Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Quantum Windbag]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

That is the typical progressive argument. Unfortunately for you, philosophy actually disagrees.

2.1 Classical Liberalism

Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. But a more important division concerns the place of private property and the market order. For classical liberals — sometimes called the ‘old’ liberalism — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom (Gaus, 1994; Steiner, 1994). A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom (Robbins, 1961: 104). Unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.


-----


2.2 The ‘New Liberalism’

What has come to be known as ‘new’, ‘revisionist’, ‘welfare state’, or perhaps best, ‘social justice’, liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order (Freeden, 1978; Gaus, 1983b; Paul, Miller and Paul, 2007). Three factors help explain the rise of this revisionist theory. First, the new liberalism arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the ability of a free market to sustain what Lord Beveridge (1944: 96) called a ‘prosperous equilibrium’ was being questioned. Believing that a private property based market tended to be unstable, or could, as Keynes argued (1973 [1936]), get stuck in an equilibrium with high unemployment, new liberals came to doubt that it was an adequate foundation for a stable, free society. Here the second factor comes into play: just as the new liberals were losing faith in the market, their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life was increasing. This was partly due to the experiences of the First World War, in which government attempts at economic planning seemed to succeed (Dewey, 1929: 551-60); more importantly, this reevaluation of the state was spurred by the democratization of western states, and the conviction that, for the first time, elected officials could truly be, in J.A. Hobson's phrase ‘representatives of the community’ (1922: 49). As D.G. Ritchie proclaimed:

be it observed that arguments used against ‘government’ action, where the government is entirely or mainly in the hands of a ruling class or caste, exercising wisely or unwisely a paternal or grandmotherly authority — such arguments lose their force just in proportion as the government becomes more and more genuinely the government of the people by the people themselves (1896: 64).​

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In other words, the major difference between a classical liberal and a modern liberal/progressive is the belief that government can be taken out of the hands of the ruling class and actually represent the people, and that property rights are actually a barrier to liberty. The problem is that once progreesives started working toward this ideal they actually became part of the ruling class, and exacerbated the problem they were trying to fix.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

exactly.

but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?

I actually rely on people who have studied history, not wild theories from Rachel Maddow.

Liberalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Adam Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat." Spence J. Pack

....What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

You know what the drill instructor used to say about opinions, still holds. I have been reading several books on the evolution of ideas and personalities, and the only evident or obvious conclusion one can come regarding this sort of interpretation is that it is incomplete, and often wrong or biased. Too often when reading history we find what we were looking for or find the sources that agree with what we are looking for.

I was reading Isaiah Berlin and Peter Watson recently and was struck by the complexity and the time frames change requires. But Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, for instance, were modern day liberals when you read deep into their works. If we understand, and I think we can, that liberalism is a changing dynamic, then modern liberalism is simply modern liberalism with its roots in 18Th century enlightenment. See historian below.

"This important shift in Wood’s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood’s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone — without a commitment to shared sacrifice — is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good." Tim Casey http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

 

[Amelia]

Excellent thread. Some good examples I'm going to want to remember of how a philosophy/movement which had merits at one time starts working against its original purposes as it tries to maintain relevance.

 

[Intense]

"Adam Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat." Spence J. Pack

....What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

You know what the drill instructor used to say about opinions, still holds. I have been reading several books on the evolution of ideas and personalities, and the only evident or obvious conclusion one can come regarding this sort of interpretation is that it is incomplete, and often wrong or biased. Too often when reading history we find what we were looking for or find the sources that agree with what we are looking for.

I was reading Isaiah Berlin and Peter Watson recently and was struck by the complexity and the time frames change requires. But Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, for instance, were modern day liberals when you read deep into their works. If we understand, and I think we can, that liberalism is a changing dynamic, then modern liberalism is simply modern liberalism with its roots in 18Th century enlightenment. See historian below.

"This important shift in Wood’s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood’s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone — without a commitment to shared sacrifice — is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good." Tim Casey http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

"Adam Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat."

