How Today’s Liberals Betray Yesterday’s
The meanings of words change over time. “Gentleman” once meant a person privy to the person of the king; eventually, it meant a man of wealth and station; now, it adorns the entrance to a toilet intended for males. This devolution has done no noticeable harm. However, “liberal” — Thomas Jefferson was one — has decayed in similar fashion. Ditto progressive — Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, and were he alive today would probably be outraged at the current usage. These are, unfortunately, common devolutions. It is offensive to understanding and to common decency to usurp words and twist them beyond recognition — apparently, to benefit without the substance from the pleasing coloration associated with what they once meant. It is little better to apply once-honorable labels to such people. And worse, perhaps, the sloppy use of such words prevents the communication of even clear thoughts, facilitating misleading harangues.
This attempt to distinguish between “liberal” in the old fashioned and current senses seems as good as any:
According to the dictionary, the adjective “liberal” comes from liberalis (latin), meaning “of freedom.” “Liberal” describes someone who [...] has an open mind, free from bigotry or bias, not constrained by standard doctrine — indeed, someone who actively resists orthodoxy.
Calling oneself “a liberal” [in the current fashion] connotes an affiliation with the political philosophy known as liberalism. This is a misnomer bordering on oxymoron [...].
Liberalism was founded on the primacy of the individual and the rule of the individual in contrast to the rule of the monarchy, the priesthood, or the central authority [...].
Liberalism in its earlier sense has become moribund, and in its current incarnation can sometimes even be fatal. A conservative does not agree with these illiberal “liberal” notions:
- The central authority (government) knows best, rather than individuals.
- The government should take care of me (no personal responsibility).
- The government should make the rationing (balancing) decisions between supply and demand rather than letting the market do that.
- A liberal will aggressively even violently defend “liberal” orthodoxy: You either agree with me in all particulars or you are an amoral heretic and outcast [emphasis in original].
A “conservative,” as I try to use the word, wants to conserve the good in society, while pressing for incremental change for the better. Some “conservatives” have opposed all change, much as did the royalists in France before the revolution. Britain accepted incremental change while preserving what was basic and good. France? She had her bloody revolution.
Devolutions such as these should be closely considered when interpreting words. Their earlier attributes do not properly apply to the “liberals” of today or to quite a few “conservatives”; neither do the characteristics of the early progressives fit the current crop of “progressives,” as the term has come to be misused. Here is one example:
[The] mass murder at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s meet-up with her Arizona constituents was immediately politicized by progressive politicians and media figures. But it’s wrong to see this as an unusual event. It’s the way things are always done when progressives have any power to reach the public: everything is political. And President Obama is doing his very best to take advantage of the situation.
That is, of course, an accurate description of the current crop of “progressives” who kidnapped the word. Perhaps such words should have the prefix “neo” or “faux.”
The one thing I can say about liberals in FDR’s time is that at least they could afford to be liberals. At least we had the money to cover their crazy programs. Today, liberals have literally bankrupted the government. We have no more money for these outrageous social-welfare programs and for the huge, bloated, size of the Federal government. If it was the goal of liberals to bankrupt the nation just so that we could be more like the failed socialist nation-states in Europe, they have achieved that goal. Question is, do we still have time to reverse course and save what’s left of our economy, or do we just sink into irrelevance, like France? Right now, considering the current pathetic budget battle in Congress, I’m starting to take lessons in speaking French.
You refer to FDR and accurately note that many of the “liberals” of his day “could afford to be liberals.” True; of course the same could be said of many “liberals” of TR’s time and of today. At least during TR’s time, “liberal” policies were far less in evidence than during FDR’s time and now, even though during TR’s time the country was in a better position to pay for the few which may have been implemented.
I prefer to use the word liberal as it was earlier used: “Liberalism was founded on the primacy of the individual and the rule of the individual in contrast to the rule of the monarchy, the priesthood, or the central authority.” With that usage, liberal policies have very little to do with FDR’s initiatives or with those supported by the current crop of “liberals.”
My references in the article were to Theodore Roosevelt, FDR’s distant cousin and a Republican. TR was the President from 1901 to 1909; FDR from 1933 to 1945. I think that during the twenty-four years intervening between the end of TR’s presidency and the beginning of FDR’s the meanings of “liberal” and “progressive” changed; probably even more during the forty-four year period between the beginning of TR’s presidency and the end of FDR’s and even more during the more than a century since the end of TR’s presidency.
Don’t worry about it, Dan. Liberty’s heart is in the right place, but he’s not very well educated, so he often misses important distinctions.
Hey Mark V, before you go off being snotty and calling people “not very well educated,” you may want to take a moment and pull your head out from your undoubtedly large rear end and make a point before insulting people. Simply agreeing with someone without saying why is childish to say the least. To say the most it is cowardly and shows a stunning lack of intellect.
Dan, I really, really, think you are splitting a lot of hairs here. I think Liberals basically changed their names after FDR’s administration and called themselves Progressives after the country got a taste of what uncontrolled liberalism was like during the 1930s.
