Skip to main content

I was reading through some of Churchill's speeches and came across this paragraph in a 1908 speech on Liberalism and Socialism (the whole speech can be found here: ). I thought this perfectly summed up the difference between how liberals perceive themselves and how we are perceived or rather portrayed by conservatives (Socialists).

"Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don't think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play - a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play - in relation to men and States.   [Cheers.]"

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Conservatives and socialists (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Ralphdog

    are not the same thing. I think you are a little confused.

    In fact Churchill was a conservative.

    •  You got your fact wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane

      When he said those words he was in the Liberal Party. he later (re) joined the Conservative Party in 1925

      Wiki:
      He stood for the Liberals again in the 1923 general election, losing in Leicester, and then as an independent, first without success in a by-election in the Westminster Abbey constituency, and then successfully in the general election of 1924 for Epping. The following year, he formally rejoined the Conservative Party, commenting wryly that "anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."[64][

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:45:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diarist meant conservatives *see* liberals... (0+ / 0-)

      ...as socialists.  The point of Churchill's speech was to acknowledge the distinction, which most modern conservatives fail to do.

  •  This from the man eager to use poison gas... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane

    on those uncivilized wogs in Britain's colonies.

    Churchill was a thoroughly vile bully, a child of wealth and privilege who was able to implement some truly horrible ideas (just look up the Gallipoli campaign) because of his inherited influence. In some respects his career bears some resemblance to another bullying child of privilege named George W. Bush.

    Churchill just happened to be correct about the one big thing in the 20th century- the true character of Adoph Hitler- before most others realized it. For this he is lionized by conservatives the whole world over.

    But folks should note that Churchill was voted out of office almost the instant the war ended, by the people who knew him best.

  •  "Liberal" in UK = pro free-market, anti-govt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane

    There is a little overlap with the use in the US, and I think us progressives should build on this more -- e.g., an emphasis on the individual, on progress, the Enlightenment, rationality, etc. But UK liberals are opposed to unions, critical of welfare, subsidies, etc. The Economist magazine has a UK-liberal ideology. UK conservatives, by contrast, are more defenders of the monarchy, elite traditions, class, 'good breeding', etc.

    (Likewise, note that "public" schools in the UK are more like what we call private schools here in the US: non-government run, elite, paid for by parents. UK's 'state schools' are more like our public schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(United_Kingdom) )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site