I believe without reservation that Hamilton and his followers were Statist Progressive. Why would a Federalist fight to establish a National Bank? I find Nationalist Principles Progressive. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

You know what the drill instructor used to say about opinions, still holds. I have been reading several books on the evolution of ideas and personalities, and the only evident or obvious conclusion one can come regarding this sort of interpretation is that it is incomplete, and often wrong or biased. Too often when reading history we find what we were looking for or find the sources that agree with what we are looking for.

I'll study it further. Opinions also reflect perspective and vantage point, sometimes what is seen as contradictory, changes with the view, both may ring true from the angle they are viewed. I am impressed by your constructive response.

I was reading Isaiah Berlin and Peter Watson recently and was struck by the complexity and the time frames change requires. But Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, for instance, were modern day liberals when you read deep into their works. If we understand, and I think we can, that liberalism is a changing dynamic, then modern liberalism is simply modern liberalism with its roots in 18Th century enlightenment. See historian below.

I look at Universal Truth as the Power Source we touch on or plug into. I see it as constant, yet our application as specific to need and circumstance. Not one size fits all, not ever changing, but all encompassing, with mission specific design. How good we recognize and apply is what is relative and in need of adjustment. In That way Political Philosophy changes for better or worse. Be it Conservative, Liberal, or Progressive, those with good intentions will fight to correct course. There is a balance though, and once Soft Tyranny is put in the equation, by any Political Philosophy, it is only a matter of time before it turns hard. That is a danger for all sides, and it does require checks and balances to remedy.

"This important shift in Wood’s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood’s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone — without a commitment to shared sacrifice — is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good." Tim Casey http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper

Politeness is the opening of the door. It is a positive start. Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth, goes back a long way. Good Deeds, Positive direction, large Families, Take care of Nature and respect it, is part of the foundation. The Golden Rule when applied corrects allot of wrongs. It's not just about making money for most of us, regardless of political persuasion. Faith, Hope, Charity, work together to correct, repair, heal. We each do it in different ways to different degrees. The Good Samaritan did what was required of him, and then some, not because he was compelled by Society. It was not for a Political Motive, but Conscience, Concern for the well being of a Stranger. When Circumstance Requires Sacrifice, it is given, when faced with a Personal choice, it is for each of us to live with for better or worse.

"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith

The Rich and Powerful are not here to be Worshiped. God is Spirit and Truth. We are plainly told not to Worship any part of Creation. That is Idolatry. Again Personal Choice, Between Each of Us and Our Maker. The urge to be a part of something bigger than ourselves is a lure, that sucks us in, getting us to do things we would otherwise not agree to. That is a tough one. Be vigilant that way.
From Solomon to Lazarus, We are all related. Nobody truly knows sometimes why we fall into pitfalls, get snagged, run into hard times, Ill health, whatever. Kicking Someone when they are down, despising them with no understanding, is really not a good thing in any philosophy. Agreed.

 

[Ropey]

The Rich and Powerful are not here to be Worshiped.

Not even a little bit. Appreciated? Yes.

Well, unless you are in the pitfall of today's Democrats..

 

[Jroc]

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.

this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.

the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.

Wow...all I can say is wow.. A Lawyer who believes in the constitution does not limit the power of the federal government, this is unbelievable to me. So the founders spent all this blood and treasure to break away from a tyrannical government only to create another?..Wow.

Federalist No. 41 or General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, speaks directly against the ever increasing power of the Federal Government.

Madison says of the “General Welfare” clause (bold highlights relevant passages):

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity

Federalist No. 41 | The Virtuous Republic

 

[Twofox]

A bit off topic, but here is why progressivism will not work.

A teacher told her students at the start of the year that this year things were going to be wonderfully different! All of the kids that struggled every year were going to do better with the help of every one else.

She was going to take all of the grades and average them, and each student would receive that grade at the end of the semester. So at the end of the first semester, each child had a B- on their report card for that class. The kids that always failed for various reasons, now had a good grade to show!

At the end of the 2nd semester the average grade was a C+. A little lower, but still better than failing! At the end of the 3rd semester the average grade was a D, and by the end of the school year the average grade dropped off to and F!?!?!? Everyone failed the class.

