Can conservatives steal back the term “liberal” and return it to its true political meaning?
Question by Jam_Til_Impact: Can conservatives steal back the term “liberal” and return it to its true political meaning?
Most people who have been pigeon-holed into the category of “conservative” really aren’t. Most of us are in fact liberals, the classic liberal of the 18th and 19th century. When the Progressive Movement started in the early 1900s it was called just that, Progressive. However, by the mid 1930s, Progressives had stolen the term “liberal” and changed it to suit their own meaning. There can be zero argument that the United States was founded on liberal political theory and values. Yes, for those of you who will hop right on the slavery bus I DO see a HUGE problem between a piece of classic liberal theory like Rousseau’s “The Social Contract ” and slavery, especially when dealing with Jefferson. However, that isn’t the point I was making, and slavery actually does fit in with liberal government when you look at the laws as laid down in the Constitution about states rights versus the federal government in dealing with “fugitives from labor”.
The question I am really asking is can we classic conservatives steal back the term with education, or has a “classical education” gone by the wayside and the term is now lost to those of us who agree with Burke, Locke, Jefferson and Rousseau?
Planet:
You need to read the rest of the question before you answer. The progressive wing of the Democratic party had called themselves “liberals” long before any of the people you mentioned were even born. So, are you saying the Rush Limbaugh traveld back in time to the 1920s and 1930s and started calling the government programs “liberal”, which at the time meant in the politcal theory of Jefferson and Burke?
I like ruth and SonnyD.
Maybe “agree with” was a bit too all-inclusive. Yes, Burke did have flaws, but he did tacitly support the American revoolution, and saw the French revolution for what it was: a group of regicidal social engineers. Tear down everything the state stood for and did, regardless of its good or bad nature.
Rousseau also had some flaws, but the primary thought is that no one or class has a right to govern over others. Myself, I don’t think Rousseau was talking the social engineering that progressives and socialists deem needed as legislation molding man, but legislation that poses soft boundaries, something that keeps real revolution in check, shy of an armed confict, like The French Revolution.
You both make interesting points.
Jerome
Paine also only lived in what became the US for about 13 years, from 1774 to 1787. He then sailed to Europe. And immediately got mixed in with the French revolutionaries.
I view him not so much as a pro-self-government, but more pro-regicide. He never heard of a king that not only needed deposed, but killed.
And his assualt on the Quakers was below the belt at best. His remark of “…for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye claim to be and are NOT Quakers.” is at best waht would be called “race-baiting” if the Quakers were a race and not a religious sect.
I hold Paine in very, very low regard and look at him as a 18th century Gueverra, just without as much blood on his personal hands. Paine was a professional revolutionary, and the revolution at the time was against monarchies.
Jerome, I kind of would like to know. Are you a supporter of Paine, or neutral and brought it up as a counter-point. I am well aware of The Rights of Man, and dismiss it in regards to the French Revolution as the revolution brought about Napolean Bonaparte as their leader in a short amount of time. It took them very few years to go from a king to a dictator, while the American colonies never had a dictator post-revolution. I think this part itself raises Burke’s criticism of the French Revolution over Paine’s rebuttal to Burke’s work. BUrke always saw them for what they were. From Speech on the Army Estimates.
“The French had shown themselves the ablest architechs of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world. In that very short space of time they had completely pulled to the ground their monarchy, their church, their nobility, their law, their revenue, their army, their navy, their commercerce, their arts, and their manufactures.”
I can’t find where he is wrong there.
I disagree with Ford.
It is immoral to harm your neighbors by your actions. Classical liberals still operate by a moral creed. It is human nature to be immoral, and morality must come from somewhere. It cannot, however, come from government, unless government becomes the “god”.
Best answer:
Answer by michelob86
I don’t know why not. They’re good at stealing most everything else.
I hope they do, I live for the day Limbaugh announces he’s always a liberal after using it as a slur.
What do you think? Answer below!
I think it would be pretty confusing for most and since language is for communication, and ‘conservative’ today conveys who we are, why try to take a word that has evolved to mean something else?
‘Conservative’ suits me, fine.
