Skip to main content

View Diary: Memo to the world (451 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, unsafe then... (none)
    Unsafe on both counts, actually (I am so immune to Republican chatter, you would laugh if you knew).

    The important point in my post was that we shouldn't equate "Liberal" and "Progressive." It's a useful distinction in the very muddled-together pile of political terminology we seem to be stuck with.

    Still, the points you make are good, too, and I think reflect the struggle many of us are having as we grope for appropriate self-descriptions.

    My take on it draws on world history of politics, which can be very helpful in providing some backgound and context for the terminology.

    Historically,  Liberalism came about in the aftermath of the French Revolution as a way to keep "the dangerous classes" in line by granting them the vote, a bit of welfare state, nationalism, and a few other bennies, while essentially preserving the status quo. It was an agenda created and carried out by the Establishment of the day. (Immanuel Wallerstein, to name one source, has written much of interest on the subject.)

    More recently, the demonization of "the L-word" in the US managed to associate the term with New-Deal style, centralized government. The implication was Big Bad Establishment -- cheerfully hypocritical, of course, as it came from ever-so-Establishment Republicans.

    I don't believe, though, that the association is going to be broken very soon; given that, and the history of the term, it might make sense for those who consider themselves anti-Establishment to reconsider describing themselves as "Liberal." YMMV.

    Of course, the terminology is likely to stay muddled for some time, perhaps until some coherent movement emerges to counter the Right and the status quo. At that point, it seems likely that such a movement would include a distinctive self-desribing label.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site