I'm a Liberal
I'm not going to get anywhere with this, I suspect: The cause is lost. But it grieves me deeply--I mean, it causes me linguistic pain--that the word "liberal" has come to mean "left wing." It makes no sense, historically, and it collapses an important distinction between liberalism, in the classical sense, and collectivism.
The etymology of the word liberal should be the giveaway: It comes from the Latin liber, or free, and it resembles--does it not?--the word liberty. This is not for no reason. The philosophical tradition long known as liberalism originated with Locke, whose name is associated with such concepts as natural rights, the social contract, rejection of absolutism in government, the rule of law, the subjection of rulers to the consent of the governed; rights to life, liberty, and property. Does that sound left-wing to you?
The tradition of liberal thought continues through Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, who understood liberty--and were thus described as liberals--as the absence of interference from government. On Liberty is one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, and it does not mean, "On being a Bolshevik, Trotskyite, member of the Popular Peoples' Revolutionary Front, progressive, deconstructionist, communist, Unionist, Sparticist Leaguer, Marxist, Leninist, anarchist, Labourite, Green, enthusiast of Howard Dean or an AFL-CIO organizer." Nothing to do with any of that.
Laissez-faire capitalism has always been described as a liberal idea. The classical liberal tradition compasses Hobbes, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Malthus, Ricardo, not to mention von Mises and Hayek. This is good company.
"The program of liberalism," wrote Mises, "if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand."
You see my point?
Why does it matter, you might ask, if everyone now uses the word to mean "left-wing?" It matters because words--and the ideas they symbolize--have histories, and fully to understand the idea you must understand its history. It matters because to use the words interchangeably means to lose the original meaning of the word "liberal," for which there is no real substitute: The English language is simply the poorer for the loss.
I can't do much to reverse this sad development in English usage, but I do note that at this time of day, I'm in charge here.
That said, since I'm a liberal, I guess you can say whatever you like, so long as you don't violate Ricochet's terms of service.
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
The word "liberal" to describe Bolsheviks and their assorted kin would make perfect sense to George Orwell.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Do you think that living in Turkey, which is illiberal no matter how you look at it, makes this more stark for you? Our political left is confused about what it means to be liberal, however, compared to much of the world they still are. They may tend towards illiberal ideas at times, but at their core they are far closer to classical liberalism than the people running Turkey, or Iraq, or pretty much any place outside the West.
Just a thought.
Re: I'm a Liberal
My objection is not so much political as linguistically puritanical. I get exercised when people conflate "disinterested" and "uninterested," too. I have no objection to the natural evolution of language (unlike, say, the Academie Francaise), but I don't like it when words we need--words that have distinct and important and useful meanings--get lost in the shuffle.
Edited on Jul 15, 2010 at 5:46amRe: I'm a Liberal
I'm with you on Locke, Claire, and fortunately there are still lots of people running around here in DC keeping the term 'classical liberal' safe from abuse. But Mill is more difficult. Of course Mill was not a Red. But he was the world's first liberaltarian. Locke still retains some of the idea that we created beings don't own ourselves. Mill, not so much.
Re: I'm a Liberal
Interesting point. Kind of like when you boil down democrat and repbulican you don't really get left with much that reflects the views of those parties. I guess in my head, and I have no idea if this is how the words evolved or became skewed, but liberal is the natural opposite of conservative. As in, liberal (free) with doling out government money & assistance as opposed to conserving that money or trying to keep it with the earner whenever possible. I suppose that's how, beginning long ago when I first learned these words, I was able to keep their meanings straight.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Claire Berlinski: My objection is not so much political as linguistically puritanical. I get exercised when people conflate "disinterested" and "uninterested," too. I have no objection to the natural evolution of language (unlike, say, the Academie Francaise), but I don't like it when words we need--words that have distinct and important and useful meanings--get lost in the shuffle. · Jul 15 at 5:44am
I fully understand this lament but this phenomenon cannot be controlled. Semantic shift, as it is known formally has been with us forever, within a language (the joke about entering "very seldom" in the box marked "sex" on a form does not work today - it's "gender" almost everywhere) and cross-language (cf., e.g., Eng. demand and Fr. demander; also, the often bleeped- or dotted-out ass is itself an early euphemism for arse). Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, liberal is a derogatory term in today's France for "Anglo-Saxon capitalist"-related. Go know.
As to dis/uninterested - alas, one needs to invent new terms or risk coming across as overly pedantic...
Jun '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Here we return to our earlier discussion about the writer's art. Precision prose is a characteristic of a disciplined mind. What happens when the lexicon fails us because the words are imprecise? We struggle.
Re: I'm a Liberal
Spot on post, Claire. I try to qualify the term here as "American liberal" or "American left" as it does differ so much from both the historical beginnings of the term liberal and the use of that term in the rest of the world.