The teacher was dumbfounded and asked the high achievers why they hadn't done their social duty and gotten high grades all year. The straight A studen replied "I realized that I didn't have to do any work and I'd still get a passing grade. I can spend my time on something else now", she said with a smile on her face.

So it is with human nature. You cannot force someone to work willingly for another, such it is with slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

If you put a qualifier before "justice," then what you have is the opposite of justice. So "social justice" is a term that really means "injustice."

For instance what's the difference between "truth" and "my truth?" The later means "untruth" because it differs from "truth" in the abstract.

 

[elvis]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

exactly.

but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?

It's actually "classical liberalism". and you're equating Toro with Glen Beck.

 

[editec]

No partisan really wants a society with individual liberty.

What they mean is that they want the government to leave THEM alone.

But as to the rest of us?

Well now, we'd best toe THE line that those claiming the loudest that they believe in freedom really want.

That goes for people decribing themselves as liberals, or conservatives, or whatever other misnomer label they're attaching to themselves.

Let's stop kidding ourselves using vague terms that actually have no or worse, misleading meanings.

Pure individual freedom really means anarchy.

Who is for that?

 

[Intense]

No partisan really wants a society with individual liberty.

What they mean is that they want the government to leave THEM alone.

But as to the rest of us?

Well now, we'd best toe THE line that those claiming the loudest that they believe in freedom really want.

That goes for people decribing themselves as liberals, or conservatives, or whatever other misnomer label they're attaching to themselves.

Let's stop kidding ourselves using vague terms that actually have no or worse, misleading meanings.

Pure individual freedom really means anarchy.

Who is for that?

A better Term is "Constructive Liberty".
Federalism was designed to protect against the encroachment of Tyranny, something that Threatens every society, because of Human Nature being what it is, vulnerable to corruption. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

Liberty has a responsibility that goes with it. All thought, word, and actions have consequences, both good and bad, both desired and undesired. Liberty should not be equated with the license to do harm to others without consequence. We establish Justice and maintain it. We oppose Injustice, it is in our Nature and always has been.

 

[Oddball]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

[Intense]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shhhhh! Don't startle him.

 

[martybegan]

No partisan really wants a society with individual liberty.

What they mean is that they want the government to leave THEM alone.

But as to the rest of us?

Well now, we'd best toe THE line that those claiming the loudest that they believe in freedom really want.

That goes for people decribing themselves as liberals, or conservatives, or whatever other misnomer label they're attaching to themselves.

Let's stop kidding ourselves using vague terms that actually have no or worse, misleading meanings.

Pure individual freedom really means anarchy.

Who is for that?

Pure individual freedom is and will be always and abstract concept. Freedom to me is the ability to be left alone if you are not doing anything that is harmful to someone else, and I mean directly harmful, not greehouse gas creating harmful.

I think the problem started when governments went past controlling criminal behavior, and went into civil matters via regulations. While i do see the need for some regulations, such as viable environmental issues such as air and water pollution, why do we need the feds to regulate the salt content in our food (i know we arent there yet) or what exactly little johnny needs to learn in his history class?

A government controlling criminal behavior, where the criminal activity is thought of as such by the overwhelming majority of the population is doing its job, removing your freedom to impact my freedom. Once government gets into civl regulation, it must be tightly monitored and controlled, more so than whatever it is actually trying to control itself.

This is the divide I see between historical liberalsim, and its statist modern form. The modern liberal sees goverment as a tool to not just stop criminal behavior, but any behavior he or she does not like.

 

[FA_Q2]

exactly.

but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

Dunno. But I agree with the first part of your post..not so much with the second part of your post.

The US government is basically the sort of government liberals strive for..one where representatives of the people are voted in by the people.

And that's what conservatives have a problem with..they like the Monarchy. And that's why they accuse Liberals of being "statist". Like Ayn Rand, who basically was a product of Russian Aristrocracy, they believe that some people have a "gift" and are naturally better then others. Unlike Rand..the right in this country are mainly theocrats. They believe that the "right" to rule is derived from divinity. Liberals believe that government should serve an "administrative" function and keep services organized. Hence the schism.

