I want to take back the word "liberal" from the commies
In a post yesterday, when I was describing the Bushes and Reagan, I said that they were quite liberal. Little Miss Chatterbox disagreed and said that they were conservatives. I then said that maybe it was because I was older than her that I saw them as fairly liberal. But, really LMC is right and I am partly wrong because of course the Bushes are conservative - in the way we use that word nowadays. But Reagan was was not a typical conservative.
As Chuck pointed out in his comment on that post: the liberals have moved the country so far left that everyone has become more "liberal" as a consequence but "conservative" had changed its meanings not only because the socalled "liberals" ruled this country for nearly 40 years and re-defined the terms, shifted the goal-posts and changed the rules of the game but because Reagan redefined conservatism.
The Bushes are conservative in the same way that Nixon and Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln were. The Republican Party has always been statist and authoritarian - ready to use government authority to enforce its policies. The GOP rose to ascendancy under Lincoln and waged a civil war to enforce its policies. Eisenhower used force to desegregate the South. Nixon used force against anti-war protesters.
Reagan was an anomaly in the GOP. He had once been a Democrat and he called himself a libertarian (with a small "l".) He was not the first Republican president to define "conservatism" as meaning "limited government" but he was the most eloquent opponent of statism. Because Reagan redefined "conservatism," anyone born after Reagan thinks that "limited government" is a typtical Republican idea but it is not. After Reagan, the Bushes returned the Republican Party to its traditional big government statist roots.
Reagan was a true Lockean liberal in his distrust of big government and was simply following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who put John Locke's liberal ideals into practice. Some were more authoritarian than others and some were more libertarian but they were all Lockean liberals following in the footsteps of the Scottish Enlightenment. Reagan was a classical liberal.
Of course nowadays "liberalism" is a dirty word, a euphemism for socialism but the actual real meaning of the word in the English language is the exact opposite of socialism and I sure would like to once again use it in its old-fashioned meaning: easy-going, tolerant, freedom-loving, anti-authoritarian and wary of government (in the way that Thomas Paine was when he said that "government was a necessary evil.")
Reagan was wary of big government and a firm believer in the free market, individual sovereignty and self-sufficiency and independence. The Republican Party has traditionally adhered to most of those principles except that of being wary of big government. The Bushes are typical conservative Republicans. They are not wary of big government and they don't mind a bit of socialism - George senior's tax increases and junior's MediCare program are socialist policies.
But Reagan's distrust of government did introduce a new concept of "conservatism" - one that was truer to the Lockean liberalism of our Founding Fathers than traditional Republicanism but, as I said, Reagan was an anomaly. There are many of us who would like to see another Reagan Republican arise to lead our country away from statism/socialism and big government. We call ourselves "libertarian" with a small "l" because the big "L" Libertarians are too whoop-di-doo for our tastes.
I do not like big "L" Libertarians." Someone else pointed out on another blog recently that the Libertarian Party has basically become the "pothead" party. Most of their ideas are impractical and, if implemented, would turn the clock back to feudalism. That's why I don't like the word "libertarian." Meanwhile I'm stuck calling myself a "libertarian" Republican because I do not like big government. Maybe I should just call myself a Reagan Republican but I sure would like to take the word "liberal" back from the commies.
PS Glen Dean has also talked about this recently on his blog, Christian Libertarian.
PPS Don't take this as a criticism of the Bushes or the Republicans. The Bushes and the GOP are fine for me. I don't expect perfection in any human being or any human institution.
As Chuck pointed out in his comment on that post: the liberals have moved the country so far left that everyone has become more "liberal" as a consequence but "conservative" had changed its meanings not only because the socalled "liberals" ruled this country for nearly 40 years and re-defined the terms, shifted the goal-posts and changed the rules of the game but because Reagan redefined conservatism.
The Bushes are conservative in the same way that Nixon and Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln were. The Republican Party has always been statist and authoritarian - ready to use government authority to enforce its policies. The GOP rose to ascendancy under Lincoln and waged a civil war to enforce its policies. Eisenhower used force to desegregate the South. Nixon used force against anti-war protesters.
Reagan was an anomaly in the GOP. He had once been a Democrat and he called himself a libertarian (with a small "l".) He was not the first Republican president to define "conservatism" as meaning "limited government" but he was the most eloquent opponent of statism. Because Reagan redefined "conservatism," anyone born after Reagan thinks that "limited government" is a typtical Republican idea but it is not. After Reagan, the Bushes returned the Republican Party to its traditional big government statist roots.
Reagan was a true Lockean liberal in his distrust of big government and was simply following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who put John Locke's liberal ideals into practice. Some were more authoritarian than others and some were more libertarian but they were all Lockean liberals following in the footsteps of the Scottish Enlightenment. Reagan was a classical liberal.
Of course nowadays "liberalism" is a dirty word, a euphemism for socialism but the actual real meaning of the word in the English language is the exact opposite of socialism and I sure would like to once again use it in its old-fashioned meaning: easy-going, tolerant, freedom-loving, anti-authoritarian and wary of government (in the way that Thomas Paine was when he said that "government was a necessary evil.")
Reagan was wary of big government and a firm believer in the free market, individual sovereignty and self-sufficiency and independence. The Republican Party has traditionally adhered to most of those principles except that of being wary of big government. The Bushes are typical conservative Republicans. They are not wary of big government and they don't mind a bit of socialism - George senior's tax increases and junior's MediCare program are socialist policies.
But Reagan's distrust of government did introduce a new concept of "conservatism" - one that was truer to the Lockean liberalism of our Founding Fathers than traditional Republicanism but, as I said, Reagan was an anomaly. There are many of us who would like to see another Reagan Republican arise to lead our country away from statism/socialism and big government. We call ourselves "libertarian" with a small "l" because the big "L" Libertarians are too whoop-di-doo for our tastes.
I do not like big "L" Libertarians." Someone else pointed out on another blog recently that the Libertarian Party has basically become the "pothead" party. Most of their ideas are impractical and, if implemented, would turn the clock back to feudalism. That's why I don't like the word "libertarian." Meanwhile I'm stuck calling myself a "libertarian" Republican because I do not like big government. Maybe I should just call myself a Reagan Republican but I sure would like to take the word "liberal" back from the commies.
PS Glen Dean has also talked about this recently on his blog, Christian Libertarian.
PPS Don't take this as a criticism of the Bushes or the Republicans. The Bushes and the GOP are fine for me. I don't expect perfection in any human being or any human institution.
posted by Joubert at 2:05 PM
The Alliance
<< Home