As you were.
comments powered by Disqus
Kenneth R Gregg - 2/9/2005
There is no better term for the position that we hold, and there has been none to date. I would always prefer "liberal" to "libertarian" or even "classical liberal".
As more statists are using the term "progressive" here in the U.S., it encourages me in my own use of "liberal." As it is, it has become easier to make this point when I use the term "classical liberal," as this is a beginning point in making the case for liberalism.
I cannot imagine the LP changing into the "Liberal Party" but it certainly would take common usage of "liberal" into a national dialogue, both within libertarian circles and in common English language again.
Just a thought.
Sheldon Richman - 2/8/2005
Heck, let's do it quickly. :) Thanks!
Jason Pappas - 2/8/2005
I was hoping someone would argue this position. Very nicely done! There is really no other word with the meaning – both denotation and connotation – of the grand appellation: liberal. Since I’m not a writer, using the word usually means I must make a detour on the meaning and history of the term. However, I sometimes just use the word in a way that hints of the traditional meaning.
When I say “liberal democracy” people may not understand that I want a constitution to limit the rule of the majority and protect individual rights – but they sense some kind of limits. When I say “liberal economy” people may not understand the kind of economic liberty that I’m talking about but they suspect that I’m not talking about the welfare state. As they see the context of my usage it becomes clear that I'm talking about the classical liberal concept. This often leads into the discussion of the history of liberalism in general.
I really recommend that we slowly take back “our” word.
- New PBS DVD From Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explores African Influence on the Caribbean
- The Council on Foreign Relations Honors Kissinger Critic
- Architectural historian discovers Chartres Cathedral has started faking it
- Rick Perlstein hits back at a critic of his book on Reagan
- So Historians Are Surprised by What DNA Can Tell Us?