What is "liberal" about the Liberal Party anyways? Here's the Oxford Dictionary's definition of "liberalism":
A political ideology centred upon the individual, thought of as possessing rights against the government, including rights of due process under the law, equality of respect, freedom of expression and action, and freedom from religious and ideological constraint. Liberalism is attacked from the left as the ideology of free markets, with no defence against the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few, and as lacking any analysis of the social and political nature of persons. It is attacked from the right as insufficiently sensitive to the value of settled institutions and customs, or to the need for social structure and constraint in providing the matrix for individual freedoms.
Doesn't sound much like the Liberal Party to me. In fact, it's interesting how the Conservative Party of Canada has more in common with the ideology of liberalism, than does the Liberal Party.
Let's try another definition: social democracy
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices purportedly inflicted by the capitalist market system. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation.
Ah... there we go. I propose the: Not-as-socialist-as-the-NDP Party of Canada.
As I've said in the past, social democrats have appropriated the word liberalism from it's once true meaning, of which modern day conservatives in Canada are much closer to representing than is the Liberal Party. The US on the other hand is a completely different story. The word liberal there has been completely twisted to mean "socialist" to many on the right. But it's a word soft-socialists like to be affiliated with, as it has such positive connotations.
For example: Obama calls himself a liberal, but he's not. He's clearly a social democrat. In fact, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were neoliberals, not neoconservatives. These words have all been twisted to suit various political goals.
Today, many conservatives gawk at the idea that liberalism is an inherently capitalist ideology. But it is. A political scientist from the early twentieth century would not flinch to label Stephen Harper a liberal, based on it's academic definition.
Leftists have sought to de-normalize liberalism, because it is an inherently individualist political ideology, where-as leftist ideologies are inherently collectivist. Over the past hundred years, leftists have sought to redefine liberalism as a collectivist--or at least--partially collectivist ideology, which it is not.
Our political terms are botched beyond all recognition. I often get accused of being a conservative in political blogs. I certainly am not, at least in the traditional meaning of the word. I'm closer to an old-school classic liberal.
The problem is that most people haven't the foggiest idea what political terms mean or where they come from. They are quick to categorize but lack understanding of these categories.
It is certainly true that "classic liberals" are finding a home on the so-called right wing. How serious conflict is avoided with true conservatives I'll never know. It's also true that many liberals are anything but.
My hope is that the so-called conservative right-wing morphs into pure classic liberalism, as liberals become more and more progressive. In some respects we're not far off from that.
Leftists have sought to de-normalize liberalism, because it is an inherently individualist political ideology, where-as leftist ideologies are inherently collectivist. Over the past hundred years, leftists have sought to redefine liberalism as a collectivist--or at least--partially collectivist ideology, which it is not.
And thus the convenient, all encompassing mythical term PROGRESSIVE was born.
Part of the problem is that political tags are used more in a negative sense to try to slander opponents than used to define ourselves.
But you are right: the problem is that most left-wingers actually believe themselves to be liberal. And they obviously are not.
As PJ O'rourke says: "The difference between Republicans and Democrats could be summed up as this: Republicans will say that you SHOULDN'T make fun of cripples, and Democrats will say that you CAN'T make fun of cripples."
I agree with you that there is an illiberal strain to what the LPC and American Democrats preach but I wholly reject the notion that Conservatives are actually Liberals. I think the enthusiasm with which Conservatives embrace the drug war is proof of that. The theocratic tendencies of Conservatives are also very illiberal as well. I'd also point out that the Conservatives had done little to decrease the size and influence of government in the economic lives of individuals since they got into office.
PM Harper has referred to himself as a classical liberal.
From a philosophical puritan point of view, modern conservatism and liberalism both draw their origins from classical liberalism.
In reality, the philosophies espoused by both parties represent an attempt to reach what is, more or less, the same end vision, merely with different methods of arriving there.
Contemporary conservatives favour pursuing individual rights by removing government influence and imposing higher standards of individual responsibility. Contemporary liberals have been pursuing that vision by increasing the autonomy of individuals -- or at least "levelling the playing field" to this end -- through various programs of public support (so-called safety nets) and by legally entrenching certain rights that are supposed to foster this autonomy.
Naturally, neither party holds a monopoly on how to best pursue the goals prescribed by classical liberalism, despite the fact that the most partisan from either side will insist that their side does.
Hi Patrick, I agree with you in your description and certainly "that contemporary liberals have been pursuing that vision . . ." but the problem for me is that "leveling the playing field" has a such subjective quality about it that we dare know not from one day to the next which playing field must be leveled.
That is essentially the problem I have with "contemporary Liberals". They have no idea, from one day to the next, where they are going or how to get there.