You went on to say, “You refer to FDR and accurately note that many of the “liberals” of his day “could afford to be liberals.” True; of course the same could be said of many “liberals” of TR’s time and of today.” It’s that “and of today” part that bothers me. If liberals today want to give all their own money away to charities and such, more power to them. The problems begin when they are elected to office and decide to bankrupt the nation by implementing all of their liberal views, like Obama and his pals Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did. You are correct that the progressive/liberal spending in Teddy Roosevelt’s time is nothing compared to what FDR spent, let alone what liberals in government spend today, but then again, it doesn’t really matter, does it? What really matters is how liberal (or Progressive, whichever term you want to use) spending is bankrupting our country today. Liberalism or Progressivism may have started with the best of intentions under Teddy Roosevelt, but what we are stuck with today is how modern-day liberals have used Liberalism to convert this nation into a welfare state, like the ones that are currently collapsing in Europe. So are today’s liberals the same as the ones in TR’s time? Of course not. Does it matter? Not really, because we are still the end users of their policies and those policies have bankrupted this nation.
By the way, I’m no defender of Teddy Roosevelt. And if you want to hold on to the classic Jeffersonian definition of liberalism, swell. I just don’t think the distinctions between “liberal” and “progressive” matter much TODAY.
Many of the “liberals of today” have lots of money as well as celebrity status to accompany it; I agree that they should spend their own resources, not funds collected by the government as taxes, on their various pursuits and that the latter is what they most often do when elected to office. TR, as with many progressives of his time, spent his own money (from his share of the family businesses) to achieve his goals of feeding the hungry and providing modest housing and opportunities for the otherwise homeless and destitute. I don’t recall having suggested anything inconsistent with these notions.
Does the distinction between what once honorable terms meant and what they have come to symbolize make a difference? I think it does because usurpation of those terms gives a bright gloss of respectability to those who are neither progressive nor liberal in the earlier sense. (As suggested in the article, TR was not a classical liberal.) I think that classical liberalism is beneficial individually and to society. To see President Obama and Senator Kennedy held up as shining examples of liberalism — for which such as Jefferson are revered — goes against the grain. To see them viewed as progressives does as well; “progress” away from individual initiative, responsibility and love of country toward the sort of national as well as individual impotence which President Obama now espouses and which Senator Kennedy often favored is disheartening. It is not forward movement; it is a pernicious advance to the rear.
Dan, What FDR and his ilk (actually you can trace the roots back to Teddy R, via Wilson) implemented was democratic corporatism – aka fascism. I mean that in a clinical, academic, political science way, not as a catch all for policies we don’t like which is the current fashion. Big government, big business, big unions, big finance – all coordinated and working together in the national interest. Only one problem there, and that’s the inherent tendency to towards corruption that such a removal of the natural checks and balances entails. And Americans like corporatism btw. They like big checks from the government not to grow crops. They like it when their local university gets a “grant.” They could care less if the pipeline between the SEIU and the Democratic party is funded by their taxes. Well, a majority of folks felt that way for a very long time. Corporatism was the American Way, along with military interventions around the world. And no, other countries are not made up of angels, so they’re not innocent either – I have no such illusions.
No one really owned up to the fundamental issue until the money ran out (hat tip to Margaret Thatcher). Decreasing ability to pay for all this fun stuff uncovered the heretofore invisible geography of corrupt bargains between our institutions. And people who weren’t paying attention became unhappy with what they finally saw. Lincoln knew what I am talking about when he famously said “What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.”
And so we come to a place where Codevilla’s ruling class has been discredited. They’re dead men walking yet, and it will be a while before the reality sets in. We’ll see if the country class can man up and assert itself. I hope so.
I agree as to FDR and to some extent as to Wilson. TR’s principal nexus with FDR springs from having sprung from the same family, TR and FDR being distant cousins. TR was a Republican and TR was a Democrat. TR thought that President Wilson had very wrong-headed notions and “despised President Wilson for pursuing policies similar to those pursued by Chamberlain in the years leading up to the next war.”
“President Obama’s neo-liberal, neo-progressive ”
You clearly forgot neo-communist. Under the thesis for this article, it’s also interesting that the left calls themselves progressive.
I don’t think “neo-communist” is accurate.
Obama is a good old fashioned Marxist. The only things standing between him and a redux of the Stalin years are the Constitution (particularly the 2A), [some of] the American people, and time.
I don’t get very excited over the evolution of identity, historical ideology and mission statements of the socialists. ALL of their ‘slick’ evolutions are circular in nature and are intended to eventually circle right back to their historical origins of ideological objective(s).
A “socialist” is a socialist.
A “liberal” is a socialist.
A “progressive” is a socialist.
A “communist” is a socialist.
All the evolutions of word hijacking are simply strategies of social and political conditioning and diversion. In America, even today, there is an underlying rejection of being identified as a socialist so they play the word game, hijacking words that have less negative connotations. Much in the same ways the homsexuals hijacked the word ‘gay’ and ‘rainbow’ to identify themselves and their social perversion.