The meanings of words change over time. There is no “true” meaning of the word liberal. We don’t talk the way people did in the 18th or 19th centuries, and it’s impossible to restore old uses of language.
read between the lines
l I’m a conservative l
defining the definition as such my beliefs and vales fit in. Therefore I am content
lol, don’t try to flip the two political meanings of these words, especially in here. Good try though.
Unfortunately, it was “conservatives” like Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and a host of others who have trodded the word “Liberal” so deep into the mud that it may be stained forever.
You might be better off using the term progressive. It’s a more accurate term anyways.
It was conservatives like Rush who deliberately distorted the meaning of the word liberal, so why would they want to change it back again? Remember 15 years or so ago when Rush would pretend to be vomiting when he said ‘liberal’? But to answer your question, anything is possible if mainstream conservatives would grow some balls.
The classic liberal definition is forever tainted in the American political experience.
For example, if you believed in free trade or “liberalized trade” wouldn’t you be labelled as such?
The term liberal (in the American context) is now a perjorative one.
You are absolutely right! If you look at the true meanings of “liberal”, it fits today’s liberals about as well as a square fits into a circle.
Classic education? What’s that? Yeah, it’s gone by the wayside.
Language is dynamic. The only ‘true’ meaning words have is the meaning we collectively give them.
Classic liberals believed in the virtues of a common morality. Things like “the sanctity of the contract” were fundamental to their beliefs in our ability to retain our freedoms from government.
When you look at our current situation, with huge government and huge business taking care of each other and no one else, when you see the morality of the contract only apply to the middle class who must pay the tax man and pay to bail out big business and then pay big business their increasing demands (check out the new terms on your credit cards, if you have them), we have a situation which requires attention.
I don’t think conservative should mean republican anymore. I definitely don’t think liberal should mean democrat and don’t think it ever has. but it would seem that if this administration distorts the US C, conservatives will become liberals to take the meaning back.
I still think the terms have the most meaning as applied to Constitutional interpretation and shouldn’t belong to parties at all. Humans aren’t perfect and there’s always something of a disconnect between pure theory (Rousseau) and application of laws.
Most Conservatives are not liberals, even in the classical sense. Many of them are social conservatives along with being defenders of the Bush administration, which is far from conservative. I don’t know how they call themselves conservative, but they do.
The classical liberals of yesterday are the libertarians today, and we are critical of Rousseau since he believed men were artificial constructs that should be molded through legislation, which is not a classical liberal concept. We are also critical of Burke who defended a feudal system which clearly favored some over others.
Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Men as a counter to Burke. We the American people are a free people, our constitution was written that we may maintain this freedom, this by default rules out Rousseau. It can be said that Locke was the father of our over all economic theory, though both method and technique had to change in order to take advantage the international age. As for Jefferson and slaves, Our founding papers, explicitly state that “All Men Are Created Equal”.
This is to say, the true political meaning of the word liberal is Freedom.
I’m 53 and since my youth when I could recognize such things, Liberal has always meant “progressive” and has been fixed in the Democratic party…it’s strengths have always been the working class people and it has usually been against big business and for environmental issues. Liberals have, in my lifetime, been mostly for a free economy to better the creation of business and jobs, but not at the detriment of living conditions for the middle class. There are certainly factions inside of the Democratic party that are not defined as generally liberal, but they are not the majority. In fact the difference between a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican is minimal. One good example of this difference is the “trickle down” theory, Liberals believe the only way to improve the economy is to provide jobs and money to the lower and middle classes so that money will circulate…they believe that “trickle down” is simply another way to make the rich richer.
In my opinion the limits that Conservatives have attempted to put on the individual are much more severe than the limits the Liberals want to put on the upper classes….because it is human nature…it’s human nature to not want safety practices or environmental rules or product safety to get in the way of profits…
I think Levin hit on it in “Liberty and Tyranny” where he calls them statist.
I like the idea of just using the terms “classic liberal” and “liberal left.”
After all, no one ever says “We had a temperature in my part of the country today.” It’s always identified with the descriptive and modifying high–low–hot–cold, or whatever.
Whenever anyone uses some words like “democracy” or “liberal”,
if I don’t know them well enough to know what they mean–I ask them what they mean by the word they used.