Tuesday, November 10, 2015

True Liberals...

...are now conservatives and libertarians.  Progressives are too totalitarian to warrant the "liber" label.  That's why I've tried to start referring to whom many still refer to as "liberals" simply as "leftists."  There is still ambiguity with the term but not as much.

The left is the side of brainless emotion.   Here too is a reminder of how Democrats can easily turn out the youth vote with appeal to pity, anger, and the like.  The left owns the youth as they own the poor--two of the most susceptible groups to being politically herded by emotional appeal.


  1. Agreed. In the UK, at least, "Liberal" used to mean a person who believed in personal freedom, especially along the lines advocated by John Stuart Mill. Low taxation (as the individual is best placed to decide how to dispose of their income), coupled with a laissez-faire attitude towards personal morality providing none are harmed, and the humility which comes from avoiding absolutist positions. It was taken for granted on my degree course that the polar opposite of liberalism was socialism.

    In the 1970s, I was conscious that the word meant something different in the USA, and so had to be careful when reading American political theory and commentaries. Since then, however, British English has changed, and our languages are converging. The Guardian newspaper, for example, describes itself as "The world's leading liberal voice". And - apart perhaps from sexual morality and a commitment to moral relativism - they value the very opposite of independent individual thought.

  2. Right. Locke, Mill, Malthus, Adam Smith--liberals, classical liberals. And they resemble conservatives and libertarians more than progressives who resemble socialists. There was a time when Democrats in the U.S. could reasonably where the "liberal" label, but I think that time has now passed.

    Libertarians will claim the true mantle of liberalism, but I think that is not necessarily the case. For conservatives think that there is a greater role needed for the government in order to pass on to future generations the past and present liberties, the idea being that a stripped down "night watchman" state--at ALL levels of government including local--will have the long term effect of eroding certain traditions which can resist a future desire for totalitarianism.

    In other news, as a Brit (I assume) you might have seen this:

    1. Yes, an excellent article. Mind you, it's worth noting that Richard Dawkins was not questioned by the police when he advocated aborting all Downs Syndrome babies.
      Now, whether that's because he picked on a class of beings who are fair game for state-sponsored eradication, or whether it's because he is a famous person, I just can't decide. I think he ought to tweet that all babies in a racial minority ought to be aborted, within the law, of course. That should enable us to tell.

    2. "I think he ought to tweet that all babies in a racial minority ought to be aborted, within the law, of course. That should enable us to tell."

      That would be quite the public service! :)