• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"Classical Liberals"

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
12,114
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
An odd phenomenon I have encountered lately is that people who seem to be pressing for an eradication of social justice politics and a dismissal of critical conversations about history, gender, race, and other controversial issues have started self identifying as "liberals" or "classic liberals". Who started this, and what is it actually supposed to mean? Where and when did this classical age of liberalism occur, and is there some reason should we be fighting to reconstruct that age? What would a classically liberal society look like? When and why did "liberal" go from being an implied slur on conservative media to being a label of choice for the PragerU crowd?
 
I totally understand this confusion. I feel it myself.

It seems to me that both liberal and conservative, as political descriptions, have been so bent out of shape that they're effectively meaningless.
Tom
 
quote-if-you-have-always-believed-that-everyone-should-play-by-the-same-rules-and-be-judged-thomas-sowell-27-84-61.jpg
 
Well, they were always a bit dodgy if we're being honest. The incomplete reversal of US party positions (ie "Southern strategy" era, though I find that term rarther insulting to the actual South) made things that much more confusing, even when I was growing up. But it seems like we're now trying to jam at least five noticeably different political philosophies into the space of not just two politifcal parties, but into a perceived ideological moiety whose signifiers lead to more confusion than clarity. I get the practical value political alliances, but not investing self-identity into a bimodal categorization that no one can clearly explain.
 
The word "liberalism" originally referred to an emphasis on human rights and personal liberty — freedom from government regulation, freedom from an imposed religion, freedom to accumulate wealth, et cetera.

American "liberals" moved to encourage government regulations, to tax wealth and so on. This led to a divergence in the meaning of "economic liberal," In Europe the term is applied to rightist parties with the meaning of pro-capitalist, or even what in America tends toward right-wing libertarianism. In America, the term "classical liberalism" is sometimes used to denote "economic liberal" in the European sense. In OP, we see that recently the term "classical liberalism" may also be used to contrast with the excesses of social policies of the American Left.

Now, what about social liberalism? Again the traditional meaning is about freedom: freedom of speech, right to privacy and so on. In the U.S. the Ds have traditionally been liberal socially, while the Rs are social conservatives.

But that has changed, at least in some people's views. Democrats have proposed censorships and book banning. Democrats often oppose the liberty to acquire guns. Forced integration and affirmative action oppose traditional liberties. (I'm explaining why some Democratic policies appear illiberal by definition. I am NOT taking sides: Obviously, many or most Republican policies are severely flawed.)
 
About the only place I've heard of 'classic liberal' is with podcasters/youtubers who have sold out to the right wing, but don't want to be identified as a conservative or republican. Probably to try to attract those people who are not conservatives but are disillusioned with democrats. They play with the definition to bring 'liberal' in line with 'libertarian' bs, say they are free thinkers and accuse the left of trying to censor any speech/though that differs from them. That sort of stuff.
 
I think the issue is that yes we need objective teaching of our history without white washing it, but the progressives say their narrative is the only just narrative.

Anything opposing the left's narrative is racist and prejudiced.

Someone writes a book defining Critical Race Theory, it filters into education, and any criticism is racist.

'Classic liberal' sounds like yet another invention. I expect it is a political ploy to differentiate liberal candidates politically fom te extreme progressives.

Biden periodically repeats his mantra, I am not a socialist I am a capitalist making a lot of money is ok. He has to distance himself from the Bernie Sanders' extreme progressive faction.
 
The word "liberalism" originally referred to an emphasis on human rights and personal liberty — freedom from government regulation, freedom from an imposed religion, freedom to accumulate wealth, et cetera.
That's what I'm asking about. When and where was this "the original meaning" of liberalism, and why should we aspire to recreate that political system?
 
Well, they were always a bit dodgy if we're being honest.
Definitely.

They are descriptors with more connotation than specific meaning.

Rich Bible thumping slavers amongst the Founding Fathers were considered "notorious liberals" because they supported representative government over "The Divine Right of Kings".

In a more contemporary setting, the 2016 U.S. election,

Trump and Sanders both proposed sweeping changes. To me, that made them "progressives". Clinton and Kasich both proposed small changes to the status quo, but mostly maintaining the status quo. That made them conservatives, to me. Cruz proposed reverting to a Bible based society. That looks reactionary, to me.

Cruz most resembles a "classical liberal". But a two centuries plus time span makes him reactionary now.
Tom
 
There are dictionary definitions and there is contemporary meaning. It all depends on who is speaking.

For a conservative liberal or progressive is synonymous with communist or socialism. Excessive spending on social programs

To me 20th century American liberalism was about human rights. Civil and sexual righst. Decriminalize pot.

The west is called liberal democracy meaning the govt exists to ensure individual liberties and restrain political power. The opposite being China and Russia.
 
Well, they were always a bit dodgy if we're being honest.
Definitely.

They are descriptors with more connotation than specific meaning.

Rich Bible thumping slavers amongst the Founding Fathers were considered "notorious liberals" because they supported representative government over "The Divine Right of Kings".

In a more contemporary setting, the 2016 U.S. election,

Trump and Sanders both proposed sweeping changes. To me, that made them "progressives". Clinton and Kasich both proposed small changes to the status quo, but mostly maintaining the status quo. That made them conservatives, to me. Cruz proposed reverting to a Bible based society. That looks reactionary, to me.

Cruz most resembles a "classical liberal". But a two centuries plus time span makes him reactionary now.
Tom
Change is only progressive if it moves forward. Trump wants to move the country back to fiefdoms, but without church involvement and with modern technology ( for the revenue streams)

Unless you are talking about cancer, in which case I can see Trump as a progressive.

