Terminology
I have consciously chosen to use the term leftist instead of the more common liberal. Also, I don’t particularly like the label conservative that most people would apply to my political views. Let me explain.
I consider my political views to be essentially classical liberalism. The qualifier classical is indispensable these days. Classical liberalism is the political philosophy that champions individual liberty (and therefore responsibility), free markets, and limited government. The term liberalism is a perfectly good one, but unfortunately it has been applied to ideologies that are completely antithetical to its classical definition. Modern and postmodern liberals are liberal only with other people’s money (what I call OPM-itis); they use the government’s coercive power to rob Peter to pay Paul and to buy Paul’s votes. This creates a vicious form of dependency on the government that is not easily broken, and ultimately and unfairly punishes the most productive members of society. And are not dependency and coercion the very essence of slavery?
Likewise, I dislike the label conservative because it does not say very much about what it is to be conserved. In the days of the Puritan Revolution, for example, a conservative would be a royalist. Or, during the Protestant Reformation, a conservative would be a papist. If I were to project my views back to those times, I would certainly be considered a progressive or a liberal! And if we look at the mess that is the political landscape in the U.S., it’s certainly not something that I want to conserve. Reform toward the end of classical liberalism is what I would look for. For me, the terms liberal and conservative are just too vague and imprecise, and too dependent on one’s position in history.
Be that as it may, I will not object too strongly if others call me conservative, as long as the context is clear. In my writings, however, I will continue to use leftist and its related terms to refer to the opposition.
(UPDATE 08:48 30-Sep-04): There’s a post in FreeRepublic about giving ‘liberal’ a definition.
I consider my political views to be essentially classical liberalism. The qualifier classical is indispensable these days. Classical liberalism is the political philosophy that champions individual liberty (and therefore responsibility), free markets, and limited government. The term liberalism is a perfectly good one, but unfortunately it has been applied to ideologies that are completely antithetical to its classical definition. Modern and postmodern liberals are liberal only with other people’s money (what I call OPM-itis); they use the government’s coercive power to rob Peter to pay Paul and to buy Paul’s votes. This creates a vicious form of dependency on the government that is not easily broken, and ultimately and unfairly punishes the most productive members of society. And are not dependency and coercion the very essence of slavery?
Likewise, I dislike the label conservative because it does not say very much about what it is to be conserved. In the days of the Puritan Revolution, for example, a conservative would be a royalist. Or, during the Protestant Reformation, a conservative would be a papist. If I were to project my views back to those times, I would certainly be considered a progressive or a liberal! And if we look at the mess that is the political landscape in the U.S., it’s certainly not something that I want to conserve. Reform toward the end of classical liberalism is what I would look for. For me, the terms liberal and conservative are just too vague and imprecise, and too dependent on one’s position in history.
Be that as it may, I will not object too strongly if others call me conservative, as long as the context is clear. In my writings, however, I will continue to use leftist and its related terms to refer to the opposition.
(UPDATE 08:48 30-Sep-04): There’s a post in FreeRepublic about giving ‘liberal’ a definition.
posted by Auffie at
07:32
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home