Any linguist will tell you that what you see here is the evolution of language. Positive words become negative and negative words become positive. Hence dictionary definitions of words are often useless when the word has undergone a shift in its meaning. Look at the example of "protest". When it was created it meant positive testimony now it has the exact opposite meaning. What changed? The protest(ants) were so negative in their action that the very connotation of the word changed. Since Liberals have become social democrats in all but name the word Liberal has changed its meaning. However I don't believe anyone is fooled by the change. People who vote Liberal do so because of what Social Democracy promises them.
I find that liberals and libertarians are nearly the same creature. But you nailed it Brock, liberals are simply hypocrites. They don't even know the colour of their own spots.
I find that liberals and libertarians are nearly the same creature.
What a bizarre statement. In practise it couldn't be further from the truth.
The Charter of Overriding Rights And Freedoms. The architect was no libertarian.
Part of the problem with liberals and their theorizing on autonomy is that their belief is essentially that increasing autonomy will not only make society freer and more egalitarian, but also that it will reduce social injustice.
But if social injustice can be traced back to autonomy -- as often it can -- then increasing autonomy would actually increase social injustice.
It's one of the many inconsistencies within liberalism. Conservatism, of course, has its own inconsistencies.
Part of the problem with liberals and their theorizing on autonomy is that their belief is essentially that increasing autonomy will not only make society freer and more egalitarian, but also that it will reduce social injustice.
But if social injustice can be traced back to autonomy -- as often it can -- then increasing autonomy would actually increase social injustice.
It's one of the many inconsistencies within liberalism. Conservatism, of course, has its own inconsistencies.
I'm not so sure, Patrick. I tend to the classic liberal mind-set, and in general, I start from the position that there is no such thing as social injustice - so it follows that any purported effect on this ill-defined construct has no bearing on my thoughts on autonomy. Increasing autonomy is both a goal in itself - as a necessary precondition to individual liberty and freedom - and the best path to the secondary goal of increased aggregate welfare.
Do you really want to try to make the claim that denying civil rights to women or racial minorities wasn't unjust?
Social injustice exists. That's not merely my opinion, it's also a fact.
The challenge to conservatives is to make room for this simple fact within our beliefs, and to conjure the will to tackle it.
Do you really want to try to make the claim that denying civil rights to women or racial minorities wasn't unjust?
I don't. But I view the failure of classical liberals to address these inequities, was not a failing of liberalism. It was a failing of it's adherents, to take their own philosophy to it's logical and consistent conclusion.
Macarthyism in the US was another example of this. So was segregation.
The actions of the state were inconsistent with the principles on which it was founded. That was the problem. Not that the principles were in error.
When you take liberalism to it's conclusion: it demands in universal suffrage for men and women, and all racial groups, etc. This is the truth. To put it succinctly: the world would be a better place if all idealists believed their own bullshit.
Do you really want to try to make the claim that denying civil rights to women or racial minorities wasn't unjust?
Do really want to make the claim that this was an application either of classical liberalism, or was done to increase autonomy? As Mike B noted, liberalism demands equal treatment of individuals - if anyone can vote (buy a car, own a home, hold office, etc), then everyone can.
Clearly, there are things that are unjust, and there are social conditions that are deplorable - but all too often, "social injustice" is "an outcome I dislike" - the high sounding phraseology is used to disguse the fact that the speaker is simply arguing from personal preference.
There seems to be only a metaphorical handful of people who understand the misappropriation of the term liberal. Like most great thefts, it's been a long time in the making. Over the same period of time that liberalism was relieved of individualism, an equality of opportunity came to mean enforced equality.
In my view, the 'problems' started when liberals started to embrace the notion of positive rights in an attempt to address the collective failure to enforce negative rights ( as described by dcardno and Mike ).
Interesting discussion. I think it is time to reject the labels of Left and Right. I see a more helpful political spectrum as Statist through to Individualist.
Canadian Liberals, US Democrats, Social Democrats, UK / Australian Labour are all somewhere down the Statist wing and tending with time to move further out. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are on their Statist extreme but on this spectrum they are joined by Hitler, which rather kills the “we might have had some bad ones, but, you had the worst”. No! They are all yours, Statists everyone.
The other extreme will be Anarchists and Nihilists with conservative / classical liberalism / individualism (freedoms and liberties of the individual against the state) firmly around the middle ground, rejecting both extremes.
Then the term “progressive” needs to be re-claimed. Reject it as a word used to self-label those of a Statist persuasion. It is positive (the complete opposite of pejorative) and does not belong to those with hackneyed, ineffective, regressive socialist philosophies who need and seem hell bent on maintaining an underclass which justifies their own perpetual and selfish State employment. It belongs to those who reject the simplistic answer of evermore State intervention and regulation but who seek to harmonise the liberties of the individual with personal and social responsibilities. Thus leading to achievement and fulfilment from life.
How large and powerful should the State be? What can it do or should it try to do? What are the consequences if it does too little or too much?
Take your place on the spectrum.