Posted on 09/12/2017 4:16:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?
Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today. Yet few seem able to do it. I offer the following as a guide.
Here's the first thing to know: The two have almost nothing in common.
On the contrary, liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. The left has appropriated the word "liberal" so effectively that almost everyone -- liberals, leftists and conservatives -- thinks they are synonymous.
But they aren't. Let's look at some important examples.
Race: This is perhaps the most obvious of the many moral differences between liberalism and leftism. The essence of the liberal position on race was that the color of one's skin is insignificant. To liberals of a generation ago, only racists believed that race is intrinsically significant. However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist. Thus, the University of California officially regards the statement "There is only one race, the human race" as racist. For that reason, liberals were passionately committed to racial integration. Liberals should be sickened by the existence of black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.
Capitalism: Liberals have always been pro capitalism, recognizing it for what it is: the only economic means of lifting great numbers out of poverty. Liberals did often view government as able to play a bigger role in lifting people out of poverty than conservatives, but they were never opposed to capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are leftist values.
Nationalism: Liberals deeply believed in the nation-state, whether their nation was the United States, Great Britain or France. The left has always opposed nationalism because leftism is rooted in class solidarity, not national solidarity. The left has contempt for nationalism, seeing in it intellectual and moral primitivism at best, and the road to fascism at worst. Liberals always wanted to protect American sovereignty and borders. The notion of open borders would have struck a liberal as just as objectionable as it does a conservative. It is emblematic of our time that the left-wing writers of Superman comics had Superman announce a few years ago, "I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my American citizenship." When the writers of Superman were liberal, Superman was not only an American but one who fought for "Truth, justice, and the American way." But in his announcement, he explained that motto is "not enough anymore."
View of America: Liberals venerated America. Watch American films from the 1930s through the 1950s and you will be watching overtly patriotic, America-celebrating films -- virtually all produced, directed and acted in by liberals. Liberals well understand that America is imperfect, but they agree with a liberal icon named Abraham Lincoln that America is "the last best hope of earth."
To the left, America is essentially a racist, sexist, violent, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic country. The left around the world loathe America, and it is hard to imagine why the American left would differ in this one way from fellow leftists around the world. Leftists often take offense at having their love of America doubted. But those left-wing descriptions of America are not the only reason to assume that the left has more contempt than love for America. The left's view of America was encapsulated in then-presidential candidate Barack Obama's statement in 2008. "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," he said.
Now, if you were to meet a man who said that he wanted to fundamentally transform his wife, or a woman who said that about her husband, would you assume that either loved their spouse? Of course not.
Free speech: The difference between the left and liberals regarding free speech is as dramatic as the difference regarding race. No one was more committed than American liberals to the famous statement "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Liberals still are. But the left is leading the first nationwide suppression of free speech in American history -- from the universities to Google to almost every other institution and place of work. It claims to only oppose hate speech. But protecting the right of person A to say what person B deems objectionable is the entire point of free speech.
Western civilization: Liberals have a deep love of Western civilization. They taught it at virtually every university and celebrated its unique moral, ethical, philosophical, artistic, musical and literary achievements. No liberal would have joined the leftist Rev. Jesse Jackson in chanting at Stanford University: "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Western civ has got to go." The most revered liberal in American history is probably former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who frequently cited the need to protect not just Western civilization but Christian civilization. Yet leftists unanimously denounced President Donald Trump for his speech in Warsaw, Poland, in which he spoke of protecting Western civilization. They argued not only that Western civilization is not superior to any other civilization but also that it is no more than a euphemism for white supremacy.
Judaism and Christianity: Liberals knew and appreciated the Judeo-Christian roots of American civilization. They themselves went to church or synagogue, or at the very least appreciated that most of their fellow Americans did. The contempt that the left has -- and has always had -- for religion (except for Islam today) is not something with which a liberal would ever have identified.
If the left is not defeated, American and Western civilization will not survive. But the left will not be defeated until good liberals understand this and join the fight. Dear liberals: Conservatives are not your enemy. The left is.
-- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
The Left and the Islamics totally reject the symmetry of the what Taleb refers to as a "silver rule" (which is a spin on the Golden Rule -- Nobody should expose others to harm for which he is not himself directly or indirectly exposed).
With all due respect to Dennis Prager - liberalism has been dead for decades.
The people who call themselves liberals now are thugs who want to plant their boots in the human face.
If they get it their way - America will be good as gone.
The writing is on the wall.
