Monday, September 05, 2016

LIberals: Then And Now

The Foundation for Economic Education looks at the meaning of "liberal", which has changed over the years. Prior to 1750ish "the term “liberal” had “pre-political meanings, such as generous, tolerant, or suitable to one of noble or superior status—as in ‘liberal arts’ and ‘liberal education.’'

Then, sometime in the 1800s, liberalism began having to do with limited government intervention.

" But in late-19th and early-20th-century America, the term “liberal” came to be increasingly associated with the Progressive support for expanded government intervention on behalf of social justice."

And so we have it today when, at least as far as I'm concerned, liberalism is about anything but tolerance.


At 1:11 PM, Anonymous Bushytails said...

I'm a liberal... except now I've been renamed to libertarian, since most liberals seem to support anything that involves decreasing liberty.

At 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so shouldn't the Supreme Court be 'conservative' by the very nature of the definition the word law?

At 2:29 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

". except now I've been renamed to libertarian<"

or a classic liberal, as the article pointed out. The first liberals were considered more libertarian in philosophy.

"so shouldn't the Supreme Court be 'conservative' by the very nature of the definition the word law?"

maybe. I suppose it depends on what cases and rulings you use for examples. I tend to think they defer to government power more often than not which would make them liberal, but I'm only using a few decisions to come to that judgment.

At 7:16 PM, Blogger MOLA:42 said...


I'm a Liberal, and I tolerate you just fine. Of course we argue but what's wrong with that?

All viewpoints and walks of life have those who can't be tolerant, not just Liberals. I think Wisdom comes when one can speak up for one's own viewpoint, but also understands the viewpoints of others are also important. It's a complicated world out there after all.

Not guilty as charged (at least no more than the next person).

At 8:00 PM, Blogger Sally Sheffield said...

That is true MOLA, we can still like a person or at least be respectful to them even if we don't agree with them. 😃

At 7:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's easy to be tolerant of informed views. Informed views make for a great debate.
Tolerating the willfully ignorant, is very difficult. There is no tolerance from either side, no discussion, no debate. I can't stand willful ignorance. My worst pet peeve.

I used to be a classic libertarian, now I fit more with the PaleoLibertarians. The regular libertarians have turned too progressive. One sided.

The SCOTUS is supposed to draw opinion from the Constitution itself, not from previous cases. Previous cases have a tendency to get more & more off the mark & no longer find measure with the original point.

At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I am intolerant of willful ignorance like those that insist climate change is a government ploy to take away your rights or those that insist institutional racism does not exist. Why should we be tolerant of ignorance especially when that ignorance is harmful? Obviously many people including you love labels and use them to try to harm people. I can hear the hate in your writing when you talk of liberals or the so-called liberal agenda. The idea that we want big government just because instead of realizing that using markets to solve the world's evils will inherently result in a lot of losers that are left behind which is where government can help protect those less fortunate. since when did empathy become a bad word? In my opinion, so-called libertarians should be called the apathetics. They could care less about their fellow humans as long as they got theirs.


Post a Comment

<< Home