When I think of liberal, I think of people like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. I realize my US-bias is showing, but when the country was founded the idea of a country where liberty was to be maximized was inconceivable. Currently, the people called conservatives are trying to conserve the liberal ideas of the late 18th century.
According to Wikipedia,
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."
I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.
What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.
OP was referencing Liberalism as a political movement in the UK[1]. This grew as a left of centre party in opposition to the right-of-centre Tories and was formed with the idea of changing traditional values and practices (such as limiting the power of the monarch).
"Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights". There beliefs in no way had a problem with public healthcare, but would have issues with curtailing free speech, or a curtailing of free enterprise. Today I think a classic liberal would be in the centre of the political spectrum.
Classical liberals generally support equality, limited government power, civil liberties, democracy, and free markets. Today they're sometimes described as libertarians, whereas modern liberals have morphed into intolerant authoritarians.
The definition of liberal has morphed quite a bit over the centuries. I hail from the camp now known as "Classical liberalism"[0]. I value freedom and consider the government to be a necessary evil to be minimized.
From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal altogether.
Good point. Also Liberal != progressive. progressive policy in the last 20 years has in no way championed ideals of individual rights and free enterprise, and they have curtailed certain civil liberties (speech and self defense).
The hallmark of traditional liberal ideals are now mainstream conservative thought (at least in the US). That is why you see a lot of people saying they are 'classical liberal' when describing their political beliefs.
it's funny that you mention liberalism because the common understanding of the meaning of "liberalism" has shifted over time. Classical liberalism is much closer to libertarianism than progressivism.
I'm not sure why you're presenting this as an argument against me. Americans, by and large, are liberals, every last one of them. It's the ones ignorant of political philosophy who have turned it into a pejorative. Paul Ryan calling himself a classical liberal is him calling himself a liberal.
Allow me to restate. Liberalism involves a core belief in consent of the governed, liberty, and equality under the law. Classical liberalism is all of these things. They just believe certain aspects are more important than others.
Some American conservative might decide economic freedom (liberty) is the most important aspect of liberalism. That's fine, that's all well and good, under the banner of liberalism. If you suddenly took away this conservative's consent of the governed, or made someone unequal according to the law, they would object, assuming they're a true liberal, which they are, because these values are steeped into just about every American. Solve problems through the political process, not by subverting it. Very, very core America.
What's dangerous about Trump is he's seducing people away from liberalism and towards royalism. Royals are above the law and get to impose governance on the people regardless of their consent. Not even the British agree that the royal family can govern without the consent of the populace, they had many many civil battles eventually deciding the role of the monarchy. Trumpists imagine these things are true even though they're not. They want a monarchy which is above the rule of law. They decide what is true and nobody can use legal action to decide otherwise.
Liberalism is a core Anglo doctrine, every single citizen of Anglo countries is a liberal, and many Europeans as well. They may campaign on other platforms, but if the core liberal pillars of society are threatened, Americans will revert back to those pillars.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but conservatives were fine with Trump's shenanigans, up to a point. That point is essentially, where Trump started threatening core liberal institutions. Once that started happening, the establishment started backing away. Only once Trump waved his hands again after the insurrection, saying it was all for fun, all a show, "be peaceful", did they start to line up again. Trump understood that he had to thread a needle between his base and core America. He failed, because Americans aren't going to go along with a clear subversion of democracy. He thought they could be convinced to and was wrong. Republicans wanted, and still want, his political vitality, but not his tactics.
Conservatives went along with him until he really threatened to make free and fair elections a thing of the past. I'm not saying that the American right is good people, I'm saying that the core beliefs of liberalism are inherent in all of us. There has long long been a fascination with royalism, like every single other democratic nation, but when push comes to shove, those who have tasted Anglo popular sovereignty will choose to continue popular sovereignty. Royalists will always be the minority.
Classical liberalism - complete laissez faire market, no government interference and individual wealth creation. Today's libertarians are closest to classical liberals.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
The term "liberal" in the US has lost it's meaning. What we often call "liberals" in the US are more like "leftists" than the traditional liberal way of life and thought.
Classical Liberalism if very, very far from what the Democratic party pushes these days. In fact, I would venture a guess that most thinking people are Classical Liberals. I make the distinction about "thinking" people not to be elitists at all, but rather because it is obvious that there are those who blindly follow and then there are those who choose to be more analytical and actually think rather than follow. Problems, as Einstein famously said, cannot be solved from the state of mind that created them in the first place.
This is where, I think, Classical Liberalism fits. I happen to think it is an ideology that would do the most good and deliver the greatest benefits across the board.
In case someone reading this isn't clear on the distinction, here's a good explanation:
You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago.
Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government
In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right.
This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.
"Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.[10] Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, it was used under the name of economic liberalism. As a term, classical liberalism was applied in retronym to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[11] By modern standards, in the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, simple liberalism often means classical liberalism.[12][13]
...