Thank you posting this. I hate when socialists/communists/fascists are called ‘Liberals’. They’re not, they’re ‘Leftists’.
I have a similar but different perspective. There are still liberals, but they are like “moderate” Muslims. These people may be moderate and have no declared intent to take over America or do bad things. But when forced to make a choice, they always side with the extremists. So, in the end, a liberal is a leftist, and a moderate Muslim is a radical Muslim by default.
“Leftism Is Not Liberalism”
That used to be true of liberals but not anymore. When is the last time you heard a liberal object to being called a leftist, or a leftist object to being called liberal? They are the same thing. The old labels don’t matter anymore.
See my post #5.
This article describes the classic "distinction without a difference."
Yes, Ditto. I've been pounding that drum for years, but even smart people seem unable to grasp the concept. I hope that Prager has more luck explaining it than I have had.
Our enemies always hide behind names that they hijack to fool stupid people. They also are slick with emotion and guilt shaming. They have perverted the English language and vilify everything that is not part of their Utopian plan. They adapt very well and NEVER give up and have very deep pockets. The fact that there are those on the right who are in bed with these scum is nauseating. The battle is leftism and Islam vs Conservatism (or TRUE Classical Liberalism).
The Right/Conservatives/Reactionaries have always been frustrated that the Left/Liberal/Progressives can control the argument by controlling the language.
That is because a major component of the Left/Liberal/Progressives are Cultural Elitists who make their living off of words and language.
Classical Liberalism:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalism in the United States:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
Subtly different... but American version is the demented cousin and is reaping the whirlwind.
This does not work. He is creating a third definition of “liberal”. The first is usually prefaced by the word “classical” as in “The world owes a debt of gratitude to the classical liberals of the British Empire who...(etc.)”
The second definition is the current term for leftists which is worn simply as a moniker like “Bill” or “George” and has no connection to its classical roots. It gets changed or replaced by “progressive” or anything else at any time especially as the term gains a negative connotation due to its association with leftist ideology.
Brother Prager’s third definition tries to identify the term with a moment in time. 30 years ago, as the left was proceeding happily down the “Road to Serfdom.” I first read the book by that title on the recommendation of Rush Limbaugh. It is a difficult read; you will need your dictionary, but it is very satisfying and instructive.
This tack will not right the ship, any more than saying that the Republican party is “the party of Lincoln.” NO ONE is convinced by such argument.
Bump
If you read The Road to Serfdom (Reader’s Digest Condensed Version here), you will see that FA Hayek used the term “liberal” to denote people who today would be called “conservatives” in America. That is because Hayek, an Austrian, learned English in America before the meaning of “liberal” was, according to Safire's New Political Dictionary, essentially inverted in the 1920s. And the meaning of “liberal” was not changed in Britain, where Hayek wrote Serfdom during WWII.Although Serfdom, unabridged, has gone through several editions, The total number of unabridged copies printed still has not reached the level of distribution which the book got in the May, 1945 edition of the Reader’s Digest. At that time Hayek was on his way to what he assumed would be a modest book tour in the US - but when he arrived he found that his book - in condensed form - was a sensation in America, and he was speaking to huge crowds. Hayek expressed satisfaction that the condensed version did justice to his original.
The big breakthrough and linguistic change happened in the 1972 Democrat convention. The “radical agitator” faction took over from the “liberal” faction, and since then the party has been far leftist in orientation.
The radicals demanded of the MSM that they be called “liberals”, and agitators be called “activists”. Their preferred candidate, George McGovern, still went down to the worst loss in presidential election history.
Because the public utterly rejects radical agitator leftists.
So since that time, the left has concentrated its efforts on creating euphemisms for what it is and does; while at the same time redoubling its efforts to portray conservatives with perverse and vile labels.
Yep. ‘Liberals’ isn’t the Left....and ‘Conservatives’ aren’t the Right.
Both monikers have no basis on their political ‘accomplishments’, more akin to Statist\Fascist\Totalitarian: $20T+ debt\$120T+ unfunded liabilities, O’Care (lack of repeal), one set of rules for ‘elite’ while another for The People, NSA, TSA, TARP, exec. amnesty (lack of repeal)\illegals, NCLB....The list too numerous to type out.
He’s obviously trying to drive a schism within the left. But as others have pointed out, “Liberals” are like “moderate” Muslims. They won’t go against their crazies, making them indistinguishable from their crazies.
Semantics, the left took the word and we let them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.