NationStates Jolt Archive

Not that I think that Classic Liberals suddenly woke up one morning and became modern Liberals.

Rather how did the word 'liberal' come to mean nearly the opposite to what it meant originally (In the US at least).

When they radicalized themselves. What would I know though; I'm an evil conservative! Muhahahahaaaaa! *does super-secret "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy dance"*

?????

Liberals = Radical :?

?????

When they radicalized themselves. What would I know though; I'm an evil conservative! Muhahahahaaaaa! *does super-secret "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy dance"*

yeah, the poor sods really seem to have lost their way

*joins in evil conservatice conspiracy dance*

How about providing some definitions for both classical liberal and modern liberal and then we can talk about how one morphed into the other. I gather that your opinion of modern liberalism is low, so I'm curious as to how many misconceptions you'll have as far as modern liberalism is concerned.

The classical liberals were like the modern "Libertarian" party. The modern liberals are people like the democrats.

Not that I think that Classic Liberals suddenly woke up one morning and became modern Liberals.

Rather how did the word 'liberal' come to mean nearly the opposite to what it meant originally (In the US at least).

A common misconception. "Liberal" has usually occupied the exact same position within the common political spectrum as a term used within American politics... those seeking to change things to "what they should be like" - i.e., achieve greater equality, liberty, disentrenchment of religion from state, etc. The fact that some of the planks of current "liberals" match up with those of liberals of two hundred years ago (i.e., get religion out of government) is a sign of how little progress has been achieved in some areas.

Generally, rather than the early literal definition of "liberal" as one who seeks, specifically, "increased liberty," the term is usually used regarding change, as the opposite of conservative - quite literally, one who doesn't want things to change. Turning back the clock is reactionary - a term rarely used today, although it is widely applicable to many modern politicians. Most of these sorts of terms are, of course, misused frequently, but that's more a word peeve than anything else; conservatives are called liberals, reactionaries are referred to as conservative, etc etc.

When they radicalized themselves. What would I know though; I'm an evil conservative! Muhahahahaaaaa! *does super-secret "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy dance"*


Agreed. *Joins in on the dance because I'm an evil conservative as well**

Well, Libertarian means anarchy. The libertarian party couldn't be more against anarchy. Liberals jsut woke the hell up.

there's a break from utilitarianism (classic libertarianism) that focuses on the rights of individuals to a pragmatic philosophy that focuses on reforming society and therefore is concerned with rights of individuals and how rights exist in the context of groups. the pragmatic philosophy sometimes notes that the classical philosophy becomes so reliant on scientific knowledge to the detriment of certain groups and classes in society.

Finally, people want to learn about history! When I sit in political threads and preach about history, no one listens... And now you want my help? Never! Mwahahahaha!... ... ...

Fine, twist my arm why don'tcha? ...

Classical Liberalism in its earliest form originates in France and England, with the writings of men like Voltaire. During periods of dispute and turmoil men espousing these ideas were put under great stress, because many of them were forced into or merely acquired leadership roles they weren't nessicarily ready or able to take, a good example would be Robespierre, quite psychotic, and yet he managed to find his way to power with some degree of popularity before the populace found out what a nut he was. The French Revolution gave birth to many of the strange facets of Modern Liberalism we see today. The Revolution was seen as a living, changing thing, and so new ideas loosely based in Classical Liberalism were readily accepted, including such things as the abolition of religion (Notre Dame got renamed the Temple of Reason for a few years) and the confiscation of young boys from their mothers at the age of 6, to be trained in reading and swimming until they were ready to join the army. Needless to say, these strange and scary ideas were <i>radical</i>, and this also gives us the term <i>political radical</i>. These Radicals began to mix ranks with the Liberals (classic, not modern) in order to stave off a resurgence of Conservatism within France and other countries consumed by Republican (literally, revolutions that formed Republics, not affiliated with the American political party) revolutions. Many radicals embraced the ideas and ideals of two writers named Marx and Engels, who wrote a lovely piece of fiction many people (Socialists, Communists) take too seriously.

When the Liberals would attempt to move away from Radicalism, Conservatives would rally and force them back towards the nutballs sitting on the left side of the hall. Eventually, this resulted in "Liberal" political parties being forced to, and over time merely accepting, radical political ideas as practiced by Socialists and Communists.

So, there isn't really a set point at which Classical Liberals became Modern Liberals, it was really more of a process, an ongoing process, moving the political spectrum forever further from feudalism and forever towards Communist death.

