Ace of Spades HQ

February 03, 2014

What Is Liberalism and Where Did It Come From?
— Ace

Via @rdbrewer4, an interesting post by Jonah Goldberg, using a review of a history of liberalism as a jumping off point for various thoughts.

A new book claims that liberalism was born out of the wreckage of progressivism. Progressivism championed the ever-growing power of the state, to do Mighty Things in Many Ways. However, the book argues, progressives themselves became disillusioned with their former advocacy of the Super State due to World War I -- and the truly authoritarian measures beloved progressive Woodrow Wilson used to jail dissidents. Some of whom were truly dangerous and ought to have been jailed, but others of whom were just dissidents.

And so, the book claims, liberalism adopted a strain of "radical libertarianism" as regards personal rights, especially those involving speech and sex, as a tonic, or talisman, to prevent the resurgence of Woodrow Wilson World War I progressivism.

Goldberg calls the alternate historical reading "interesting," but he's not convinced. He's especially not convinced that liberalism contained any strain of libertarianism at all -- he argues it was really a non-libertarian (that is, authoritarian) urge to impose a competing set of values, not to protect all possible values.

As I said: Interesting.

Another interesting thing is that the left tends to shy away the label "liberal" now, but has embraced the label "progressive" -- even though progressivism was previously discredited due to its authoritarianism and grandiosity and incompetency and innate disrespect for the individual human being outside of his corporate capacity as a cell of the state.

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (138)
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The scrambling Corgies....

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 03:06 PM (aDwsi)

2 Begins

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 03:07 PM (aDwsi)

3 Now....

Posted by: Mike Hammer at February 03, 2014 03:07 PM (aDwsi)

4 Liberalism has given me a great supply of useful idiots.

Posted by: Barqy Al Clusterfuq at February 03, 2014 03:07 PM (IAa7O)

5 Bill Whittle does a good job of breaking it down here as well:

http://youtu.be/FB3BcUKmSlo

Posted by: Gran at February 03, 2014 03:08 PM (nPMjI)

6 Modern welfare state doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian . In fact it's totalitarianism run by watermelon hippies . iow , I agree with goldbergs take .

Posted by: awkward davies at February 03, 2014 03:10 PM (WK8VM)

7 Huh. We just called our state representative and he personally answered the phone. Pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: DangerGirl at February 03, 2014 03:10 PM (GrtrJ)

8 This is the thread for further discussion of boobehs, yes?

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 03:11 PM (yz6yg)

9 It came from childhoods the world over.

Posted by: t-bird at February 03, 2014 03:11 PM (LUYDY)

10 Progressives would like to see the Bill of Rights repealed. I'm convinced of it.

Posted by: grammie winger at February 03, 2014 03:11 PM (P6QsQ)

11 Progressives would like to see the Bill of Rights repealed. I'm convinced of it. Posted by: grammie --------------- It is a time-consuming bottleneck.

Posted by: Progressives everywhere. at February 03, 2014 03:12 PM (aDwsi)

12 They're not libertarians in the least, except when it's useful to pretend to be libertarians. They're Puritans.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 03:13 PM (07vvi)

13 I prefer that they adopted a strain of the Libertine rather than libertarianism. Not to mention, that strain has roots going back to the French Revolution. They loved what Wilson did, it is just he used it against some of the groups they felt should be "protected." Same as with Hitler before the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 03, 2014 03:13 PM (TGgNi)

14 "Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot " by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin Best explanation for the origin and history of Liberalism of which I am aware. Forward by William F. Buckley, so you know it's damn good writing. http://www.amazon.com/Leftism-Revisited-From-Sade-Hitler/dp/0895265370

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:14 PM (bb5+k)

15
Liberalism was hijacked by hippies with a prevarication towards "fairness." Form there it was easy for the communists to hijack the hippy's liberalism movement.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:14 PM (gYIst)

Liberalism became fashionable among the British elites...

Then it spread here.

I don't think that Liberal Elites really give a shit about 'the poor'...they've just gotten into a competition to show who cares more.

Posted by: wheatie at February 03, 2014 03:15 PM (IAa7O)

17
er, predilection, maybe?

