Search blog.co.uk

Liberal

by liberalleslie @ 31. 07. 07 - 19:55:41

I was asked yesterday which sort of Liberal I was a social Liberal or a orange book Liberal. My reply that I was a liberal was a little flippant really but also I believe the appropriate one.

It has to be said on this issue that the difference between the two types is much smaller than the media blew them up to be and so the question a littler irrelevant.

However, despite that I’m going to wade into the topic area, or actually use it as a reference point to another topic. What do we mean by a Liberal? I’m not going to get lost Ain liberal theory but briefly lay out the discourse around the word.

It seems today that everyone wants to be a liberal, David Cameron is the best example of this, but I’ve also been told by a Thatcherite that he is liberal while I was a socialist, as somebody rightly pointed out yesterday Thatcherism is economically liberal, not though socially. When considering whether or not the “liberal” Tories are liberal we should consider not just their conclusions but also the attitude that leads them there. This is where the big difference lies.

On a US forum titled “Liberal Forum” actually contained any one who felt alienated by the American political structure. There were members of the far right to a self confessed Stalinist, the guru of the group who played the role of explaining liberalism to American was a Labour Blairite.

Even I am guilty of clouding the word in a shroud my own blog name Liberal Leslie suggests all that spews from my fingers is liberalism, I am liberal and claim the monopoly of liberalism. A more suitable name might be Leslie’s Liberalism.

The effect of all these people claiming the name for all their political views is paradoxical. On the one hand the word begins to mean a lot more; liberal could be used to describe just about any policy if someone is going to claim the name. As the mouth piece of Liberalism that is Liberal Leslie I could tomorrow say that feudal system is liberal, this is clearly an exaggeration of the situation but the trend stands. Despite the word taking on more, it means less. Imagine it has having a set mass, a kg of the old liberal before this effect took place was the size of a equivalent bag old sugar, a kg of the new liberal is like oxygen, its everywhere, has no form or shape. The word liberal is perhaps loosing all its real meaning, its specifics, a liberal in one of the examples above is simply the belief in free markets not in real human freedom or social freedom.

Its not time to start writing obituaries for the word liberal, but I do think the crowding of the label is a issue. But to finish with a real conclusion I turn the wisdom enshrined in the dictionary of Liberal Quotations:

“A liberal is a man or woman or child,
who looks forward to a better day,
a more tranquil night
and
a bright and infinite future.”

Bernstein


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

Eric [Visitor]

31/07/07 @ 20:31

"On a US forum titled “Liberal Forum” actually contained any one who felt alienated by the American political structure. There were members of the far right to a self confessed Stalinist, the guru of the group who played the role of explaining liberalism to American was a Labour Blairite."

Do you mean this one?

Acccording to its introduction it is "an online meeting place for liberals, progressives, democrats, greens, leftists, and socialists (and anyone else for that matter) interested in chatting about liberal ideals, principles, policies, and politics."

Interestingly they include socialism under the label liberalism. I think they are a bit lost.

Tristan Mills [Visitor]
http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/
01/08/07 @ 08:35

In the US liberal has ceased to mean much. Its not about individual freedom at all, its collectivist.
True, some of the aims are the same, US and UK liberals want people to be happy and to live good lives, the US liberals are more socialist though and want to use big government to enforce what they view as best for people.

This is why I am opposed to most of the Democratic party (which used to be a largely liberal party) as well as the majority of the Republicans. Both are big government, illiberal groups (the Republicans slightly worse at the moment as they're mostly big government and authoritarian in all aspects - the Democrats are at least in general socially liberal (apart from the Dixiecrat tendency which Edwards is seeking to exploit).

In the UK, liberal sometimes means that - the Guardian columnists and New Statesmen writers try to use it like that, but there's still a strong usage which harks back to the classical liberals/libertarian, new liberal, Gladstonian and whiggish traditions which are largely about individual freedom (although emphasis is placed differently).

People put different emphasis on different things. I'm an ideologue, I value personal freedom over all other things. The state has no business interfering in most aspects of life, even the income tax is immoral (as it amounts to partial slavery).
I may disapprove of some things, but I insist on people's rights to do them - such as drug use, or free speech.
I am just a little radical though ;)

As for what type- I'm a liberal. If pressed perhaps a classic liberal or a libertarian. Even a minarchist I suppose.
I believe in free markets and free minds. I believe in being left alone and leaving others alone. In equality before the law and taking responsibility for your own actions.
That's what liberalism is to me.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).