Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VeniVidiVici
This represents an amazing historical evolution, at least in the case of liberals. Over the last 100 years, liberals have adapted the complete diametrically opposed opposite of their original philosophy and positions. It's even funnier that they don't realize it.

Liberals are in absolute denial of their ferocious opposition to freedom!

29 posted on 05/10/2004 8:22:00 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: FormerACLUmember; All
The term liberal to mean a socialist, feminist, authoritarian is a recent thing.

In the Victorian era, for example, there were three general political movements;

1) Socialists/Communists - the predecessors of the modern left.

2) Conservatives - people who wanted to preserve the traditional order. Generally monarchists in Europe, but primarily interested in keeping the status quo. These people are the predecessors of modern RINOs.

3) Liberals - free market, small government types. Built the industries that made the UK and US world leaders. Believed in spreading representative government. These are our predecessors.

The term liberal is still often used to describe rightwingers in Europe, though it seems even they are beginning to adopt our usage.

For the life of me though, I can't figure out exactly how this transition came to be. Certainly the lines between conservatism and liberalism in 19th century America were rather blurry. But neither had much in common with the current left.
30 posted on 05/10/2004 8:30:27 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: FormerACLUmember
Liberals are in absolute denial of their ferocious opposition to freedom!

I really wonder why this is. Of course, the initial answer is that they are not really liberals, but only propoents of positions which once were held by liberals.

I get that part. But why do people fear freedom so much??? For themselves and for others??? It cannot simply be naivite' or ignorance, but I can't simply impute a cravenness that prefers tyrrany unless it is a psychological fear of chaos or mess that freedom entails.

It would be a type that is uneasy without extrinsic structure. Those who do not have inner structure or an inner demand or search for structure, feel lost and threatened by the lessening of external structure for themselves ... and the others.

31 posted on 05/10/2004 8:31:45 PM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson