Suma, your problem in this argument is trying to hold on to a long-ago co-opted term, "liberal", that no longer means what it meant in the first days of this country. Being a liberal once meant - well, Webster's still lists these, but they should, sadly, be preceded by "archaic" as is the one about "befitting a man of free birth" - things like:
adj - "associated with ideals of individual, especially economic, freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives"
or
noun - "an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights"
or re "liberalism", from the American Heritage dictionary:
noun - "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."
or in economic terms, a belief in individual freedom, private property rights, free markets and the power of competition.
In short, "liberalism" is all about individual rights.
Now, do any of these definitions sound anything like John Kerry or the Democratic party of today? And never mind that some on the right - i.e. the "religious right" - would restrict personal behavior of others that should be none of the government's business. We're not comparing un-liberal extremists here, we're discussing what it used to mean to BE liberal.
John Locke was a liberal. Adam Smith was a liberal. These are the thinker's who shaped the thinking of our founding fathers. Edmund Burke, OTOH, was a "conservative", resistant to liberal reforms in the UK of the day.
And Jean-Jacques Rousseau was neither conservative nor truly liberal, in spite of his influence on revolutionaries among his countrymen. He was an advocate more of group rights and, as he put it, "the general will" than individual rights. He is, IMO and that of many others, the perhaps unintentional father of, interestingly, socialism, communism AND fascism. Belief in group rights ahead of individual ones is the stuff authoritarian systems are made of - the very antithesis of liberal government.
IMO, there is little truly liberal about Kerry OR his party, though I'm sure there are individuals within it who would qualify. Besides the tendency to think in terms of group rights, on many issues he and his party are the ones resistant to change, even where reform is clearly needed. Think, for example, of social security where they resist all reform in spite of the inevitability of it's bankruptcy or of health care where they would impose the failed Canadian system rather than market-based reforms.
With the exception of a few on the "right" who would declare this a "Christian nation" and police our bedrooms, the GOP is actually the party of classical liberalism.
Regards,
Bob |