Cruz is a classic conservative, desiring to return to some (largely mythological) version of a past utopia.

Also a classic slug.
 
To me 20th century American liberalism was about human rights. Civil and sexual righst. Decriminalize pot.
But there was so much more going on than that.

From Social Security to the Interstate Highway System to The Great Society and the social safety net, the list of socialist improvements to the U.S. is huge. Tax and spend policies that greatly benefited society as a whole.
That was, at least at the time, considered liberal. It was definitely socialist. It

Made America Great
in the first place.
Tom
 
Change is only progressive if it moves forward.
Every change moves forward.

Towards what is a different question.

Trump's Wall was a change moving away from "This Nation of Immigrants" to a country where his base didn't have to compete with foreigners for entry level jobs. That's a huge change.

Whether that's an improvement or not is a matter of opinion.
Tom
 
Change is only progressive if it moves forward.
Every change moves forward.

Towards what is a different question.

Trump's Wall was a change moving away from "This Nation of Immigrants" to a country where his base didn't have to compete with foreigners for entry level jobs. That's a huge change.

Whether that's an improvement or not is a matter of opinion.
Tom
No. Regression is change. In a backwards direction.

Not all change is progress. A pile of lumber left in the back yard can progress to become a deck: progress.

Or it can be left to molder and rot. That’s still change. But not progress.
 
No. Regression is change. In a backwards direction.
Now you've introduced yet another undefined word "regression".

Is making it easier for badly educated U.S. citizens to get entry level jobs regression? Millions of people think it's progress.

I'm not one.
But still, millions of people voted for Trump and Trump's Wall. Because they thought it progress. A huge sweeping change towards progress.
Tom
 
An odd phenomenon I have encountered lately is that people who seem to be pressing for an eradication of social justice politics and a dismissal of critical conversations about history, gender, race, and other controversial issues have started self identifying as "liberals" or "classic liberals". Who started this, and what is it actually supposed to mean? Where and when did this classical age of liberalism occur, and is there some reason should we be fighting to reconstruct that age? What would a classically liberal society look like? When and why did "liberal" go from being an implied slur on conservative media to being a label of choice for the PragerU crowd?
It is an attempt to bad-faith the concept of being "a liberal", so as to make it impossible to distinguish whether someone is a regressive asshole by what they claim to be, perhaps even as a linguistic attack against the people who are, generally, normally considered as "liberal" through history.
 
No. Regression is change. In a backwards direction.
Now you've introduced yet another undefined word "regression".

Is making it easier for badly educated U.S. citizens to get entry level jobs regression? Millions of people think it's progress.

I'm not one.
But still, millions of people voted for Trump and Trump's Wall. Because they thought it progress. A huge sweeping change towards progress.
Tom
Regression is a move away from a point.

It requires a point to be defined for it to be regression.

It makes sense that a regression to some would be progress for others, except the issue is that they are trying to "progress" towards something that everyone capable of thinking with more than a "Chinese room" (that concept really needs a better name...) level of operations understands that would be really bad for EVERYONE except a vanishing few, and that bloody wars which were fought to end that the first time would be for naught.

So, I will fight every bloody war I must fight in to not let that happen again.
 
I have only been vaguely familiar with the term, but I have noticed that it's having a come back now. So, I looked around to find something that explains what it means and I found a pretty good piece that explains it fairly well, imo.

https://www.goodmaninstitute.org/about/how-we-think/what-is-classical-liberalism/

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government.

People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

It has become fashionable, especially on university campuses, to view the founding fathers as hypocrites because many were slave owners and they appeared to believe that women, slaves, Indians and other groups were not entitled to the same rights as white, male property owners.

Yet this attitude misses the forest for the trees. In 1776, the world was full of hypocrites. It was not full of people who believed in individual rights. In fact, outside of a handful of people, who mainly lived in America, no one in the world believed in classical liberalism. For example, many people at the time may have thought that slavery was distasteful. But almost no one in the world thought that you have a right not to be a slave.

Although many of our democratic institutions find their roots in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, in those societies slavery was a normal and natural part of everyday life. In ancient Greece, for example, slaves outnumbered non-slaves, with the average household owning as many as three or four. More than one-third of all the people living in ancient Rome were slaves.

The United States is the first government in the history of the world whose founding documents endorsed the idea of individual rights that are prior to the government’s founding and that legitimize the government’s founding.

Once it was granted that some people have natural rights, it was inevitable that the idea would spread to everyone else. Good ideas have to start somewhere. People who live in the United States today and who are not white, not male and not property owners nonetheless have the same rights as everyone else precisely because almost 250 years ago, a group of men went to war to defend the idea that they had rights.

I guess you could say that classical liberalism was an ideal, an ideal who's goals were never fully met. It's one thing to value an ideal, quite another to put it into practice.

I think that Goodman is somewhat conservative, but he did a good job of explaining the history of classical liberalism. Most intellectual conservatives seem to support the concept of classical liberalism, which is not the same as the way the term liberalism is usually perceived of these days, from what I can tell.
 
Regression is a move away from a point.
Nonsense.
Moving away from a point is changing.

It might be for the better. It might not. Whether you think it's for the betterment of the human situation is a matter of opinion.
It requires a point to be defined for it to be regression.
Nonsense.

I understand that you consider changes that suit you to be progress and changes you disapprove of to be regress.

But you aren't an ultimate authority. Your opinions mean little to me.
Tom
 
Back
Top Bottom