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:15 PM (gYIst)

18 Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 07:14 PM (bb5+k) I've always wanted to read that book but could never locate a copy that wasn't damn expensive.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 03, 2014 03:15 PM (oFCZn)

19 >>Posted by: Gran at February 03, 2014 07:08 PM (nPMjI) Bill Whittle does a good job of explaining everything. Funny, I linked that video to someone on Twitter today, having a discussion of Melting Pot vs Salad Bowl in the context of the Coke Superb Owl ad. The former is quintessentially American while the latter is anti-American by design. I started to explain why, Frankfort School, etc.. (hard to do 140 characters at a time) then said "Know what, just go watch this, Bill Whittle explains it very well in a speech" and linked what you linked. Every conservative should watch that to understand just how we got to where we are now. And then watch it again. And again, until you don't just understand but can explain the history simply and clearly. If schools aren't going to educate people, we have to.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 03, 2014 03:16 PM (N/cFh)

20 I prefer that they adopted a strain of the Libertine rather than libertarianism. Not to mention, that strain has roots going back to the French Revolution. Actually a little further back - Jean Jacques Rousseau published Emile in 1762 It served as the inspiration for what became the new Revolutionary system of national ~~education.~~ indoctrination.

Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 03:16 PM (yz6yg)

21 He's especially not convinced that liberalism contained any strain of libertarianism at all

I believe it had lots of fake libertarianism.

On the legal front, Roger Baldwin (a Stalinist up to 1939ish) founded the ACLU to make "reactionary" government impossible, after which point the ACLU's clique would take charge:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/04/the-aclu%E2%80%99s-untold-stalinist-heritage/

On the social front Antonio Gramsci was trying to break down civil society and traditional mores, again, to leave a gap in mens' souls that Communist society could fill.

True, these guys were Communists, not Wilsonians. But there was a LOT of crossover between the camps. Especially in their aims; because a Bismarckian or a Nazi could step in and fill exactly these needs which a Baldwin or a Gramsci had created, just as easily as a Communist could do it.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 03, 2014 03:17 PM (30eLQ)

22 Wilson did more than jail people, he had vigilantes out busting heads.

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 03:18 PM (MMC8r)

23
Perhaps Liberalism was rooted in a bogus purity, as in the True Interpretation of The Constitution.

Once it became known that the Constitution could be challenge on any point whatsoever, the "liberals" seized upon the opportunity to shape U.S. law.

That's my take, anyway.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:18 PM (gYIst)

24 12 They're not libertarians in the least, except when it's useful to pretend to be libertarians. They're Puritans. Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 07:13 PM (07vvi) I've read articles which pointed out that it is not an accident that one of the major focal points of Liberal thought in this nation is Boston Massachusetts. The Remnants of Puritanism indeed. They traded submission to the authority of their religious fanaticism for submission to the authority of their all mighty state.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:19 PM (bb5+k)

25 Liberalism was hijacked by hippies with a prevarication towards "fairness." Form there it was easy for the communists to hijack the hippy's liberalism movement. No. Exactly wrong. Watch Gran's link for the history. "Fairness" as a weapon do bring down the American culture was baked into it from the beginning, by the Communists, long before the hippies.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 03, 2014 03:19 PM (N/cFh)

26 he argues it was really a non-libertarian (that is, authoritarian) urge to impose a competing set of values, not to protect all possible values. *** Is there really any serious disagreement to this? Ask a liberal what they think of the Dugers for example and you'll here how libertarian they are about sexuality and reproduction, or better yet look at the home schooling refugees from very liberal Germany. In the name of "tolerance" the liberal state wants to imprison people that want to live differently.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 03, 2014 03:19 PM (M3hAT)

27 I've always viewed political thought on a spectrum with totalitarianism on the far left followed by communism, socialism the mushy middle conservatives and libertarians of the far right. The single underlying principle is control from a central group of elites to complete freedom of the individual. Liberals or progressives or whatever name they want to call themselves in America these days are nothing more than European style socialist with the far fringes being pretty damn close to communists. Everything else is a product of these believes. I don't view liberals as libertarians in the least. They don't want people to be free to do what they want, they want them to do what they tell them because they know best.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 03:20 PM (g1DWB)

28 I don't know about "liberalism", but the leftism of the Democrats is directly from the socialism of the 1850s.......

Posted by: MtTB at February 03, 2014 03:20 PM (xehjI)

29 Wilson did more than jail people, he had vigilantes out busting heads.

Yeah, I know. Which is why I didn't consider "It Couldn't Happen Here" to be a silly book (although it was written by a sleazeball). As Goldberg pointed out in "Liberal Fascism" it did happen here.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 03, 2014 03:20 PM (30eLQ)

30
Wilson did more than jail people, he had vigilantes out busting heads.

According to Karl Rove, then Wilson should have a lotta "street cred" with the Tea Party.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:21 PM (gYIst)

31 16 Liberalism became fashionable among the British elites... Then it spread here. I don't think that Liberal Elites really give a shit about 'the poor'...they've just gotten into a competition to show who cares more. Posted by: wheatie at February 03, 2014 07:15 PM (IAa7O) As one wag said about one famous British Lady: "She cares about poor children halfway around the world more than she does those who live a few miles away. " "She cares about poor children only so long as their skin is brown. "

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:21 PM (bb5+k)

32 And yet that's exactly what happened in Britain. The liberal party was considered the libertarian party. At some point I think pre WW1 they developed a welfare state strain in the party. It eventually tore it apart, many left to go to the conservative party, and labour came along and ate up the rest of the votes.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at February 03, 2014 03:21 PM (WdbF7)

33 They aren't even really libertarian when it comes to sex. Ask them if they think someone should be "allowed" to have a large family and their totalitarianism comes out swinging.

