Read other letters about this article

• Friday, November 21, 2008 11:12 AM

  Prog v. Lib

  All right, the problem with progressive is that it doesn't mean much of anything. Almost everybody's for "progress". Mussolini thought he was progressive.

  But there is a problem with liberal and that is that it means too much. It started out with a very definite political philosophy which you can read about in Locke and the Declaration of Independence. Today, liberals, by and large, don't believe in that stuff much any more, except as a sort of religious ideal. They are precisely into the sort of Bismarckian ideal Wilson was on about, of a highly centralized state with a place for everyone and everyone in his place. Hence the ardent belief that moving one's medical insurance from an enormous, indifferent, inefficient capitalist bureaucracy to an enormous, indifferent, inefficient Federal bureaucracy is of critical importance. They honestly believe, as does Michael Lind, that a centralized Welfare system -- actually, a centralized Welfare-warfare-workfare system -- does not impinge on the freedom and autonomy of the people. They take the example of the New Orleans disaster, a poster child for anarchy and local initiative, and turn it on its head into a object lesson for more of the same distant Federal bureaucracy that magnified the disaster in the first place. And don't let me get started about the Bailout.

  All of this is pretty much the opposite of what the original liberals thought and said, so I think you all should stick with progressive. It's just punishment for your political sins. Or how about "monarchist"?

  —Anarcissie Read Anarcissie's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel