Post by ItWillNeverWork on Dec 16, 2003 9:14:15 GMT -5
I am growing increasingly tired of the term 'liberal' that seems to be the most repeated 'insult' on this forum. Let’s get things straight.
A )There are two varieties of liberalism that occupy the political sphere.
1) The first variety of liberalism is economic liberalism. This is the economic doctrine first proposed in detail by economists such as Adam smith. This form of liberalism encourages government to keep as well away from the economy as is possible in order to let market forces determine the outcome of wealth distribution and economic health.
This system was used extensively up until the great depression when it was decided by most industrial societies that, in order to prevent the erratic boom bust cycles that had previously dogged capitalism (and to stem any possible radicalization of the populous in an anti-capitalist direction), a more controlled and regulated system was required.
This is where Keynesianism came in, a system that stabilized the economies of western societies up until the 70's when the global economy started to change, making Keynesianism appear unworkable.
Now, in the post 70's era a newer economic liberalism has emerged as the touted antidote (imaginatively named 'neo-liberalism'). This is the economic theory was put forward by men such as F.A Hayek and Milton Friedman and put into action by the Thatcher/Reagan administrations.
2) This second major form of liberalism is in the social arena. Social liberalism is essentially the belief that the state should have less of an influence in social or individual issues. It has been around for a long time yet social liberalisms definition is transient, adapting to the general moral codes of the day and influenced by the society it has risen out of.
For example, in the 1700's the concept of democracy was a socially liberal one but in modern societies, such as Western Europe or the United States, it is taken for granted and practically all people see it as a norm.
Modern Social Liberalism is also hard to define precisely but can be summed up in several main categories. These might include issues of abortion, homosexuality and drugs law but do not include, as is often implied on this site, issues of welfare, Medicare, taxation and subsidy. These last categories are economic ones and it is more accurate to refer to the promotion of them as Keynesian or 'economically illiberal'
This is where my contention lies.
When someone refers to a democrat as a 'liberal' they fail to recognize that the Democratic Party is economically illiberal and socially liberal (or at least a little bit when compared to the republicans)
The Republican Party on the other hand could be more accurately described as economically liberal but socially illiberal.
PLEASE can we get back to the original definitions of words and ignore what is the common, and misinformed, terminology of the day?
A )There are two varieties of liberalism that occupy the political sphere.
1) The first variety of liberalism is economic liberalism. This is the economic doctrine first proposed in detail by economists such as Adam smith. This form of liberalism encourages government to keep as well away from the economy as is possible in order to let market forces determine the outcome of wealth distribution and economic health.
This system was used extensively up until the great depression when it was decided by most industrial societies that, in order to prevent the erratic boom bust cycles that had previously dogged capitalism (and to stem any possible radicalization of the populous in an anti-capitalist direction), a more controlled and regulated system was required.
This is where Keynesianism came in, a system that stabilized the economies of western societies up until the 70's when the global economy started to change, making Keynesianism appear unworkable.
Now, in the post 70's era a newer economic liberalism has emerged as the touted antidote (imaginatively named 'neo-liberalism'). This is the economic theory was put forward by men such as F.A Hayek and Milton Friedman and put into action by the Thatcher/Reagan administrations.
2) This second major form of liberalism is in the social arena. Social liberalism is essentially the belief that the state should have less of an influence in social or individual issues. It has been around for a long time yet social liberalisms definition is transient, adapting to the general moral codes of the day and influenced by the society it has risen out of.
For example, in the 1700's the concept of democracy was a socially liberal one but in modern societies, such as Western Europe or the United States, it is taken for granted and practically all people see it as a norm.
Modern Social Liberalism is also hard to define precisely but can be summed up in several main categories. These might include issues of abortion, homosexuality and drugs law but do not include, as is often implied on this site, issues of welfare, Medicare, taxation and subsidy. These last categories are economic ones and it is more accurate to refer to the promotion of them as Keynesian or 'economically illiberal'
This is where my contention lies.
When someone refers to a democrat as a 'liberal' they fail to recognize that the Democratic Party is economically illiberal and socially liberal (or at least a little bit when compared to the republicans)
The Republican Party on the other hand could be more accurately described as economically liberal but socially illiberal.
PLEASE can we get back to the original definitions of words and ignore what is the common, and misinformed, terminology of the day?