Posted by: Lauren at February 03, 2014 03:22 PM (hFL/3)

34 I've always wanted to read that book but could never locate a copy that wasn't damn expensive. Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 03, 2014 07:15 PM (oFCZn) I got mine by being a member of a conservative book club back in the 1990s. It was still expensive, but it is a damn fine book. I recommend it every time the topic comes up.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:22 PM (bb5+k)

35 Liberalism, progressivism, communism: Because they have worked out so well in the past?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:22 PM (nzKvP)

36 Today's "liberalism" was born of the electoral thrashing meted out by Ronald Reagan to Carter and Mondale. After successive drubbings, the Democrats looked to build a majority by cobbling together grievance groups and then constantly inflaming the passions of those grievance group members. This is how former pro-life Ted Kennedy became stridently pro-abortion among other things. And here we are today, where Democrats find themselves championing felon's rights, Al Sharpton and his knockoffs, and a bunch of other people and groups that would have been anathema to Harry Truman and JFK.

On a separate note, Obama's grinning fist bump with Hugo Chavez told us everything we needed to know about Obama. And as Victoria Jackson asked long ago, who but a Communist would appoint Van Jones (a Communist) to an official position in the White House?

Posted by: OCBill at February 03, 2014 03:23 PM (rFipM)

37 Democrats totes believe in freedom you guys. You and you and you will be free to pay for Sandra Flukes birth control and abortions through your taxes. You will also be free to pay for millions of able bodied welfare recipients' food, rent and medical care etc. etc... If you refuse to pay your taxes because you feel the waste, fraud and abuse are far too egregious (you dirty terrorist!) you will be free to be arrested and free to rot in jail. FREEDOM.

Posted by: Really smart Progs everywhere at February 03, 2014 03:23 PM (B/3gr)

38 "... the truly authoritarian measures beloved progressive Woodrow Wilson used to jail dissidents."

Which had to be unwound by his successor.

I grew up with a caricatured view of Warren G. Harding -- to include Mencken's satire of "Normalcy" -- but having learned a bit more about the huge economic and political mess which Wilson left behind, Harding looks a lot better simply by dint of having been able to restore a modicum of, yes, normalcy. An underrated condition.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 03, 2014 03:23 PM (gqT4g)

39 22 Wilson did more than jail people, he had vigilantes out busting heads. Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 07:18 PM (MMC8r) J. Edgar Hoover got his start in government doing exactly this.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:24 PM (bb5+k)

40 Ask them if they think someone should be "allowed" to have a large family and their totalitarianism comes out swinging. They're anti-procreation. Easier to rule a small herd than a large one.

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 03:24 PM (MMC8r)

41 << even though progressivism was previously discredited due to its authoritarianism and grandiosity and incompetency and innate disrespect for the individual human being outside of his corporate capacity as a cell of the state.>>

...which might be why they're embracing the label. How else would you describe the Left today?

Posted by: SGT. York at February 03, 2014 03:24 PM (8Uxxu)

42 Frankfurt School communists left Germany when Hitler attacked Stalin. Writing on the wall. They came to California.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 03:25 PM (eIfgJ)

43 It's like Goldberg is smart or something.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 03, 2014 03:25 PM (ZPrif)

44 Ol' billy ayers only needed to kill around 25 million of us to realize his libertarian vision . Oh yeah , they're libertarians all right . Of course , ayers and his merry pranksters hadn't thought very deeply on how to disarm the kulaks he was planning to disappear .

Posted by: awkward davies at February 03, 2014 03:25 PM (WK8VM)

45 Sanger (Planned Abortionhood) wanted people to be forced to apply to the govt for permission to have a baby.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 03, 2014 03:26 PM (ZPrif)

46 Plato was a liberal.

Posted by: Caliban at February 03, 2014 03:27 PM (2ArJQ)

47 I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 03:27 PM (pcgW1)

48 The disease is a phage which changes its outer covering at will to protect itself from the host's white blood cells.

The ends justify the means. The ends in this case is killing the Republic. The means is to say anything to to fool the voters into allowing them to do it.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 03:27 PM (qAHwE)

49 The progressive no borders crowd are actually worse than communists: They are anarchists.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (nzKvP)