Consider the power of deceptive word choice. Look at how many folks jumped on the raw fish and beef train….not because they had some inate fondness of such, but rather, the sheik names (words) and social image promoting the consumption of raw meats in spite of the high health risks associated with it. Word deception has the power to influence and the socialists are experts at the game.
Great article focusing on branding, a technique perfected by early advertisers in the media! I’m still trying to understand what belief systems are under the umbrellas of ‘right’ versus ‘left’. Supposedly, according to literature of the era, ‘Right’ referred to Hitler’s belief system and ‘Left’ to Communism. People who believe we should return to the constitutional limits of government power are now labeled ‘extreme right’. People who believe Marx had the ideal belief system are called, not Communist, but mainstream. ‘Conservative’ today has no meaning, as it includes both Marxists (RINOS) and constituionalists.
My tentative conclusion of all this branding is that the U.S. has marched straight down the path of Marxism. Stalin would be proud of the CPUSA for its role in this transformation; the Kremlin’s 70-year funding has paid off. The proof is all around us, ie, how many depend on the government for their income, health care and education?
Since we are bankrupt at most levels of government, something has got to give in the near future. Marx’s philosophy, regardless of what you call it, has never worked because it flies in the face of the laws of economics.
Conservatives in the U.S. today do not include Marxists. On the other hand, so-called Liberals include Marxists and Fascists, but not so-called Constitutionalists. Otherwise, I think generally you are right.
Thanks for this great article. While I don’t hate Beck the way some do, his penchant for trying to cram all of history into neat good guy/bad guy pigeon-holes has always rubbed me the wrong way. I’ve been struggling against it since my early 20s, and never seem to make much headway. Historical figures have to be judged by the definitions and beliefs of their own times, rather than assuming they knew all the history between their time and our own.
All governments are oligarchic democracies; the question is how much oligarchy the demos is prepared to tolerate. Tradition often builds the oligarchs into nobles or kings, but can as easily be a union boss or a party chairman. Our republic is an attempt to break that universal paradigm, and it has succeeded overall, despite frequent returns of oligarchy. We’re in another era where the slow-roasted oligarchs are going to suddenly realize they’ve been playing with fire all along, and after a refresher, a new batch of oligarchs will start their slow rise to power and oblivion.
Personally I have a hard time seeing most politicians as devils; even the worst of them generally don’t rise to the level of devil as they’re far too petty. And it must always be remembered that no oligarch gets anywhere without a band of toadies and recreants helping him out. As is always the case, all political problems are ‘We the People’ problems. Sometimes we each just have to set aside our own lives and be Cincinnatus as best we can.
R.N. In America, ONLY through the surrender of core social values and individual responsibility, can your fears come to fruition. With each new generation American’s have surrendered more and more of its national core values and individual repsponsibilitity allowing for the oligarchy increase you speak too.
I think the founders were in error when addressing immigration. I think they believed that those coming to America would forever come in willing assimilation to our core values and individual responsibility. Of course, we now know that that is not the case of today. Some today come for the traditional opportunity and assimilation, while the majority come for the expansion of social welfare from a centralized government, percieved as the richest on the globe.
Bottom line? It depends on the ‘majority’ of the people, who are constotutionally protected, to shape and direct the future of America. Our enemies learned long ago how to use the constitution against us over time….and its yet to fail them.
hate to nitpick at editing, but part of the quote from the American Thinker article is not aligned with the rest of the margins of the quote. Hate to think you’d get into trouble for that
My mom has an American College dictionary from just after WWII. If you look up ‘liberal’ and ‘republican’, they describe me. Today you would have to use the the phrase ‘peaceful libertarian anarchist’. Meanings definitely change.
I grew up in Vermont some decades ago, and it was an interesting place. I’d say that the GOP and Democrats were both progressive in the older sense.
The way I say it to either side, “liberal” means, “We can make it better,” and conservative means, “Let’s be careful not to throw the baby with the bathwater — are you certain you’ve thought this through? Are you certain you *can* predict that you’ve thought this through.”
However, the definitions that bug me (and you glance on it) is the conflation of the terms right wing and conservative and the terms left wing and liberal.
Originally these had very different meanings.
Right wing vs. left wing refers to the time after the French Revolution when the nobles were trying desperately to hold on to their property, and sat on the right of the aisle in the parliament. The commoners (for the most part, but some nobles joined them) on the left of the aisle wanted a more equitable redistribution of wealth.
I know a good many conservatives who are in favor of slow change, but also have a stewardship attitude around charity channeled through government (for example, I have a lovely conservative christian friend who is very savvy about economics, and believes that “obamacare” is a disaster because single payer is the only solution that pencils out — a socialization vs. privatization that would make her solidly left-wing as a conservative). I have a very smart liberal friend who is socially progressive, and a total libertarian tight-wad when it comes to taxation or the welfare state.
No wonder we end up with the gulf between our two parties, when we insist on seeing all politics as not only binary, but in only two dimensions.