Liberalism (Bites)

“Liberal” — If the Left isn’t using it, can we have it back?

By J. Wesley ⋅ May 19, 2008 ⋅  Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

These days, no one wants to be a liberal. Much of the Democratic Party has dropped liberal from its lexicon. Now they call themselves “Progressives.” In some ways, that’s a refreshing bit of honesty. If you have a sense of history, you remember that Progressive was the self-designation of the pro-Soviet American Left during much of the 20th century.

With “liberal” unused, maybe conservatives should take it up. We certainly have a better claim to it than the Left does. In fact, on nearly every point modern conservatism is “liberal” in its historic sense, and the Left “illiberal.”

- Conservatives support limited, federated government; the Left consolidates power in a massive, activist government.

- Conservatives support strict Constitutionalism; the Left dismisses the text of the Constitution as a “living document.”

- Conservatives support strong property rights; the Left endorses wealth redistribution and unrestrained eminent domain laws.

- Conservatives support equality of opportunity; the Left wants to government to regulate equality of outcome.

- Conservatives support meritocracy and color-blindness; the Left supports racist identity politics.

- Conservatives support free trade; the Left has become the faction of trade restriction.

- Conservatives support unfettered Free Speech; the Left enacts campus speech codes.

The list could continue, but these are some of the hallmarks of historic liberalism. The capture of “Liberal” by the radical Left is an Orwellian shift in language. Radicalism is the antithesis of historic liberalism, and the notion that Radicalism is Liberalism is on par with War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.