50 Ultimately, the root of Progressivism and modern-day "liberalism" is the Jacobinism of the French revolution and its intellectual godfather, Rousseau, who believed that "the function of the State was not merely one of the ruling the nation, but also that of recasting it in a given mold, of shaping the mentality of the population as a whole in accordance with a predetermined model and instilling the ideas and sentiments they though desirable in the minds of all" according to de Tocqueville.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (XvHmy)

51 Later peeps.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (bb5+k)

52 the way I have always understood it, liberals are basically libertarians who believe in positive liberty rather than negative liberty. also they tend to be suspicious of concentrated power in all forms not just with corporations. progressives, otoh are basically neo-socialists. they want to use government to create 'better citizens'.

Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (/B0pU)

53 Doesn't this all harken back to Fabian Socialism? Call it Progressive, Liberal, or whatever disguise du juor, it's all the same: one self-assigned Class to rule them all. A tyranny can shapeshift to fit the times, but it's still tyranny.

There is nothing new under the sun. All will seek power; some will seek it all.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (eHIJJ)

54 I'm becoming more and more convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder. Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 07:27 PM (pcgW1) Nothing that a good beating wouldn't cure

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (nzKvP)

55 There are still Liberals, Jon Stewart is one, for example. Progressive extremists took over the Democrat party and they are of the Right, in the European sense. They are neo-Fascists. Many Liberals have a real problem with them.

Posted by: coondawg68 at February 03, 2014 03:28 PM (8UBs9)

56 "Easier to rule a small herd than a large one." That, and the fact that family takes care of their own. How many people are saved from homelessness because they move in with a parent or sibling during a bad spell? Millions upon millions, I'd wager. There was an interesting article a few months ago that was talking about the fall out from the One Child policy in China. Basically, now that we're a few generations in there's now a whole generation of children who not only lack a brother or sister, but also lack an aunt or uncle or cousins of any sort. The entire family unit is literally just the parents and that single child. Apart from all the other benefits that are missing from such a situation, those kids don't have much of a safety net should they get in a tough spot, and those parents are pretty limited on where they'll spend their old age. Of course, the government is there to help. Always.

Posted by: Lauren at February 03, 2014 03:29 PM (hFL/3)

57 Prior to the modern era there were three large political strains in Europe: 1) Communism/Socialism - for example Marx or Eduard Bernstein 2) "Liberalism" which was a union of what is now called American conservatism and libertarianism. - think Adams or Jefferson 3) "Conservatism" which at the time was aristocratic monarchism. - think Otto von Bismarck Not only is modern liberalism NOT a descendant of classical liberalism, it is instead a synthesis of the two other schools of though. Bismarck is especially instructive here. By buying off the German lower class (and left) with a social welfare state he was able to keep the German middle class from instituting a limited, representative state. With the failure of the pure socialist model apparent, THIS is the model the left wants. There will be the trappings of representative government and some sort of welfare state, but a connected aristocracy (or technocracy specifically) will control all the levels of power in society.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 03, 2014 03:30 PM (M3hAT)

58 #54 Nevergiveup The more beatings, the more morale improves, right?

Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 03:30 PM (pcgW1)

59 The progressive no borders crowd are actually worse than communists: They are anarchists. It depends on the target. Like they were non-interventionists before Hitler went to war with Stalin. They have no problem with, say, Cuba and it's border policy. Their target is always (whether they admit it to themselves or not) the dissolution of Western Civilization. If it weakens America, it's their policy.

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 03:30 PM (MMC8r)

60 Frankfurt School communists left Germany when Hitler attacked Stalin. Writing on the wall. They came to California. Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 03, 2014 07:25 PM (eIfgJ) Not quite. They left Germany in 1933, coming to New York (Columbia U) in 1935. They were Jews, if they'd have stayed until Hitler attacked Stalin, they'd have never gotten out.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 03, 2014 03:31 PM (N/cFh)

61 Its pretty clear that liberalism of the 17th and 18th centuries was about freedom and the state being removed from the backs of the people, but its certainly not that now. To this extent it much more closely resembled libertarians today.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:31 PM (zfY+H)

62 This snow is making me fuckin crazy

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:32 PM (nzKvP)

63 I'm pretty sure it's racist of us to discuss where liberalism came from.

Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 03:33 PM (pcgW1)

64 >>Not only is modern liberalism NOT a descendant of classical liberalism

It participates in the same mistakes that classical liberalism made, but they're no more a descendant than you are a descendant of your lunch.

Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 03:33 PM (07vvi)

65
I believe any true Conservative would be Anarchist as a second alterantive to conservatism.

I would. The way I see it, If I could not live in a free democratic republic, I'd rather be ruled by No Man than a Dictactor. I'd rather live in lawlessness than in communism.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:33 PM (gYIst)

66 This snow is making me fuckin crazy These pretzels are making me thirsty.

Posted by: Kramer[/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 03, 2014 03:34 PM (yz6yg)

67 Any info on Joffen as far as a fund that is set up?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 03, 2014 03:34 PM (R8hU8)

68 Anarchy is where you go when you go too far to the right. Fascism is sort of on the left, and off to a side a bit.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:35 PM (zfY+H)

69 These PRETZELS are making ME THIRSTY!

Posted by: George at February 03, 2014 03:35 PM (hFL/3)

70 We have to quit using the terms "liberal" and "progressive" and call them what they are - Liberal Totalitarians

Posted by: Ted Bopp at February 03, 2014 03:35 PM (TuEDh)

71 Another interesting thing is that the left tends to shy away the label "liberal" now, but has embraced the label "progressive" -- even though progressivism was previously discredited due to its authoritarianism and grandiosity and incompetency and innate disrespect for the individual human being outside of his corporate capacity as a cell of the state.

History repeats itself. But as tragedy or farce this time?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 03, 2014 03:36 PM (8ZskC)

72 Does it really matter? It is all perverted thinking.

Posted by: Holger at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (rIk1N)

73 The IRS' announcement Monday that it will pay cancelled 2013 bonuses has infuriated Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, who wants to know why an agency with employees who Â“inappropriatelyÂ” targeted conservative political groups would reinstate the rewards. Â“The IRS is accused of targeting conservative groups, with many of its employees having conducted themselves in a manner inappropriate for government officials, and the agency decides to reinstate employee bonuses?Â” asked Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Â“This is outrageous.Â” The announcement was made by new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who said the performance bonuses were reinstated after agency employees repeatedly asked him about them during his first weeks on the job and after reaching a deal with the Union for Federal Employees. Anarchy ha? Is there a sign up form?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (nzKvP)

74 Posted by: 18-1 at February 03, 2014 07:30 PM (M3hAT) Interesting.... but I also see a strain of the 'Mandarins' of China in there... Where if you of the right family, and schooling (Harvahd?) you were allowed into the Bureauracracy.. where you would wield the true reigns of power... Look at the EU... and its technocrats... then look into their backgrounds.... Or look at the US and our entrenched US Government employees... like in the current IRS... who cannot be touched.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (84gbM)

75 I just call them leftists. They aren't liberal in any real sense of liberty. Its an abuse of the term.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (zfY+H)

76 I'm pretty sure it's racist of us to discuss where liberalism came from. *** One of Goldberg's themes, and it is a fascinating one, is that conservatives endlessly talk about the philosophical history of their political views, and liberals, generally, have no knowledge of what happened in politics beyond a decade or so ago. Partially this is a tactical pose, we have to defend the American Founders and the like, the left doesn't have to defend anyone, just their ideas. But this also points to the fact that liberals are happy with ignorance...as knowing where their ideas came from would not help them implement lent them. Think about all the problems that such willful ignorance can...and does...lead to.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (M3hAT)

77 Where does it come from? Calvinists? Haven't quite read all of Moldbug's stuff yet.

Posted by: The Narrative at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (WSjlp)

78 >>The way I see it, If I could not live in a free democratic republic, I'd rather be ruled by No Man than a Dictactor

You'd be an anarchist before you would live in a legitimate hereditary monarchy?

Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 03:37 PM (07vvi)

79 Calvinists were a major genesis behind the US constitution and liberty.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:39 PM (zfY+H)

80 Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans. Â“They said they didnÂ’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,Â” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. Â“They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.Â” The student council at Fort Collins High School had proposed having a day to celebrate the United States during next weekÂ’s Winter Spirit Week. The young people pitched Â“Â’Merica MondayÂ” Â– and invited their classmates to dress in patriotic colors. Their proposal was promptly shot down by administrators. Â“They said they didnÂ’t want to be exclusive to any other country,Â” a 17-year-old member of the student council told me. The students and parents who talked to me about this incident have asked to remain anonymous. The parents feared their children might face reprisals from liberal educators. Liberalism is a deadly disease

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 03, 2014 03:39 PM (nzKvP)

81 I did read Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom" last year. Really. I read it.

One of the interesting things about it is how the terminology has changed since the early 50s when he wrote it. I eventually came to read Hayek's "classical liberalism" as essentially today's small-government conservatism. Thinking of the Right as liberals took some getting used to.

Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 03, 2014 03:39 PM (8ZskC)

82
Ed Driscoll interviews the author in the other sidebar link.

Also the side bar doesn't actually have alcohol.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 03, 2014 03:39 PM (n0DEs)

83 Progressives as Puritans:

http://tinyurl.com/pq7o7h2

Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 03:41 PM (07vvi)

84 Hey Nevergiveup, go check what I posted on your FB. That might solve your snow issues.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 03:41 PM (qAHwE)

85 You cannot become a side lawyer by passing the sidebar, either.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:41 PM (zfY+H)

86 You cannot become a side lawyer by passing the sidebar, either.

Where does sideboob come into this?

I'm asking for a friend.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (8ZskC)

87 I thought it all started with an apple.

Posted by: blaster at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (4+AaH)

88 I would not choose anarchy.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone posting boobies at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (zxfH6)

89 I'm still working on Wiker's "Worshipping the state." but it gives a pretty decent account of the rise of liberalism thusfar.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (GaqMa)

90 I thought it all started with an apple. Are you blaming Eve? WAR ON WOMYN!

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (MMC8r)

91 They are regressives. There is nothing progressive about their agenda as it has been tried throughout history and have caused nothing but human misery, death of innocents, and tyranny.

Posted by: Cheri at February 03, 2014 03:43 PM (VDGzf)

<< even though progressivism was previously discredited due to its
authoritarianism and grandiosity and incompetency and innate disrespect
for the individual human being outside of his corporate capacity as a
cell of the state.>>

...which might be why they're embracing the label. How else would you describe the Left today?

Posted by: SGT. York at February 03, 2014 07:24 PM (8Uxxu)

You beat me to it.

Posted by: steveegg at February 03, 2014 03:44 PM (o44nj)

93 22 Wilson did more than jail people, he had vigilantes out busting heads. I was surprised to learn Wilson jailed a pacifist pastor, Mennonite I think, who opposed the war in Whiteside Co., IL. Someone reported him to the officials as he was out in a very rural church. He did real time, tho got out early.

Posted by: The Farmer at February 03, 2014 03:45 PM (eBupg)

94 I'll just leave this here then: Â“Political tags Â— such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth Â— are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.Â” ---Robert Heinlein

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who still likes Sam Clovis for Senate at February 03, 2014 03:46 PM (a3DHl)

95 WW1 was almost the collapse of liberty in America, they outlawed German language classes and German clubs. It was awful for a while, and everyone just forgets it. Linoln leaned pretty hard on America too, but at least he believed he had far greater reason than Wilson.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 03:47 PM (zfY+H)

96 #76 18-1 So it comes back to my becoming more convinced that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 03:47 PM (pcgW1)

97 You cannot become a side lawyer by passing the sidebar, either.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 03, 2014 07:41 PM (zfY+H)

____________________

No Salad or Chocolate over there either.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at February 03, 2014 03:48 PM (jucos)

98
Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 07:18 PM (gYIst) <<<

The author makes that exact point.

I think there was a split between the "liberals" and the "progressives" but it was over marketing. The liberals figured out they would have to do it over decades incrementally.

The fact that they are calling themselves progressives again is a signal they feel safe in doing it faster and more aggressively.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 03, 2014 03:48 PM (n0DEs)

99 75 I just call them leftists. They aren't liberal in any real sense of liberty. Its an abuse of the term. Posted by: Christopher Taylor This is what I do

Posted by: lindafell at February 03, 2014 03:48 PM (PGO8C)

100 A much more interesting question would be to ask liberals/progressives to define themselves. Conservatives and Libertarians can give you a pretty concise definition of their political philosophy but liberals don't really seem to have any real philosophy other than more government.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 03, 2014 03:50 PM (g1DWB)

101 Conservatives and Libertarians can give you a pretty concise definition of their political philosophy but liberals don't really seem to have any real philosophy other than more government.

The Cover: "Caring."
The Reality: Subjugation.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 03, 2014 03:51 PM (8ZskC)

102 Whatever its label, it's as old as the Bible: "Give us a king".

Most people in most countries want a Big Daddy to tell them what to do, and to be sure they have enough to eat, and some measure of status. They then feel secure enough to mutter in discontent about Big Daddy and how strict he is, and how it all should be different, and how "Mom always liked you best" (due respect to the Smothers Brothers). Today's Liberals pander to the "keep me safe and well-fed, and find me someone to blame" mindset, and find no lack of willing followers.

There's also a naturally-occurring group (much smaller) of stubborn independents who don't want to be told what to do. A whole bunch of that sort came over to settle America, and THAT is what made our Revolution possible. However, over our two-hundred-plus years, the "reversion to the mean" has set in ... and here we are with the "give us a king" contingent braying at full voice. We stubborn independents need a "New World" to colonize!

