"Liberal" today means illiberal
Reader comment on item: Lee Harvey Oswald's Malign Legacy

Submitted by Ian Campbell (United Kingdom), Nov 22, 2007 at 07:30

A fascinating thesis and overdue. For too long we have used the word 'liberal' to describe those of the 'left' - Democrats in the US and the Labour Party in the UK. Some members of both (e.g Michael Moore and George Galloway) and their like, could never be described as liberal in the true sense and meaning of the word. They are cynical manipulators who would impose their values (perhaps with a conscience that has been misdirected along the way) more engaged in self publicity than anything constructive - as true liberalism would require them to be.

But this has spread to the 'softer' left, the main parties of which across the western world want to control our lives - equality of outcome not opportunity, taxation, social controls and rules, carbon footprints and so on. There is nothing liberal in imposing a view of the world or society that requires acceptance of socialist agendas. Liberalism is about the most progressive methods of solving society's problems - and these naturally change over time. Today's 'liberal' agenda is in fact an old backward looking socialist agenda, whose time has past, and there is nothing liberal about it.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.