Liberal as the opposite of authoritarian and as a small c conservative for things that are good is the same use of the word Timothy Ferris used in The Science Liberty, which is first read back in 2010. It clarified the distinction between liberal and progressive for me and made me feel better about calling myself a liberal again.
Thank you for being the most sensible person on the internet.
I appreciate how clearly you can articulate your intentions and look forward to reading more of your posts. I find the comment sections very useful in terms of understanding what others are thinking so thank you for keeping the comment section open to all. The crazier the world becomes, the more people need to find ways to make sense of it and relate to others which can only happen through open and respectful dialogue.
Anyone who calls you fat acknowledges that they can't think of a single damn rational or reasonable argument to contradict whatever you said to piss them off.
Thanks for an incredible and succinct definition of liberalism!
Helen, your overflowings are always welcome in my inbox. You will know that to be 'exuberant' literally means to overflow, or grow profusely. I hope you continue to find the exuberance to flow and grow here. And by the way, it seems clear to me through your writings that you have more than a liberal brain but also a liberal heart. Take good care both! x
Thank you for articulating the liberal values! I can't find anything I disagree with. Does that mean I am a ... Liberal??? Unthinkable! I've been a Conservative most of my life. "Liberal" has been a despised epithet since the 80s! How do I reconcile this cognitive dissonance???
Looking forward to reading more Overflowings to find out.
If you are a patriotic American who is proud of his founding documents, yes. The US has had a profound concept creep with the term 'liberal.' Typically, it's futile to try to reclaim words, but liberalism is more than a word. It's a philosophy of freedom and America is the only country that was founded on it. If it was just a word that had slipped and the whole cluster of concepts associated with it could be defined another way, this would be less of a problem, but they can't. Consequently, we see some American conservatives who consider themselves patriots advocating things that are unconstitutional and antithetical to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and illiberal leftists who make no pretence of wanting to uphold America's founding principles being referred to as liberals. We desperately need patriotic American conservatives to recall those on the right who have forgotten what liberalism really means and how foundational it is to the United States to a sense of constitutional pride. I am on the left so I will work mostly on the progressives who have forgotten that it is liberalism that made the progress that makes liberal democracies the best place to live if you are a woman or a racial, religious or sexual minority. And we must support each other in this effort, even when we disagree - no, especially when we disagree. I am English, but I care about the US both because many of my most loved people live there and because if you lose sight of what liberalism is, we're all in trouble (in addition to the trouble we're in all on our own). "When America sneezes, the world catches the cold."
Maybe we could be classy, and call ourselves "classical liberals."
Or perhaps we can reclaim and re-establish the label so well the cancel culture monkeys have to choose a new name for their party! (stranger things have happened)
For 8 years I have been aware of the ideology that formed in academia and then spread like a broken sewer into the rest of society.
Many who won large audiences by railing against this pernicious ideology have, over time, seemingly gone mad.
The adage of staring into the abyss, seems to be demonstrated by their search for new folk fantasies or ideologies to fill their own sense of lacking. They have abandoned their prior view of themselves as 'classical liberals,' some have become 'Christ is King' evangelicals, some have become Pagans advocating for Norse mythology, and others have become vague new age conservatives in search of the elusive loss that they want to conserve.
It seems that you have not (yet) lost your mind in the struggle against absurd ideology.
I congratulate you, & look forward to your essays, but it is late for more essays.
Sounds nice but I am not holding my breath. I’m used to essays like this touting “freedom” and “The Constitution” only to next time to go on a screed about how some parts of the Bill of Rights are just so outdated and we know better. Right after that the whole idea of a social contract and/or a nation state is mocked and anyone who disagrees with this needs a boot on their throat. This is all to stop the rise of “authoritarianism” you see. Then I am told this is to protect Liberalism. Will this be any different?
Could you rephrase? I don’t understand your objection. What’s TINA?
Are you disagreeing that we’re currently having a problem with authoritarianism? I write about Cancel Culture and the theories that underlie it.
I don’t think soviet party leaders said that people should be allowed to believe, speak, live as they see fit provided this harms nobody else nor denies them the same freedoms, did they?
There are many alternatives. Western liberal democracy is new & recent system of governance. I want to conserve that one. A system is workable if it works to achieve certain ends. Because the ends I seek are freedom orientated, nothing but liberalism can achieve that.
Rather than doing the “Everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi/communist” thing, why don’t you tell me instead which of the tenets of liberalism I have set out you don’t think are good for society and why? I still don’t know what your objections to liberalism are and what kind of governance you would rather live under instead because all you have done is liken me to a communist.
Here we discuss ideas with others who disagree. Can I persuade you to try that?
Well, I don’t think liberalism does that. It only protects people from illiberal consequences. E.g., it would protect people from being arrested for saying something racist on Facebook or fired for having gender critical views, but if some people stop wanting to be your friend because of views you’ve expressed, you have to deal with that.
