Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
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called for a more activist government whose regulation of people's lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.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?
 
Last edited:
OP
I

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
:eek:

My brain hurts now...lol.
:eusa_whistle:

Yeah. Mine too. You got 3 hours on me. :)

Seeing that, helps explain the disconnect, the rift from where we were at then, and where we are now. I sort of see the Tea Party, as the closest representation to Classic Liberal Thinking. Funny how that goes. Funny how Progressivism, Socialism, and Fascism tie in too, when you take away class distinction and elitism.
 

syrenn

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
47,839
Reaction score
11,195
Points
0
:eek:

My brain hurts now...lol.
:eusa_whistle:

Yeah. Mine too. You got 3 hours on me. :)

Seeing that, helps explain the disconnect, the rift from where we were at then, and where we are now. I sort of see the Tea Party, as the closest representation to Classic Liberal Thinking. Funny how that goes. Funny how Progressivism, Socialism, and Fascism tie in too, when you take away class distinction and elitism.

Everything changes.... just as there is the argument about the democrats and republicans....who they are and what they stand for. The classical versions and the now versions. Its rather fun to point out that abraham lincoln was a republican... not a democrat.



 

Jroc

יעקב כהן
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
19,799
Reaction score
6,441
Points
390
Location
Michigan
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
 

Political Junky

Gold Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
25,793
Reaction score
3,984
Points
280
The republican party bears little or no resemblance to what they were, either.
 

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
78,083
Reaction score
13,148
Points
2,220
Social Justice = Give the havenots what the haves built because the havenots have not been able to do it themselves.

Capitalism is not socialism. :)
 
OP
I

Intense

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
44,909
Reaction score
6,775
Points
48
The republican party bears little or no resemblance to what they were, either.
Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.

The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,566
Reaction score
14,250
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
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?
Definitely some hype, and some even some outright hyperbole, and maybe a few unjustified comparisons to fascism, but it has the basic facts down.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.
Horse puckey.

You are actually a perfect example of the absolute dangers of progressive self delusion. It really does not matter if society changes, the basic principles still apply. The idea that because the Founders were unaware of cell phones and computers the 4th Amendment does apply to those devices, and that police can actually look at them without a warrant, is so absurd that it should be indefensible. yet, because people like you argue that society changes and the Constitution has to adapt, is so pervasive that both progressives and conservatives wrap their brain around it.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.
Can you tell me why progressives oppose file sharing on the internet, want to extend copyrights indefinitely, want to force companies to maintain data about customers for years, and want to make it illegal for people to hide their identity online? That does not sound like they embrace change to me. In fact, it sounds like they are doing their best to to force the new technology to react just like the old stuff they are comfortable with, which is actually a pretty good definition of reactionary.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.
Because you are all delusional?

We do not hate you for that, we fight to help you to see reality as it is. You perceive that as hate, but it is love.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.
Can you explain the PPACA, the DOE, and the EPA given that you think progressives do not believe in a one size fits all national solution to everything?

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.
No it didn't. Progressives have never been pragmatic, which explains why they use the courts to accomplish their goals rather than try to convince the rest of us that they have something important to say.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.
Really. Why did they categorically reject the Ryan budget proposals? Why are they adamantly opposed to reforming Medicare, Social Security, and reducing government spending? Why do you expect anyone to believe the tripe you spout?
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"

Is that all our goverment was designed to do?

I didn't know that.

Why did they even bother then?

George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.

Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?

Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>

Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?

Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.

No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?

If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?

I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.

Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?

How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?

Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?

When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"

Is that all our goverment was designed to do?

I didn't know that.

Why did they even bother then?

George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.

Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?

Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>

Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?

Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.

No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?

If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?

I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.

Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?

How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?

Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?

When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?
Wow. I am impressed that you are not embarrassed by your ignorance. Kudos for that. You clearly don't mind demonstrating your lack of critical thought.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,461
Points
2,040
The republican party bears little or no resemblance to what they were, either.
Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.

The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.
The issue to me is that progressivism has morphed into statism. During the heyday of the "progressive" era, the prime goal was to eliminate the influence of organizations that were seen as limiting the free market, railroads, grain silos, large conglomerates. The original progressives were anti-trust oriented, and union organizers. Back then unions were needed, and were better than the alternative of revolution, as working conditions were truly horrendous.

The key problem with progressivism as we see it is that it doesnt know when to stop. Even if the then progressives morph into conservatives once thier goals were met, other people are always around to take up the mantle of the progressive, and push the envelope further.

A good example of this is the civil rights movement. Back in the 60's republicans were supporters of most civil rights legistation in concert with northern democrats. Once the legislation was in place, however, the republicans met thier goals and stopped. It was then those northern demorcats that took up the next progressive cause, affermative action, reparations, etc.

The turn of progressives to statism is the result of thier getting most of what they wanted for alot of the 20th century. at this point they have the choice to either maintain the status quo, and hence become conservative, or keep pushing. The problem is the ideas they are after, greater state control of individual liberty is not a very popular cause.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
"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.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,101
Reaction score
15,821
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.

The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.
the founders would have been made nauseous by today's pretenders at the tea party name. they would have been sickened that the people who think corporations should have unlimited power are usurpers of the history of people who dumped tea into boston harbor because they wouldn't tolerate a monopoly by the east india company.

the reason the piece you posted made your head hurt is because it's nonsense. it's generally a good idea to assume it's nonsense if it's pushed by someone glen beck likes.

and there's no such thing as "classic" liberalism. there is liberal and there isn't. the right has worked so hard to vilify that word, though. as with most goebbels lies, it's been fairly effective as a propaganda tool. the next step in that is trying to usurp the history of liberal accomplishments by pretending a relationship to them where there is none.

what the tea party is ... is not conservative. it's reactionary.
 
Last edited:

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,101
Reaction score
15,821
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
"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?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
54,152
Reaction score
11,461
Points
2,040
"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?
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.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top