And you pull your last paragraph from where? It has no connection to reality at all. I always wonder how liberals can come to terms with crying out for ever increasing government power and then turn around saying the ones calling for LESS government power are in favor of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. You have no idea what conservatives actually believe.

 

[editec]

No partisan really wants a society with individual liberty.

What they mean is that they want the government to leave THEM alone.

But as to the rest of us?

Well now, we'd best toe THE line that those claiming the loudest that they believe in freedom really want.

That goes for people decribing themselves as liberals, or conservatives, or whatever other misnomer label they're attaching to themselves.

Let's stop kidding ourselves using vague terms that actually have no or worse, misleading meanings.

Pure individual freedom really means anarchy.

Who is for that?

Pure individual freedom is and will be always an abstract concept.

Yes. Worse! As mankind is a social creature, and the mere existence of another demands some form of modus vivendi ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is an abstraction that is impossible to attain even under the best circumstances

Freedom to me is the ability to be left alone if you are not doing anything that is harmful to someone else,

Me, too.

and I mean directly harmful, not greehouse gas creating harmful.

I know what you mean, but I might not agree where to draw that line in the sand.

I think the problem started when governments went past controlling criminal behavior, and went into civil matters via regulations.

Society has always had criminal and civil regulations. America didn't invent this distinction.

While i do see the need for some regulations, such as viable environmental issues such as air and water pollution, why do we need the feds to regulate the salt content in our food (i know we arent there yet) or what exactly little johnny needs to learn in his history class?

These are examples of where we draw that line in the sand, aren't they?

A government controlling criminal behavior, where the criminal activity is thought of as such by the overwhelming majority of the population is doing its job, removing your freedom to impact my freedom. Once government gets into civl regulation, it must be tightly monitored and controlled, more so than whatever it is actually trying to control itself.

Yup.

Who will watch the watchers? The perenial problem facing every society that springs up.

This is the divide I see between historical liberalsim, and its statist modern form. The modern liberal sees goverment as a tool to not just stop criminal behavior, but any behavior he or she does not like.

Well except fo the fact that I think your choice of terms makes no sense, (I think you're describing authoritarian versus non-authoritarian) we agree in principle.

Most os us, be we self inditifying ourselves as liberals or cons, libertarians or socialists, really want much the same thing.

We want only as much government as necessary to keep things running smoothly.

It's how to get things to RUN smoothly? were the real debates live.

 

[Bfgrn]

According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism, “America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.” They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted “a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.”

In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand. The progressives reasoned that although America's founders had felt it necessary to limit the power of government because of their experience with King George III, government, as a result of historical evolution, was no longer the menace it once had been; rather, they believed government had become capable of solving an ever-greater array of societal problems -- problems the founders could never have envisioned. Consequently, the progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people's lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

This perspective dovetailed with the progressives' notion of an “evolving” or “living” government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term “living Constitution,” connoting the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles -- a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.

R.J. Pestritto writes that the Progressives “detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.” Given their contempt for those documents, the progressives' mission was to progress, or move beyond, the principles laid out by the founders.

In 1913, the progressive historian Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which offered a Marxist view of history and smeared the captains of industry. It also portrayed America's founding fathers as basically selfish men who had established a form of government that they thought would benefit them, and only them, financially. From Beard's premise, it was a short logical leap to discredit the Constitution itself as “essentially an economic document” unworthy of the lasting reverence of legislators, judges, or ordinary citizens.

Woodrow Wilson likewise gave voice to the progressive antipathy for America's founding documents when he said that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which states that the only legitimate purpose of government, regardless of time or place, is to secure the natural rights of the individual. By Wilson's calculus, the truly vital portion of the Declaration was the latter part, where it enumerates a litany of time-specific grievances against George III. Wilson suggested that "we are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence," and that the Fourth of July, rather than celebrate the Declaration's timeless principles, should instead "be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness."

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

"[We must] bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

"Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called 'Socialism and Democracy.' Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It 'proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,' Wilson wrote, and 'that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.' After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory."