In the United States, classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal". Despite this context, classical liberalism rejects conservatism's higher tolerance for protectionism and social liberalism's inclination for collective group rights, due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism.[14] Classical liberalism is also considered closely tied with right-libertarianism in the United States.[15] In Europe, liberalism, whether social (especially radical) or conservative, is classical liberalism in itself, so the term classical liberalism mainly refers to centre-right economic liberalism.[16]
"
"Liberal" in the US -> some social freedoms, but restricted in certain ways + economic restrictions.
"Liberal" outside the US -> social freedoms + economic freedoms.
I learned this as an American abroad when someone called me, who would generally be seen as conservative / libertarian in the US, "very liberal" when discussing gay rights (pro), gun rights / armed self-defense (pro), and abortion rights (pro-choice).
Again, it's just a fine point when discussing in an international context (like on HN). When speaking only with Americans, you'll never need this distinction, it's just good to be aware of it when discussing with non-Americans or when reading about foreign politics (e.g. FDP in Germany is a "liberal party" in the European sense of the word, but their policies are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If an American reads "liberal party", they would be surprised to learn that they campaign on cutting taxes, pro free market, privatization, etc., yet are also pro gay marriage and are for legalizing marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany...)
Which is why I stated that they are right of center... I agree, classical liberalism is basically right wing / conservative / libertarian. America generally is right wing, going back to it's founding.
"classical liberalism" is close to the opposite of what most people think of liberalism. It arose in the 19th century and then was liberal in that it advocated the rule-of-law for all, low tarrifs and low taxes.
It has been termed "classical liberalism" since the late 19th century to distinguish it from social liberalism, which is what most people think of now whn they refer to "liberal".
Both Liberal and Conservative are really loaded words. Not necessarily loaded in the emotional sense (although they are often that), but just in terms of being used with very different definitions in very different places. I listened to an audiobook or a lecture series a few years ago that discussed the idea of Liberalism that I found very interesting. Rather than dealing with any of the modern senses of the terms Conservative or Liberal, it dealt with the sea change in types of governance that occurred at the end of the Enlightenment with the rise of the United States and the French Revolution.
It takes a bit of doing for modern people to even conceive of what the actual argument was at the time. To really understand that both the rulers and the citizenry viewed rulers as fundamentally Better People in some way (often granted by God) is a mindset that modern people just aren't accustomed to. They read 'all men are created equal' and they don't realize what it's even talking about. The idea that citizens who are being ruled should have some say in how they are ruled was the essence of Liberalism in that time. It was a revolutionary idea and seen as stupid by many. Thomas Payne's 'Common Sense' was published at a time when the phrase 'common sense' was a perjorative. It referred to the 'sense' of commoners, implying that it was worthless and senseless. Commoners simply weren't built to be able to understand notions of governance or to be able to wield power without self destruction.
Just as racism and sexism proposed that there were "different kinds" of people who inherently bore different capabilities, setting one group or another apart and making them unsuited to certain pursuits, Conservatism held that the divide between ruler and ruled was of this nature as well. A natural fact, emerging either from direct divine edict or carried in bloodlines, that made it ludicrous to even suggest that perhaps the peasant should have something like a 'vote.'
Liberalism won quite conclusively. After the American Revolution and French Revolution, revolutions flourished all over the world. While Ancient Greece debuted democracy, it had died out for a long while and at the time every single nation on the planet was ruled by a Conservative government built around the idea of inherent superiority of the rulers. I can't imagine what it must have been like to live in those time periods, growing up knowing to your bones that you're simply a follower and a subject, liable to be called upon to have your concerns or life spent by the crown for their own purposes, and knowing that you simply weren't capable of questioning their motives or techniques. And then, that some people emerged who made arguments about the philosophical basis of government which was able to persuade this population to rise up and kill their own country so that they might build one of their own based upon this utterly heretical notion that there really aren't any Special People born to rule... it's dizzying to consider.
Those that remain dedicated to an idea of a return to this sort of Conservatism, and there are some, walk in step with eugenicists and should be feared.
Liberalism is a school of philosophy dating from the 17th century which generally espouses freedom of speech and association, the separation of church and state, pluralism and religious toleration, state protection for property rights and enforcement of contracts, open markets, popular control of the government, separation of powers, etc.
It is the dominant overarching ideology in America (the American “founding fathers” were mostly devoted liberals) and Western Europe, and there are many disagreements among different sorts of liberals.
Classical liberalism (little-L liberalism) is a political framework for lowering the horizon of government. It was born out of the religious sectarianism of the 17th century, replacing religious fundamentalism with religious freedom: by disestablishing church and state (or limiting the state's capacity for legislating religion), religion was relegated to the home and this lowered the possibility for civil war.
American Liberalism (big L) is a political identity (as opposed to American Conservatism, which is also a political identity) and many policy positions are about signaling membership of an in-group to demonstrate moral puritanism (same goes for Conservatism). It is not governed by an overarching ideology
According to Wikipedia,
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."
I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.
What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.
reply