why doesn't liberal still mean someone who supports personal and economic freedom?
For the same reason conservative no longer means:
>>Classical conservatism or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes means (slow change) over ends (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.<<
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com
What you're describing is what's now called the "classical liberal." And, because of the confusion, "progressive" is the term used for the sort of liberals you're talking about. Either that or "left."
"But you knew that, of course." <g>
When someone on this thread uses the word, liberal, I read it as "progressive" or "left."
There have been two or three articles posted on this thread in the last couple of weeks that spoke to the different way liberals and conservatives look at things. I thought they were all apt. Unfortunately, I don't remember enough about them to find at this late date where they were.
Liberal these days means someone who wants to coerce that which they desire through the use of government.
Maybe these days. But as I said earlier, that's a function of time and issue. You take what the game gives you. I'm sure that there are conservatives who would do the same thing if the opportunity presented itself. For example, there are social conservatives who, if they could make abortion a violation of the constitution by fiat, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The big issues that the liberals had over the second half of the last century lent themselves to using the courts. They were issues where state laws were perceived to be in conflict with civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution. If that's your issue, what better route is there? Amend the constitution? Redundant. Pass a federal law? Also redundant. Change all the state laws? Not very efficient? It may be unfortunate that it played out that way, but I don't see how you can characterize liberals by the tool that happened to be the best one for the job. |