That's why the search for volunteers for a Mars colony got some 2000,000 responses. A lot of us just want to GTFO and go far, far away - beyond the reach of the Smothering State.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at February 03, 2014 03:51 PM (hq0VE)

103
yep, leftists is the way to go.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 03, 2014 03:51 PM (n0DEs)

104 daily reminder: liberalism is marxism. /thread

Posted by: Daily Reminder Guy at February 03, 2014 03:52 PM (6j8ke)

105 Send it back whence it came

Posted by: Sandcastles at February 03, 2014 03:53 PM (R6JT1)

106
You'd be an anarchist before you would live in a legitimate hereditary monarchy?

Probably since I don't know if I could ever agree on what a "legitimate" monarchy is.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:53 PM (gYIst)

107 #94 ChicagoRefugee That is a great quote from one of the best, and It is true. The labels we apply become meaningless after a while. What is important are the motives behind the person. They either want to control other people or they want to be left alone.

Posted by: Marmo at February 03, 2014 03:53 PM (pcgW1)

108 That's why the search for volunteers for a Mars colony got some 2000,000 responses. A lot of us just want to GTFO and go far, far away - beyond the reach of the Smothering State.

*snort*

Posted by: The Federal Planetary Environmental Protection Agency at February 03, 2014 03:54 PM (8ZskC)

109 Oops -typo. Mars colony got two hundred thousand volunteers ( 200,000 not 2000,000 ).

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at February 03, 2014 03:55 PM (hq0VE)

110 "Statist" is a very effective encompassing term. From whatever pole you start - from conservative to liberal if those be the outer boundaries - your deference is to the State and not the Individual. I don't get hung up on the perversions and obfuscations of rhetorical word-play. "Statist" seems the most direct and least open to misinterpretation.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 03, 2014 03:56 PM (eHIJJ)

111 John Stuart Mill documented early changes from classical liberalism toward big-state liberalism long before Woodrow Wilson. Yeah, I'm still around. How's everybody doin'?

Posted by: K-Bob at February 03, 2014 03:56 PM (nboDK)

112
I think we all know now what it's like to be a subject of a benevolent king. Yeah, I prefer anarchism to this shit.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 03:57 PM (gYIst)

113 The thinking class mandarins may think they're untouchable but unless they plan on moving into walled fortresses with serious security , and I'm talking heavy infantry type security , they are very touchable . Sorry , I just reread John Ross' "Unintended Consequences" . It got me to thinkin' about this stuff again .

Posted by: awkward davies at February 03, 2014 03:58 PM (WK8VM)

114 Liberalism is the result of a bunch of lazy work shirking assholes spouting enough bullshit that busy working people pay them to STFD and STFU !

Posted by: Regular Guy at February 03, 2014 03:59 PM (N3Al8)

115 Anyone who believed that Wilson's reluctant embrace of war meant that he would not prosecute it aggressively knew nothing of him. He was one of those rare men who believed almost to the point of mental illness in his own righteousness.
...
To Wilson this war was a crusade, and he intended to wage total war. Perhaps knowing himself even more than the country, he predicted, "Once lead this people into war, and they'll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fiber of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street."

America had never been and would never be so informed by the will of its chief executive, not during the Civil War with the suspension of habeas corpus, not during Korea and the McCarthy period, not even during World War II. He would turn the nation into a weapon, an explosive device.

- pg. 121 The Great Influenza by John M.Barry. Penguin Books. 2005.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 03:59 PM (qAHwE)

116 I just call them leftists. They aren't liberal in any real sense of liberty. Its an abuse of the term. In related news a panel of "academic experts" in Boston have come up with a list of recommendations post Newtown. Among those recommendations is this gem: They want to deny 2nd Amendment rights to anyone who has been arrested. Not convicted of a crime, arrested.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 03, 2014 04:00 PM (IoTdl)

117 TFG is about as far from a benevolent king as you could get.

Refer back to Kuenhelt-Leddihn from earlier in the thread, and this:
http://astore.amazon.com/aoshq-20/detail/0765808684

Posted by: kartoffel at February 03, 2014 04:02 PM (07vvi)

118 110 "Statist" is a very effective encompassing term. From whatever pole you start - from conservative to liberal if those be the outer boundaries - your deference is to the State and not the Individual..... "Statist" seems the most direct and least open to misinterpretation. Posted by: AnonymousDrivel Another good one, I may have to steal, errr, I mean borrow it from you, because all your words are belonging to us now, or something, something.....

