in the economy.


Wow... guess their tendency for redefining things to mean whatever they want 'em to mean ain't a new game. "Radical Red"... I like that. :D

Guess this means I can tell daddy I'm a liberal after all. (sig line notwithstanding). :p

-K
 
Great find!

:D

I like confusing them by saying I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative. :)
 
I would say that "liberal" in today's newspeak parlance would be ones who feed off the bottom, but then I would not want to offend any catfish or carp who might be reading this! :cool:
 
In the 1920s, the New York Times criticised "the expropriation of the time-honored word 'liberal' " and argued that "the Radical-Red school of thought... hand back the word 'liberal' to its original owners."

Can anybody even imagine the New York Times making such an argument today?
 
That is why I still call myself a liberal. I'm not a Democrat, nor a socialist. The modern Democratic party should just change their name to the Socialist Workers Party and just be honest about it.
 
To me, being a liberal today means having an overflow of generic compassion and searching for a cause du jour to apply it to. I think they care less about the cause and more about appearing emblazened with compassion for the well being of the little people.

I like the old version of liberal better. Keeps it real.

-Shalako
 
"Classical Liberal" refers to those whose political philosophy predates the usurpation of the term "Liberal" by the Socialists.

I prefer to speak of "Classical Liberals" and "Modern American Liberals".

I've noticed that some MALs are trying to disguise Socialism-oriented ideas by now calling them "Progressive".

Nuthin' like a dictionary written in pencil...

Art
 
I feel stupid even pointing this out, but -

Not all socialists are cowards - ask George Orwell, who fought against fascism in Spain. He took a bullet to the neck for his pains. Plenty of other examples abound.

A political philosophy has pretty much no bearing on one's cowardice or bravery.
 
There is two kinda cowardice, as I see it. Physical cowardice = being afraid to fight. Moral cowardice = being afraid to stand up and be counted, whatever the cause. The two are not necessarily related, ie, all moral cowards are not physical cowards, etc. Dums/socialists/MALs are moral cowards, imho.
 
Not having my source material nearby I will have to keep this somewhat vague....

Burke, on writing his Reflections on the Revolution in France began the redefining of the word liberal in the 1780's. In France he would call every group that tried to change the current form of government liberal. To the "status quo" party he would give various epithaths including Royalist, Old Guard, and Conservative. Burke also used the term conservative to refer to any party that looked to religion to answer social problems. While his book is an interesting view it can be confusing as the same major players move from being "liberal" to conservative based on whether they are in power or not. Burke did not approve of the French Revolution though he had approved of the American Revolution

To Burke, governments were conservative if they maintained the status quo and a strong church prescense in governing, and liberal if the sought to change the system (either way).

Starts to get confusing after a while. Remeber news reports from the Soviet Union where the conservatives wanted stronger Communism and the liberals wanted more freedom?

GinSlinger
 
BigG,

I still don't get it. Plenty of socialists (I dont know what a MAL or dum is) stood up to be counted when the time came. Socialism was a fairly significant social force at one time in the US. And when they had to back their words with action, many shipped off with the Lincoln Brigades to fight Franco.

If they were cowards then no one is anything but.

Today, the word socialism is just something that can be thrown at anyone who wants universal healthcare, or low-income housing. But, really, almost no one is a true socialist in the strict sense, since we pretty much agree that it has never worked. So no one is going to stand up and say 'Yeah, I am a socialist over here'. Some people just want the government to do more, some want it to do less, but you will have a hard time finding anyone who wants to nationalize all industry, just like you will have a hard time finding anyone who wants to eliminate all federal responsibilities (like the military, interstate roads, border patrol, etc).

So everyone is somewhere in the middle. Calling people cowards who happen to disagree with your specific position seems pretty knee-jerk to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top