Today's True Classical Liberals are usually found in Conservative or Libertarian political parties. They believe staunchly in the free market, something modern Liberals stopped supporting a long time ago, so, there won't be a rallying point that brings Liberalism back on track, they've skipped off, gone through the woods, and now they're sinking to the bottom of the lake.

Today's True Classical Liberals are usually found in Conservative or Libertarian political parties. They believe staunchly in the free market, something modern Liberals stopped supporting a long time ago, so, there won't be a rallying point that brings Liberalism back on track, they've skipped off, gone through the woods, and now they're sinking to the bottom of the lake.

So "True Classic Liberals" have a core of uniform beliefs, were by and large not of the political movements shown by and large by the assorted revolutions, and started with a small group of intellectual elites who were then ignored by the masses in their revolutions?

I'm not really buying that definition, sorry.

A common misconception. "Liberal" has usually occupied the exact same position within the common political spectrum as a term used within American politics... those seeking to change things to "what they should be like" - i.e., achieve greater equality, liberty, disentrenchment of religion from state, etc. The fact that some of the planks of current "liberals" match up with those of liberals of two hundred years ago (i.e., get religion out of government) is a sign of how little progress has been achieved in some areas.

Generally, rather than the early literal definition of "liberal" as one who seeks, specifically, "increased liberty," the term is usually used regarding change, as the opposite of conservative - quite literally, one who doesn't want things to change. Turning back the clock is reactionary - a term rarely used today, although it is widely applicable to many modern politicians. Most of these sorts of terms are, of course, misused frequently, but that's more a word peeve than anything else; conservatives are called liberals, reactionaries are referred to as conservative, etc etc.
This is simply what liberals say to make them look like they are morally superior to everything else. In any case, classical liberalism has been generally (but not entirely) accomplished in the US. Modern liberalism is far different in meaning, often associated with welfare states, cleaner environment, etc. Some of their views are in direct contradiction to classical liberalism (and I'm not trying to say that conservatives are any better at being void of contradictions).
Besides, classic liberalism is close in meaning to the term liberal to describe a quantity. When we say that our moms give us a liberal allowence, we are saying that they are giving us a free, and seemingly limitless allowence. We are not saying that mom demands money from whichever child has the most in his wallet, and redistributing it to the child with the least in his wallet. That's what modern liberalism has come to mean.

This is simply what liberals say to make them look like they are morally superior to everything else. In any case, classical liberalism has been generally (but not entirely) accomplished in the US. Modern liberalism is far different in meaning, often associated with welfare states, cleaner environment, etc. Some of their views are in direct contradiction to classical liberalism (and I'm not trying to say that conservatives are any better at being void of contradictions).
Besides, classic liberalism is close in meaning to the term liberal to describe a quantity. When we say that our moms give us a liberal allowence, we are saying that they are giving us a free, and seemingly limitless allowence. We are not saying that mom demands money from whichever child has the most in his wallet, and redistributing it to the child with the least in his wallet. That's what modern liberalism has come to mean.

I'd hardly say that's what "liberal" of today means. I note the following simple goals and ideals of many of those originally defined as "Liberal" back in the late 18th century. Particularly but not exclusively drawing on Jefferson... usually considered a Liberal of and at the time:
-Disestablishment of church and state.
-Freedom of speech and assembly.
-Democracy.
-Establishing systematic mechanisms for peaceful institutional change.
-Equality.
-The pursuit of happiness.
-The complete refutation of the divine right of kings, specifically to constructively say that no man has the inborn right to rule over another.

Now, I must admit that the divine right of kings is largely defunct in the continent that I live on, but these are many of the same basic goals and principles of many modern liberals. Is communism a liberal idea? It can be. It can also become a conservative institution and be put into practice in an anti-liberal fashion. Stalin wasn't too keen on actual equality, or democracy, for example, although many of those involved in the original revolution were.

Balancing and prioritizing such goals and principles is a fine act that separates the wide variety of liberals now and in the past. The hostile nature of liberalism towards oppressive power structures helps insure that liberals now will be as disparate in their specific views as they were two hundred years ago. The ACLU, for example, is typically exemplified as modern and liberal; they work very hard on trying to promote and protect those first two.

Basically, you're offering a prescriptive definition that doesn't describe how the word "liberal" has been used in the past or how it is used today, which makes it facetious at best, and you're trying to draw an artificial ideological difference that isn't actually related to the time variance of history. (A very real one would be to notice how many conservatives have adopted some of the above principles as a matter of time. The basic definition of conservative - resisting change - insures that those referred to as conservative should necessarily change over the course of history as their context changes.)