It's interesting to observe also how the American parties have reversed their positions over the years, leading to the word liberal in America no longer resembling what it originally stood for.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
What I hate is the whole left/right thing. The press lazily puts Communism on the far left and Fascism on the far right. They are actually two sides of the same coin.
If I had to diagram a political spectrum, the far left is absolute dictatorship and the far right absolute freedom (anarchy). Since neither works you work toward the middle.
One step in on the left are the oligarchies: Monarchies, Communism and Facism. To their right is the social statism of Obama and Europe.
The Republic occupies the center and to its right, one step in from anarchy, is Libertarianism.
I know some political scientists diagram the spectrum as more spherical, but that would be even harder to sell. But I think it think it shows where the "progressives" are progressing toward.
Jun '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
The last time "liberal" and "classical liberal" were interchangeable was probably when some Europeans were "Prussian."
Jul '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Having made "liberal" radioactive, the left prefers now to describe itself as "progressive." You are mistaken if you expect them to agree to fixed definitions. They are far too slippery. This is what accounts for the high regard they have for euphemisms and opaque bureaucratic formulations.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
My thinking is close to Ursula's. "Liberal" makes sense as opposed to "conservative" when you think that liberals hope to "liberate" our culture from traditions. They're neophiles, albeit usually too ignorant to realize their views are centuries old.
Progressives (I prefer this label, anyway) have had great success controlling language in general. The way to combat their changes is to simply ignore them as best we can. Continue to use words in the proper way until you are forced to clarify. Then, say what you mean by the word and continue to use it. In some cases, this is a futile gesture. But "classically liberal" is close enough that it might eventually push "liberal" back the other way.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Did this lexicon shift take place when FDR declared his "Four Freedoms"? "Freedom from want" is not freedom at all, but a principle that imposes duties on other people to provide for you. By dressing it up as freedom (liberty), you can believe in this pillar of statism and still call yourself liberal.
Re: I'm a Liberal
EJHill, your diagram actually makes a lot of sense. I doubt we'll be able to convince everyone else, though. We can try!
Sergei, like I said, I get it about semantic shift. It's natural, normal, and healthy, like naked Swedes frolicking in the sauna. But losing the distinction between disinterested and uninterested leaves us without a word for disinterested, since they've both come to mean uninterested. And "disinterested" is actually a hugely important concept. So I'm ready to fight to the death over this one, or at least to get a little put out whenever I see it.
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
Ugh, Claire, I just looked them both up on Merriam Webster and the first definition of disinterested is word-for-word identical to that of uninterested.
Jul '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
I'm with you, Claire. I have LONG contended that I am not really a "conservative" but a "liberal" in the only true way to look at the label.
Truth of the matter, today's Left was initially "The Progressives" of the early 20th century. However, after Wilson that term became rather caustic, especially if you had any political ambitions, so the Left simple renamed themselves "Liberals". THAT label has held until recently, when IT became rather caustic to its adherents. They have now been moving towards the old "progressive" label, with the hope that no one recollects just what a bunch of morons they were and what horrible programs they represented 100 years ago. "Statist" or "Fascist" would be far better labels for today's Left.
So with the Left abandoning "liberal" perhaps it's time for us to grasp it for ourselves once again, and be labelled far more accurately.
Re: I'm a Liberal
Mark Wilson
Ugh, Claire, I just looked them both up on Merriam Webster and the first definition of disinterested is word-for-word identical to that of uninterested. · Jul 15 at 8:35am
Say it ain't so, Mark!
Re: I'm a Liberal
Def. agree there's an important difference. Here's a good explanation:
Disinterested: impartial.
Example: Let a disinterested person judge our dispute. (an impartial person)
Uninterested: not interested in.
Example: This man is uninterested in our dispute. (couldn’t care less)
From: http://writing.lifetips.com/tip/8529/commonly-confused-words/c-f/disinterested-vs-uninterested.html
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
I hate to admit it, Claire, but I didn't know there was a difference between "disinterested" and "uninterested" until you pointed it out. And I'm a writing graduate. Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever used "uninterested" before. I either say "disinterested" or "not interested".
May '10
Re: I'm a Liberal
I don't use "progressive"- that is their public relations-driven rebranding preference to overcome the destruction of the reputation of the unmodified word "liberal". My description of choice is the classical liberals vs. the collectivists. The UAW- collective factories. The USPS- collective document delivery.
I'm not big on Mill, either- he was all about citizen-empowered big government. Get all the serfs to say what they want in these steered discussion panels, and then the enveloping benevolent government will nobly provide it, under the guise of grass-roots democracy. I have a coilleague here who is all JS Mill all the time.