October 30, 2004
WHERE WAS THIS GUY THE LAST FOUR DECADES?:
In defense of a liberal agenda (RONALD MEINARDUS,, 10/31/04, Japan Times)
Today, hardly another political term is as misapprehended and misrepresented as is "liberal." A case in point is the United States in the runup to the presidential elections. For partisan reasons, the Republicans and the so-called neoconservatives have gone on a rampage to discredit liberalism. If you listen to President George W. Bush's campaign speeches, you get the impression that "liberal" is a four-letter-word. [...]In historical terms, the great liberal achievements have been the spread of democracy, the establishment of the rule of law, the respect for human rights and the expansion of the market economy. Conceptually, these principles may be termed "intellectual property" of the liberal movement. Only recently have these principles been adopted by other political mainstreams -- such as the conservatives and, today, even the socialists. While the "liberalization" of these two traditionally antiliberal political ideologies is a positive development, it has also caused ideological confusion.
In the U.S., liberalism-bashing by the conservatives has become so powerful that some liberals have changed their identity and prefer to be called "libertarians." This said, it may be instructive to go back to the roots and discuss the substance of what constitutes a liberal agenda of government.
Conservatives lost the battle for the word liberal forty years ago. When the Left won it the term did become a dirty word, because it no longer had anything to do with liberty. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 30, 2004 10:08 PM
This story is no surprise when you recall that, to a Marxist, truth means less than nothing, and the people who call themselvesd "liberals" are, for the most part, Marxists.
Remember how the "liberals" tried to call the Communists in the FORMER SOVIET UNION (love it!!) "Conservatives" because their old buddies were trying to "conserve" Communist rule? How they got to call themselves "liberals" went something like this: in the 19 Century, Liberals, real liberals who valued liberty, were for change. In the 20th Century, the Marxists wanted to repeal liberty, and to change back to absolutism. But they're for change, like the 19th Century Liberals were for change, so that makes them "liberals" now. Get it?
Posted by: lou Gots at October 30, 2004 10:20 PMFrom the article, "In the U.S., liberalism-bashing by the conservatives has become so powerful that some liberals have changed their identity and prefer to be called "libertarians."
WTF?
Posted by: craigl at October 30, 2004 10:41 PMFritz Stern, an otherwise brilliant historian, headed a group which took out an ad in the Times around the time of the Bush/Dukakis race about the use of the term 'liberal.' He tried to peddle this snake oil then, and it didn't sell. What would make the obviously brain-dead Mr. Meinardus think it would sell now.
Posted by: Bart at October 31, 2004 6:41 AMBart,
I have to bite on this one:-), I am not familiar with the Fritz Stern sponsored ad but how does the article reflect a snake oil sale? The author doesn't seem very controversial or off base to me other than a few sentences where he trips over big goverment. He basically lays out a libertarian agenda and even OJ seems to like what he says. Myabe I missed your point on him being brain dead (or I could be brain dead)
Thanks - Perry
Posted by: Perry at October 31, 2004 7:32 AMAlso, the loss of this word to the Left is not just a one-off--they'll always try to appropriate words that denote advocacy of freedom because they know that sells in America. Cf. Noam Chomsky calling himself--get this--a "libertarian socialist." Priceless. As someone, I think Hayek, once said, the Left's attempts to steal freedom's name is a "supreme but unintended compliment."
Posted by: Tom at October 31, 2004 8:12 AMHe is equating modern liberalism as exemplified by Kerry, Dukakis, et al, with the European liberal tradition of Mill, Clemenceau, Gladstone, etc. To do so requires a remarkable level of denseness. These individuals were equivalent to the modern 'socially liberal' GOP, people like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, believers in small government and one that does not intrude on people's private space.
Posted by: Bart at October 31, 2004 9:39 AM"Communists are liberals in a hurry". Eleanore Roosevelt.
Somewhere along the way liberalism became confused with utopianism. The two could not be more different, of course. Classical liberalism as embodied by the founders did become a bit old fashioned and quaint by the early part of the 20th century while most of the hubris and idiocy of that century's progressives can be directly traced to the arrogant rejection of real liberalism for it's more abstract and fuzzy-headed reformulation as statist elitism. Pride surely goes before the fall.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at October 31, 2004 10:23 AMQ: What's the difference between a liberal and a communist?
A; There's a difference?
Posted by: Ken at October 31, 2004 11:31 PM