I'd hardly say that's what "liberal" of today means. I note the following simple goals and ideals of many of those originally defined as "Liberal" back in the late 18th century. Particularly but not exclusively drawing on Jefferson... usually considered a Liberal of and at the time:
-Disestablishment of church and state.
-Freedom of speech and assembly.
-Democracy.
-Establishing systematic mechanisms for peaceful institutional change.
-Equality.
-The pursuit of happiness.
-The complete refutation of the divine right of kings, specifically to constructively say that no man has the inborn right to rule over another.

Now, I must admit that the divine right of kings is largely defunct in the continent that I live on, but these are many of the same basic goals and principles of many modern liberals. Is communism a liberal idea? It can be. It can also become a conservative institution and be put into practice in an anti-liberal fashion. Stalin wasn't too keen on actual equality, or democracy, for example, although many of those involved in the original revolution were.

Balancing and prioritizing such goals and principles is a fine act that separates the wide variety of liberals now and in the past. The hostile nature of liberalism towards oppressive power structures helps insure that liberals now will be as disparate in their specific views as they were two hundred years ago. The ACLU, for example, is typically exemplified as modern and liberal; they work very hard on trying to promote and protect those first two.

Basically, you're offering a prescriptive definition that doesn't describe how the word "liberal" has been used in the past or how it is used today, which makes it facetious at best, and you're trying to draw an artificial ideological difference that isn't actually related to the time variance of history. (A very real one would be to notice how many conservatives have adopted some of the above principles as a matter of time. The basic definition of conservative - resisting change - insures that those referred to as conservative should necessarily change over the course of history as their context changes.)
However, it is obvious that the word conservative is different than it used to be. Unlike traditional conservatives, who dislike change, conservatives want change. Conservatives want an oppurtunistic state, and a better market economy, which, in our minds, the US supplies too little of.
The word liberal has had a similar change. Liberal used to mean as Jefferson described. It now means, as I've said, a welfare state and such. Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, are modern liberals, but not classic liberals, as they use their churches to promote what they believe in. A classic liberal also beleived in a free market. While modern liberals pay lip service to this idea, they want a market heavily regulated. Clearly, the meaning has morphed over time.

i think the thread as revised is misleading - "classic" and "modern" liberals are much the same - post-modernism was an attempt to throw together European epistemology into one big lump, and then question its key assumptions. i understood the quesion as originally posted quarriying how classical liberals got adopted by contemporary "conservatives." pragmatism seems to be a third strain of thinking that both avoids epistemological flaws and creates a vision of the future which post-modernism has yet to accomplish. like i said, pragmatism starting at Jefferson and Emerson and continuing through Marx and Dewey has had a (more) leftward (than classical liberalism) tilt because it likes to focus on social reform, whether we're talking about reform of institutions, class warfare, or in contemporary times issues race and women's rights. the utilitarians who were among the first British epistemologists were reformers too, just they believed that the individual not government was the source of all reform.

However, it is obvious that the word conservative is different than it used to be. Unlike traditional conservatives, who dislike change, conservatives want change. Conservatives want an oppurtunistic state, and a better market economy, which, in our minds, the US supplies too little of.
The word liberal has had a similar change. Liberal used to mean as Jefferson described. It now means, as I've said, a welfare state and such. Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, are modern liberals, but not classic liberals, as they use their churches to promote what they believe in. A classic liberal also beleived in a free market. While modern liberals pay lip service to this idea, they want a market heavily regulated. Clearly, the meaning has morphed over time.
The only people I've seen actually publish using that definition are generally identified as right-wing ideologues. Everybody else seems to use one of the two I mentioned.

With respect to the definition of conservative... I've seen it abused six ways from Sunday by almost everyone. It is still used in "proper" fashion, to describe those opposed to change or [nonpolitically speaking] cautious, particularly by such careful individuals as myself; it is also used to describe reactionaries (those who wish to return to some "golden era" of yore), as well as certain stripes of liberals(!) - yes, usually liberal in the economic sense. "Neo-Conservative" sometimes is used to talk about these.

You may wish to note that Jefferson was, in addition to being strongly in favor of the separation of state, had his own strong religious stands and wrote no small sum of quotable documents relating to religion and his hopes for the religious future of the nation. He didn't use his office as President to work at spreading his religion, though - not that I'm aware of.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not draw political power from churches as much as from being public leaders of the black community. Martin Luther King and Malcom X were also religious leaders, but most of us do not primarily think of them as such today; we think of them as civil rights leaders, and their political appeal went well beyond their own denominations.

kennedy

Not that I think that Classic Liberals suddenly woke up one morning and became modern Liberals.

Rather how did the word 'liberal' come to mean nearly the opposite to what it meant originally (In the US at least).