A principle of liberalism is that people get to make their own choices but also deal with the consequences of that. No nanny state. If you’re an adult and you want to smoke, for example, you should be able to but if you get lung cancer, that’s on you. If you want to have unprotected sex and end up having loads of kids, you are ultimately responsible for providing for them. Etc.
I'm not pretending this. I have made no such claim at all. Nor am I claiming that we live in a liberal society. I am seeking to make society more liberal.
There is no liberal lifestyle. Liberalism is the system that allows people to choose their own lifestyle. I am a liberal who chose to live what could be considered quite a conservative lifestyle, but I support other people's right not to. What we do when people's choices have negative effects on them varies according to other values we have. The 'pure liberal' approach would be laissez-faire libertarianism - just let them sort out their own solutions and don't make it the tax-payers problem. Other liberal stances diverge from this. Liberal conservatives would be likely to advocate for an increase in family values and personal responsibility. Liberal leftists would be more about sex education and reproductive freedom and a strong social welfare net.
I am a liberal leftist so you will probably disagree with me quite strongly, but it won't be my liberalism you'll be disagreeing with but my leftism. You may believe my support for our nationalised healthcare system and advocacy for more social housing and stronger programmes to help people through hard times and get them into productive work to encourage state dependency and fail to get people to take enough responsibility for their own lives. I would disagree that my position goes to those extremes but see that some can do and the merits of arguments that this prevents people from being able to rise on their merits. Balancing ensuring that people who fall on hard times, (especially children who have no autonomy in the matter) have shelter and food and opportunities to get back on their feet with ensuring that we do not encourage state dependency and disincentivise self-sufficiency is a thorny problem that we will probably always be arguing about.
But if you disagree with my support of social welfare programmes, you are definitely disagreeing with my leftism and not my liberalism. Liberalism on the economic axis is about small government, low taxes and self-sufficiency.
Enabling of what? I’m not sure what that means because I don’t know what your position is. It could refer to not enabling people to express prejudiced views by tightening hate speech laws or not enabling people to openly be gay by being intolerant of that. (I don’t suspect you mean either of those things)
Liberal as the opposite of authoritarian and as a small c conservative for things that are good is the same use of the word Timothy Ferris used in The Science Liberty, which is first read back in 2010. It clarified the distinction between liberal and progressive for me and made me feel better about calling myself a liberal again.
Thank you for being the most sensible person on the internet.
I appreciate how clearly you can articulate your intentions and look forward to reading more of your posts. I find the comment sections very useful in terms of understanding what others are thinking so thank you for keeping the comment section open to all. The crazier the world becomes, the more people need to find ways to make sense of it and relate to others which can only happen through open and respectful dialogue.
Anyone who calls you fat acknowledges that they can't think of a single damn rational or reasonable argument to contradict whatever you said to piss them off.
Thanks for an incredible and succinct definition of liberalism!
Helen, your overflowings are always welcome in my inbox. You will know that to be 'exuberant' literally means to overflow, or grow profusely. I hope you continue to find the exuberance to flow and grow here. And by the way, it seems clear to me through your writings that you have more than a liberal brain but also a liberal heart. Take good care both! x
This is so great, thank you! Sharing with the friends I have left. 🙄 Also, how would you feel about doing a “how to make proper tea” tutorial video?
;-)
Oh, gotcha. 😏
Beautiful work on the michael shermer show ! Concise and measured analysis in an age of bifurcated hysterical shenanigans
Thank you for articulating the liberal values! I can't find anything I disagree with. Does that mean I am a ... Liberal??? Unthinkable! I've been a Conservative most of my life. "Liberal" has been a despised epithet since the 80s! How do I reconcile this cognitive dissonance???
Looking forward to reading more Overflowings to find out.
If you are a patriotic American who is proud of his founding documents, yes. The US has had a profound concept creep with the term 'liberal.' Typically, it's futile to try to reclaim words, but liberalism is more than a word. It's a philosophy of freedom and America is the only country that was founded on it. If it was just a word that had slipped and the whole cluster of concepts associated with it could be defined another way, this would be less of a problem, but they can't. Consequently, we see some American conservatives who consider themselves patriots advocating things that are unconstitutional and antithetical to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and illiberal leftists who make no pretence of wanting to uphold America's founding principles being referred to as liberals. We desperately need patriotic American conservatives to recall those on the right who have forgotten what liberalism really means and how foundational it is to the United States to a sense of constitutional pride. I am on the left so I will work mostly on the progressives who have forgotten that it is liberalism that made the progress that makes liberal democracies the best place to live if you are a woman or a racial, religious or sexual minority. And we must support each other in this effort, even when we disagree - no, especially when we disagree. I am English, but I care about the US both because many of my most loved people live there and because if you lose sight of what liberalism is, we're all in trouble (in addition to the trouble we're in all on our own). "When America sneezes, the world catches the cold."
