You have pointed out an interesting paradox of some -- many? -- of the "liberals" who post on the liberal boards of SI. They tend to have little true understanding of liberal principles. Poet and I, for example, are sort of engaged in a PM dialogue in which she, though the moderator of the LWP thread, takes a position which I consider to be diametrically opposed to the core values of liberalism.
I think this reflects a major change in liberalism over the past perhaps 30 years. Classical liberalism -- the liberalis, of Stevenson, Humphrey, King, even Kennedy -- was based on justice, dignity, the worth of the individual, responsibility toward the less fortunate, and other core values. But over the years liberalism got co-opted by special interests, particularly feminism. Back in the days when the New Republic was a genuine liberal voice, for example, there was a thought-provoking article on why liberals should be pro-life. It was instantly attacked not for the values it espoused but because it was seen as anti-feminist. This is only one example of many in which classical liberalism has been distorted almost out of recognition. (Affirmative action, for example, is anathema to liberalism, but is beloved of contemporary "liberals.") It is ironic that some "conservatives" today are more attuned with liberal values than some liberals. |
