Make Liberalism Great Again

The perpetual tug of war between progressives and conservatives has made it apparent that neither side know the direction they wish to pull us.

On the one hand the progressives, motivated by the dogma of 'to progress', aim to drag us to some unspecified and unknowable end, and will use whatever means necessary to get there. On the other hand the conservatives, motivated by the dogma 'to conserve', offer nothing more than a counterweight to the incessant haul, and thus, like an old dog, are eventually dragged in a direction of the progressive’s choosing.

There is a far better ideal. Liberty, the liberalization of the individual from collective tyranny, remains that elusive and unfulfilled goal of the Enlightenment. Perhaps it is unattainable altogether. But the very process of seeking its attainment would further unshackle the individual from the litany of tyrannies he still faces, and faces daily.

This is liberalism.

I know, I know: “liberalism is a mental disease”. So barks the Right.

But you’re wrong. Those you speak of do not deserve such a moniker. The people protesting and drowning out speakers at universities—those censors and ideological puritans getting upset over jokes, twitter comments, and banalities such as halloween costumes or dreadlocks, using race, class or gender as a unit of measure, getting outraged over what amounts to their own thoughts whenever they clash with reality, calling for more government intervention, more government regulation, more laws, more programs, more taxes, more state etc. etc. etc.—are not “liberals”. They are, in fact, illiberal.

Of course much has been written about the redefinition of liberalism in the United States, for instance in Hayek or Schlesinger or Dewey. Still when speaking of liberalism today we always have to remind ourselves about how the word 'liberal' no longer means liberal, but means different things in different countries, refers to different principles on one hand and different principles in the other, is libertarianism abroad but progressivism or welfarism or statism in America, has its classical and modern sense, and so on. Perhaps worse, it has become a pejorative in the mouths of the American right, while the American left do their best to discredit its good name. The word is essentially meaningless in these contexts. To the extent it has little to do with liberty or anything “befitting a free man”, it is therefor no longer liberal, but some unprincipled mishmash, some middle way between nonsense and egomania and tribalism.

The word “liberalism” is pretty straight forward if and when it is used accurately, that is, when it describes a belief in freedom. The latin root of both ‘liberty’ and ‘liberal’ is liber, free. The word ‘liberal’ appended with the suffix ‘ism’ is simply the belief in freedom. Before the statists expropriated the word ‘liberalism’ until it was unrecognizable, until it meant “liberal with other people’s money”, this is what it had always meant.

It is a travesty when liberals no longer represent the party of liberty. That’s why Liberals should stand up and rescue what has been stolen from them: their namesake, their very ideology, from the swamp of disrepute it has hitherto been dragged through. Without that—without liberalism—there is no better ideal we might progress towards, nor conserve once we get there.

- LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sounds wonderful and really, it's very well written, there's just one thing.

The meaning of Liberal, much like Socialist or Conspiracy Theorist, has been so watered down by the media in general that any attempt to re-establish it's credibility will be fruitless.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think the clasic liberal you speak of are the libertarians of today. Ron Paul would be a good example.

Liberty being the root of libertarian.

I don't think liberal will ever mean what it used to again.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for so eloquently defining what true liberalism is!!

Perspectives like yours is how we can bring everyone back to the table and find our common ground and save humanity in its darkest hour.

I feel like every ATS member should read this!

S&F

I think you're on to something. We need to define what a liberal and a conservative is. What are ten things you stand for if your conservative or a liberal. What is important?

Not stereotypical. like all Liberals want to take all guns away, raise taxes, protect the environment, offer free college and all conservatives want to shrink government, lower taxes, allow guns to everyone, increase military spending and put the ten commandments in every court house and ban abortion.

Is that all we're about anymore? That's why I'm an independent. It allows you to want to protect the environment and own a gun and want lower taxes...all at the same time, while allowing gay marriage and wanting term limits on congressmen. LOL

Hear hear, although "belief in freedom" is such a nebulous concept that it becomes a bit meaningless. I doubt one person can advocate for all sorts of freedom without contradicting herself. If statism is the antithesis then maybe the only true liberals are anarchists, who want freedom any kind of government. And if not, then everyone will just have to keep bitching and arguing about the right amount of state.

a reply to: amazing

I think you're confusing liberalism with the American democratic party. Same goes for conservatism and the American Republican party.

Neoliberalism is a danger to liberty and freedom, but that's mainly in the United States and Canada. Nowhere else is as bad as it is in those countries. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious, isn't? It's been hijacked by extreme radicals, who are bringing that Marxist ideology into liberalism and creating a mess.

A lot of the people need to go back to textbooks, and see what liberalism used to be, and what it stands for in it's original form.

If liberalism can attain it's true goal, there will be no need for such labels. We could finally just be humans.

What would we argue about then? How would power be exerted over the masses? Wouldn't it be grand?

a reply to: amazing

Why shoehorn people into one category or the other? Someone can be liberal when it comes to marriage laws, conservative when it comes to abortion, then liberal again about death penalty, then conservative about economy. The worst part is that the definitions can change depending on where you are, and sometimes it's not even applicable at all, if you think about it.

Being pro gay marriage I guess is unequivocally liberal. But why is it conservative to want low taxes? Why is that not liberal? If you take the word liberal literally then no taxes would give you most freedom (actually, in practice, it might not, but that's not my point here). And why is it liberal to be against death penalty? (EDIT: Well I guess this one kind of makes sense too)

I mean, there's no definitive definition to liberal or conservative, seems to me.o reason given)