Thank you for a thoughtful and incisive comment! Totally agree. Will work to reclaim the label.
"a troop of cancel culture monkeys" - 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe we could be classy, and call ourselves "classical liberals."
Or perhaps we can reclaim and re-establish the label so well the cancel culture monkeys have to choose a new name for their party! (stranger things have happened)
"Classical liberal" has the problem of being closely associated with a specific economic policy of laissez-faire capitalism.
For 8 years I have been aware of the ideology that formed in academia and then spread like a broken sewer into the rest of society.
Many who won large audiences by railing against this pernicious ideology have, over time, seemingly gone mad.
The adage of staring into the abyss, seems to be demonstrated by their search for new folk fantasies or ideologies to fill their own sense of lacking. They have abandoned their prior view of themselves as 'classical liberals,' some have become 'Christ is King' evangelicals, some have become Pagans advocating for Norse mythology, and others have become vague new age conservatives in search of the elusive loss that they want to conserve.
It seems that you have not (yet) lost your mind in the struggle against absurd ideology.
I congratulate you, & look forward to your essays, but it is late for more essays.
We need organisations, structures, & plans.
Sounds nice but I am not holding my breath. I’m used to essays like this touting “freedom” and “The Constitution” only to next time to go on a screed about how some parts of the Bill of Rights are just so outdated and we know better. Right after that the whole idea of a social contract and/or a nation state is mocked and anyone who disagrees with this needs a boot on their throat. This is all to stop the rise of “authoritarianism” you see. Then I am told this is to protect Liberalism. Will this be any different?
Yes.
Could you rephrase? I don’t understand your objection. What’s TINA?
Are you disagreeing that we’re currently having a problem with authoritarianism? I write about Cancel Culture and the theories that underlie it.
I don’t think soviet party leaders said that people should be allowed to believe, speak, live as they see fit provided this harms nobody else nor denies them the same freedoms, did they?
There are many alternatives. Western liberal democracy is new & recent system of governance. I want to conserve that one. A system is workable if it works to achieve certain ends. Because the ends I seek are freedom orientated, nothing but liberalism can achieve that.
Rather than doing the “Everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi/communist” thing, why don’t you tell me instead which of the tenets of liberalism I have set out you don’t think are good for society and why? I still don’t know what your objections to liberalism are and what kind of governance you would rather live under instead because all you have done is liken me to a communist.
Here we discuss ideas with others who disagree. Can I persuade you to try that?
Well, I don’t think liberalism does that. It only protects people from illiberal consequences. E.g., it would protect people from being arrested for saying something racist on Facebook or fired for having gender critical views, but if some people stop wanting to be your friend because of views you’ve expressed, you have to deal with that.
A principle of liberalism is that people get to make their own choices but also deal with the consequences of that. No nanny state. If you’re an adult and you want to smoke, for example, you should be able to but if you get lung cancer, that’s on you. If you want to have unprotected sex and end up having loads of kids, you are ultimately responsible for providing for them. Etc.
I'm not pretending this. I have made no such claim at all. Nor am I claiming that we live in a liberal society. I am seeking to make society more liberal.
There is no liberal lifestyle. Liberalism is the system that allows people to choose their own lifestyle. I am a liberal who chose to live what could be considered quite a conservative lifestyle, but I support other people's right not to. What we do when people's choices have negative effects on them varies according to other values we have. The 'pure liberal' approach would be laissez-faire libertarianism - just let them sort out their own solutions and don't make it the tax-payers problem. Other liberal stances diverge from this. Liberal conservatives would be likely to advocate for an increase in family values and personal responsibility. Liberal leftists would be more about sex education and reproductive freedom and a strong social welfare net.
I am a liberal leftist so you will probably disagree with me quite strongly, but it won't be my liberalism you'll be disagreeing with but my leftism. You may believe my support for our nationalised healthcare system and advocacy for more social housing and stronger programmes to help people through hard times and get them into productive work to encourage state dependency and fail to get people to take enough responsibility for their own lives. I would disagree that my position goes to those extremes but see that some can do and the merits of arguments that this prevents people from being able to rise on their merits. Balancing ensuring that people who fall on hard times, (especially children who have no autonomy in the matter) have shelter and food and opportunities to get back on their feet with ensuring that we do not encourage state dependency and disincentivise self-sufficiency is a thorny problem that we will probably always be arguing about.
I set out my case here: https://areomagazine.com/2018/08/23/no-we-are-not-right-wing-we-are-liberal-lefties-and-we-are-many/
But if you disagree with my support of social welfare programmes, you are definitely disagreeing with my leftism and not my liberalism. Liberalism on the economic axis is about small government, low taxes and self-sufficiency.
Enabling of what? I’m not sure what that means because I don’t know what your position is. It could refer to not enabling people to express prejudiced views by tightening hate speech laws or not enabling people to openly be gay by being intolerant of that. (I don’t suspect you mean either of those things)