Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Personally, I never have felt comfortable applying the term liberal to the political left. I associate the term liberal with the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. While classical liberals held such values as respecting individual freedom and protecting basic civil rights, they also were advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government intervention. As such, I do not agree with the author’s supposition that modern progressivism is heir to classical liberalism. Ayn Rand and Milton Freidman considered themselves classical liberals, and I certainly do not associate either with the political left.
I confess that I don't have a stake in the debate about whether the American left should call themselves liberal or progressive. However, I hate to see the progressive movement, a diverse and complicated movement, identified entirely with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. Many participants in the progressive movement were enthno-nationalists, but many were not. Jane Addams was a progressive and a tireless campaigner on behalf of civil liberties and immigrant rights. Addams was an important and popular political figure, who advocated principles that are important to the contemporary American left.
Additionally, Addams and other progressives helped make the New Deal possible - many prominent New Dealers actually were affiliated with Hull House and other Progressive organizations. At the same time, Progressives like Dewey, Addams and Croly produced a far more sophisticated political philosophy than any of the new dealers ever did. The progressives were a diverse group and they were not perfect; however, on the whole, they provide a more fruitful intellectual resource for contemporary leftists.
Liberal was, in fact, the word used to describe what our founding fathers were. It was a liberal idea to put the power in the people's hands and let people live their own lives.
In the first half of the 20th century, it was used to mean the opposite ... to put the power back in the State's hands. These self-described liberals (well first it was Progressive, and when people saw through that they changed it to Liberal, and then people saw through that and they changed it back to Progressive ... and now that that brand name is tainted apparently they're considering going back to "Liberal".)
I am an originalist, which should make me a classical Liberal. But these days holding those opinions on things means I'm a Conservative.
Frankly, I don't care. Y'all call it whatever you want. Until you change what you want the "new" word to actually mean, it's still big-government socialism and social engineering. No thanks.
some time ago that I would not let the conservative venom-spewers control the language of public discourse (therefore win the debate) by proclaiming proudly; "Yes, I'm a wine-sipping, tree-hugging California Liberal, DEAL WITH IT!"
John Stuart Mill, father of liberalism, based his political philosophy on the premise that all had equal access to opportunity and freedom, which obviously isn't true. He didn't like socialism because he disliked anything he deemed as dogmatic. He fled from utilitarianism (a sort of hard-line common sense) for the same reason.
Sounds like a liberal to me.
The party on the right in Canada began life as the Tory party. Then it was renamed the Conservative party. Then it was renamed the Progressive Conservative party. Then it merged with the Reform party and the result was the Alliance party. This then went back to being called the Conservative party. Go figure.
Then you're not a liberal. You're an authoritarian.
Cowardice and hypocrisy has dogged the ethic for the duration of my lifetime, at least in the form it is practiced politically.
I don't think progressive is a better word, but some people have adopted the word because they do not want to be associated with the endless capitulations represented by 'libersalism'.
According to my dictionary liberal means 1. generous 2. plentiful, abundant 3. broadminded: not narrow in one's ideas 4. favorable to progress and reforms. 5. a political party that favors progress and reforms. Conservative means 1. inclined to keep things as they are 2. cautious 3. a political party which opposes change 4. a member of a conservative party 5. a person opposed to change.
It is hard for me to understand how conservative commentators have managed to make "liberal" a dirty word over the past thirty years. I have always been proud to be a liberal.
I know it's a term that has little history in the US, but with the Repubs throwing "socialist" around at every opportunity, it seems clear that such terms are going to enter the lexicon one way or another.
Unlike "liberal", "progressive" or even "conservative", "social democrat" has a reasonably clear meaning, combining a commitment to personal and political freedom with support for the welfare state and publicly provided services, along with a commitment to government intervention to stabilise the economy. That covers most of the connotations of "liberal" and "progressive" that appeal to supporters of the Democratic Party, without the baggage.
I am a liberal. My brother is a progessive. I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean that literally.
There is a meaningful difference between a liberal and progressive, one that people on the left -- especially the further left -- can agree upon, and one that Mr. Lind did not acknowledge.
There is something rather elitist about liberals/liberalism. They believe that they know what should be done. Of course, they want it done in the interests of the poor, of minorities, of the powerless. But they propose (demand?) the solutions.
Progressives, on the other hand, have quite a different view. Their goal is empowerment, so that the poor, minorities and powerless can make their decisions. They don't want the elite liberals to make decisions for the powerless, the want the powerless to have the authority to make their own decisions.
My brother is calling for a greater change than I am. He is calling for a restructing of power dynamics. I am calling for better (and perhaps more) programs. I am calling for the smarted and educated people -- unfortunately, not coming from the powerless classes often enough -- to make decisions, even though that is condescending. He is calling for those folks to stop thinking that they know what the powerless need.
I think that his goals are too ambitious to be achieved in the short or medium term, and that he discounts exerptise and intelligence too much. He thinks that I am missing the big picture and therefore ignoring the fundamental problems. I think that he is being naive, and he thinks the same of me.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