Discover the Networks

Check out the Link. There is allot of background on the Site. What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

Right wing fear mongering propaganda built on false premises.

First of all, our founding fathers were not laissez-faire capitalists. During their reign of governance, they heavily regulated corporations. VERY heavily...

Progressives don't hate the Declaration of Independence. They understand it's meaning. Thomas Jefferson rejected Locke's "life, liberty, and property". He replaced 'property' with 'happiness'. Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.

Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18) to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. ref

 

[Intense]

According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism, “America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.” They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted “a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.”

In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand. The progressives reasoned that although America's founders had felt it necessary to limit the power of government because of their experience with King George III, government, as a result of historical evolution, was no longer the menace it once had been; rather, they believed government had become capable of solving an ever-greater array of societal problems -- problems the founders could never have envisioned. Consequently, the progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people's lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

This perspective dovetailed with the progressives' notion of an “evolving” or “living” government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term “living Constitution,” connoting the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles -- a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.

R.J. Pestritto writes that the Progressives “detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.” Given their contempt for those documents, the progressives' mission was to progress, or move beyond, the principles laid out by the founders.

In 1913, the progressive historian Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which offered a Marxist view of history and smeared the captains of industry. It also portrayed America's founding fathers as basically selfish men who had established a form of government that they thought would benefit them, and only them, financially. From Beard's premise, it was a short logical leap to discredit the Constitution itself as “essentially an economic document” unworthy of the lasting reverence of legislators, judges, or ordinary citizens.

Woodrow Wilson likewise gave voice to the progressive antipathy for America's founding documents when he said that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which states that the only legitimate purpose of government, regardless of time or place, is to secure the natural rights of the individual. By Wilson's calculus, the truly vital portion of the Declaration was the latter part, where it enumerates a litany of time-specific grievances against George III. Wilson suggested that "we are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence," and that the Fourth of July, rather than celebrate the Declaration's timeless principles, should instead "be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness."

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

"[We must] bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

"Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called 'Socialism and Democracy.' Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It 'proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,' Wilson wrote, and 'that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.' After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory."


Discover the Networks

Check out the Link. There is allot of background on the Site. What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

Right wing fear mongering propaganda built on false premises.

First of all, our founding fathers were not laissez-faire capitalists. During their reign of governance, they heavily regulated corporations. VERY heavily...

Progressives don't hate the Declaration of Independence. They understand it's meaning. Thomas Jefferson rejected Locke's "life, liberty, and property". He replaced 'property' with 'happiness'. Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.

Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18) to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. ref

Yep, the French took Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property, and Adapted it to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which does include Possession of Property. Locke's Principle was not centered on Corporate Interest, but on Unalienable Rights. The premise is sound from my perspective.

If you don't understand the concept of Property, it is best you learn it, before you get into trouble.

Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit.

Whatever Medication You are On Cease and Desist, Now! Immediately! Call Poison Control! Where do you come up with this stuff? Who are you trying to kid?

 

[flacaltenn]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

You confuse the dictionary GENERAL def. -- with the POLITICAL meaning. It's not enlightening for you to confuse the instructions on that Crab Cream the Doc gave you where it says to "apply liberally"...

In the political arena -- the pertinent defs are:

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

In other words --- INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and sovereignty and a basic distrust of govt power.

Ask Thoreau --- he'll back me up.. I'm closer to a TRUE Liberal than most Democratic Party supporters on this board. I'll out-Liberal you all day long..



In politics today -- Liberals are ALMOST EXTINCT. Most of them being "conserved" in the Lib Party and a few lefty think tanks. And anything resembling a real one has long left either govt approved party.

The only thing wrong with the OP is the failure to make a distinction between Progressives (who have a meaningful heritage and agenda) with Leftists. Leftists (and I use that term dearly) are simply party animals whose instinct it is to unwaveringly support the Dems regardless of principle or agenda. Simple pursuit of power and defeat of Repubs. Kinda like those painted up sports fanatics who live and die their colors. Know any of those on USMB? Of course we do..