Franklin Roosevelt changed liberal from a good word to a bad word.

Not that I think that Classic Liberals suddenly woke up one morning and became modern Liberals.

Rather how did the word 'liberal' come to mean nearly the opposite to what it meant originally (In the US at least).

When Americans got it wrong. No-one else uses the term "liberal" to mean a social progressive, liberals are pro-market and individualistic. The term is used correctly in the term neoliberalism as used by anti-capitalists everywhere.

Vas.

What about in Britain? The Liberal-Democrats a general viewed as being socially progressive, rather than pro-market and individualistic (and the Liberal party isn't much better).

Really I should have explained myself better originally, I am just trying to come to grips with the modern American term.

And for Incertonia, I don't have a low opinion of [American] Liberals. I tend to agree with them more often then with conservatives.

Trying to explain a political stance in one word ("liberal", "conservative", "capitalist", "communist", etc.) is not going to be very successful. Each person has different views, and they are better off expressing them in detail rather than just jumping into one group and criticizing the other stereotype.

I appreciate that. But I was just trying to give a broad overview rather than compare myself with every American who claims to be 'liberal'

I appreciate that. But I was just trying to give a broad overview rather than compare myself with every American who claims to be 'liberal'

I wasn't criticizing you, I was explaining how issues such as the one you described can arise.

My mistake sorry.

In about 1900, the [old] liberals ruled England. They believed in Laissez faire policies which meant people could do what they liked so long as they didn't hurt other people. However, new liberals like Lloyd George saw the exploitation of poor people who had no protection from rich, influential people who generally didnt gave a **** for their workers. The new liberals recognised a need for a more moderate capitalist state where workers had rights and powers, which ensured they didn't become slaves to the factories they worked in. Between 1907 and 1913, the new liberals gained control of the Liberal Party and introduced major reforms such as national insurance and the pension act.

That's when the split happened in Britain (in my opinion)

The only people I've seen actually publish using that definition are generally identified as right-wing ideologues. Everybody else seems to use one of the two I mentioned.

With respect to the definition of conservative... I've seen it abused six ways from Sunday by almost everyone. It is still used in "proper" fashion, to describe those opposed to change or [nonpolitically speaking] cautious, particularly by such careful individuals as myself; it is also used to describe reactionaries (those who wish to return to some "golden era" of yore), as well as certain stripes of liberals(!) - yes, usually liberal in the economic sense. "Neo-Conservative" sometimes is used to talk about these.

You may wish to note that Jefferson was, in addition to being strongly in favor of the separation of state, had his own strong religious stands and wrote no small sum of quotable documents relating to religion and his hopes for the religious future of the nation. He didn't use his office as President to work at spreading his religion, though - not that I'm aware of.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not draw political power from churches as much as from being public leaders of the black community. Martin Luther King and Malcom X were also religious leaders, but most of us do not primarily think of them as such today; we think of them as civil rights leaders, and their political appeal went well beyond their own denominations.
Just like Jerry Falwell doesn't use his church for support? The Revs. may be religious men, or they may be not, but that's not the point. The point is that both of them freely mix religion and politics, making their side look like a moral absolute. Perhaps they forgot what Jesus said (although the exact Gospel, chapter and verse escape me): Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and render to God what is God's. Essentially, Jesus was preaching the separation of church and state. It is one thing to be guided by religion in politics, and that, I feel, is laudable. It is another to use religion as a political vehicle, as so many have done. It isn't even in the tradition of Archbishop Tutu, or the Pope, where they attack a political system they see as wrong. At least they didn't sacrifice their churches on the alter of politics.
BTW, Martin Luther King was different than some of today's ministers. He falls in the category of Desmond Tutu, not Jesse Jackson. King saw something wrong, and tried to fix it. Jesse Jackson just uses the pulpit as another rostrum, trying to get votes.

When Americans got it wrong. No-one else uses the term "liberal" to mean a social progressive, liberals are pro-market and individualistic. The term is used correctly in the term neoliberalism as used by anti-capitalists everywhere.

Vas.

That's the old definition of 'liberal.' But then the Left stole it and made it their word, so now old liberals are called 'conservatives.'

What about in Britain? The Liberal-Democrats a general viewed as being socially progressive, rather than pro-market and individualistic (and the Liberal party isn't much better).

The UK parties have gone mad recently, the liberals are pro-tax, the "socialists" (Labour) are pro-privatisation and the conservatives are pro-NHS. Sheesh, Ireland's most right wing party is called the Progressive Democrats, political parties, in the main, are squabbling over a small space in the centre and don't care about historical positions.

Vas.

This is why I call myself a "Progressive Populist" ...