1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would
That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.
Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.
Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.
But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.
(rant off/offtopic)
The term "liberal" was highjacked by the Fabians in the 1910's. Woodrow Wilson, father of the modern American left, called himself and his movement "liberals." Wilson was a collectivist authoritarian who worked to promote a centrally planned and managed economy with national control over all aspects of life.
Then there was FDR, a Stalinist who openly subverted the Constitution (court stuffing) and implemented collectivist programs who also used the term "liberal."
The shake-up in the democratic party between the extreme left and the rational democrats came in 1968, during the Chicago convention. In 1972, the democrats ran a Marxist for president. It's pretty clear who won. Since 1968, the democrats have been and continue to be a leftist party - there is nothing even slightly "liberal" about them.
1988 is what I remember because at the time watching the way H.W. spat the term it struck me as quite odd and I thought, "is that going to work"? Then I remembered the observation of H.L. Mencken and realized that it probably would
That the left, or more accurately the "Democrats", called themselves liberals is understandable given their legacy of association with the commoner classes; after all when they oppose e.g. gay marriage laws in favor of letting gay couples be, they are practicing Liberalism. OTOH when they start legislating affirmative action or banning big sugar drinks, that's Leftism. Passive versus active to oversimplify it.
Republicans practice Liberalism too when they stand for certain (but not all) deregulation, e.g. of small businesses. And they should be proud to tout it when they do.
Of course, some amount of regulation is necessary in any society, unless we want anarchy (which is what I associate the term "libertarian" with and why I don't use it). You can't have a system of roads, and yet oppose the idea of traffic lights. If your business is, say, food production, there must be some authority in place to ensure you're not disseminating e coli or something. That's where we need the balance of left and right on top of a Liberalist framework. A minimal boundary line set by the people, for the people. But not no boundary lines at all.
But to dichotomize right and left into a vast swamp of heroes and monsters so that we can eliminate the monsters, is a competitive rather than cooperative philosophy, and benefits no one except those who see politics not as a vehicle not for sociopolitical philosophy but for a meaningless football game. That's why I oppose these linguistic distortions.
(rant off/offtopic)
The liberals who founded this nation were proponents of freedom, including free enterprise. The centrally managed economy of Obama and the extreme left is the polar opposite of liberalism. Liberalism cannot exist separated from Lassez Faire Capitalism.
Unfortunately it's mitigated by the wackitude immediately preceding. "Centrally managed economy"? Really?
Murray Rothbard wrote that the quest for economic freedom is the foundation for liberalism, i.e. the desire for liberty.
Unfortunately it's mitigated by the wackitude immediately preceding. "Centrally managed economy"? Really?
So you know nothing about Wilson - that is pretty common, especially for those on the left.
Walter Lippmann served as Wilson's chief economic adviser. Now this was prior to the Marxist revolution in Russia, prior to the mass murders by Lenin and Stalin; furthermore, Fabian thought is collectivist, but not Marxist. With all this in mind, understand that the Fabian influence was no covert, Wilson was open about his desire to centralize economic affairs and establish collectivist programs.
progressingamerica: Who founded Fabian Socialism in the United States?
{We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.
Woodrow Wilson The Meaning of a Liberal Education, Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association (9 January 1909).
Collectivism and liberalism cannot coexist. The promoter of Obamacare or the Obamunist state, cannot be a liberal. Only through the curtailing of liberty can the goal of taking from some, to give to others, be achieved.