Posted by: lindafell at February 03, 2014 04:02 PM (PGO8C)

119 The left are like locusts. They just destroy everything in their path. I'm surprised that lefty tweeter who has been shilling for communism again hasn't been mentioned. I forgot his name but what a whackjob! OT: Cate Blanchett showed up at the apt of PSH's kids with big bags of toys and a telescope. That's a nice way of relieving the depression and stress those kids must be feeling.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 03, 2014 04:02 PM (NRYdU)

120 113

I'll go one step further. If the leftist oligarchs of Silicon Valley think they can stomp the right and not fear the left, then they best take a second look at the pissed-off shantytown Chicano's living in the Cali central valley.

Posted by: 13times at February 03, 2014 04:05 PM (fGPLK)

121 Liberalismis a way for lazy fucks to make money and was born at Woodstock between "breakfast in bed for 500,000" and Jimi Hendrix

Posted by: Regular Guy at February 03, 2014 04:07 PM (N3Al8)

122 Good observation 13times .

Posted by: awkward davies at February 03, 2014 04:08 PM (WK8VM)

123 "In related news a panel of 'academic experts' in Boston have come up with a list of recommendations post Newtown. Among those recommendations is this gem: They want to deny 2nd Amendment rights to anyone who has been arrested. Not convicted of a crime, arrested."

The Newtown shooter had no prior arrest history. This measure would have done precisely nothing to head that off. Effing brilliant.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 03, 2014 04:11 PM (gqT4g)

124 123 Not only that, he stole the guns he used.

Posted by: --- at February 03, 2014 04:12 PM (MMC8r)

125 He also murdered the legal owner of said guns.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 04:13 PM (qAHwE)

126 123 ,, I wonder what they're expert in ? How to start a civil war in three easy steps .

Posted by: awkward davies at February 03, 2014 04:21 PM (WK8VM)

127
In MA there is a law that if anyone ever calls 911 on you for a domestic dispute, your right to owning a handgun in MA is voided forever, whether you own a handgun or not, you are dq'd.

I shit you not. All it takes is the phone call.

Posted by: soothsayer at February 03, 2014 04:24 PM (gYIst)

128 "Then there's the fact that "collegiality" trumps principle in Washington, D.C."
------------------------------------------------------------
Have you even been _listening_ to what the dems have been saying? "Collegiality" only happens in the GOP.

Posted by: RoadRunner at February 03, 2014 04:28 PM (kw1xk)

129 Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 03, 2014 08:13 PM (qAHwE) If any close relatives say to the 6th Generation and out to say 20th cousins have ever been arrested, you cannot legally own a firearm.

Posted by: Holger at February 03, 2014 04:51 PM (rIk1N)

130 So Liberalism is to Progressiveism as Global Warming is to Global Climate change?

Posted by: Progressives everywhere. at February 03, 2014 05:06 PM (aDwsi)

131 If any close relatives say to the 6th Generation and out to say 20th cousins have ever been arrested ---------------- Uh, oh. * ponders the relative grabbed during the Monmouth Rebellion *

Posted by: Progressives everywhere. at February 03, 2014 05:08 PM (aDwsi)

132 In MA there is a law that if anyone ever calls 911 on you for a domestic dispute, your right to owning a handgun in MA is voided forever, whether you own a handgun or not, you are dq'd. I shit you not. All it takes is the phone call. Posted by: soothsayer WTF? How on earth does that square w/ the 2nd admendment? No infringement? Do MA judges just get to ignore the Constitution?

Posted by: The Farmer at February 03, 2014 05:33 PM (eBupg)

133 http://tinyurl.com/kp7vmw3

Posted by: ashleymedlock@yahoo.com at February 03, 2014 05:35 PM (oDRvb)

134 Progressivism is just the American label for Scientific Socialism. That's all it ever was.

Posted by: Phinn at February 03, 2014 05:41 PM (KOGmz)

135 Your post is lame. You discuss points raised by Goldberg about a book he hasn't read, and you don't name the book or author. The author is Fred Siegel, his book is "The Revolt Against The Masses". Ed Driscoll's post on the subject beats Goldberg by a day, and Ed DID read the book, then links to his interview with the author. I'd link it but your crappy comments application won't accept the link.

Posted by: Born Free at February 03, 2014 05:50 PM (xL8Hf)

136 Your post is lame. Where's your blog? I'd love to read it, what with you being such a fucking amazing expert on how to create a popular blog. I bet it's really good.

Posted by: Phinn at February 03, 2014 06:52 PM (KOGmz)

137

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 04, 2014 02:41 AM (T2V/1)

138 #57 Absolutely correct. Let's call the amalgam fo #1 & #3 progressivism. When prog policies became discredited by their failures, they relabeled themselves liberals. When the same policies failed as liberalism, the progs went back to calling themselves liberals.

Posted by: Bob at February 04, 2014 06:59 AM (xtJl3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

141kb generated in CPU 0.0464, elapsed 0.2642 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2367 seconds, 266 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.