- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The article neglexcts the history of the term "liberal" in political history.
Liberals opposed government efforts to aid workers and the poor. Labor parties arose in the 19th century in response to the deplorable conditions of the working class. Liberals opposed all efforts to respond. Conservatives, e.g., in Bismarck's Germany, led in the provision of government benefits such as old age pensions, to counter the growing tide of socialism among the workers.
Liberalism historically stood for freedom (of merhents, mostly) from government control of commerce and trade. The idea extended to freedom from government control of private activities of citizens. But it is crucial to remember that until the mid 19th century only a small fraction of national residents enjoyed basic citizenship rights such as the right to vote. Liberals as the defenders of property, largely opposed the extension of the franchise.
In the 20th century some political thinkers, including John Dewey, called for a new kind of liberalism that shed its affiliation with property and applied scientific thinking and planning to social problems. This was not liberalism per se, but a "new" or redefined liberalism.
In the politics of some of our mid 20th century political leaders like Hubert Humphrey this notion of liberalism took hold. But the very use of terms like "classical liberalism" and "neo-liberalism" show that the older sense still prevails.
The rsult is that the term today stands for both an old idea and its opposite. It is no longer useful as a meaningful term of politics.
"Progressive" has its own problems, of course. But it stands in today as a way of distinguishing social liberalism from anti-social liberalism.
Perhaps what is needed is a new political vocabulary capable of making the distinctions we need to make in response to today's problems.
