Why I Don't Call Them "Liberals" (Part I)

Words are funny little creatures. They mean things. When we employ a word to describe something, it is intended to impart useful information about what we are describing to the person with whom we are speaking. However, sometimes this intention can be obfuscated when the word we are using doesn't mean what we think it means – to the occasional amusement of those around us. In other, less amusing, circumstances the error is simply misleading and deceptive, even if unintentionally so.

So it is with the word “liberal.” As it finds use in the everyday discourse of modern America, this word is entirely, completely, unequivocally misapplied to those who bear it. “Liberal” is a word with an interesting history. The first solid record of its use dates to the last quarter of the 14th century, in France (I hate to break this to many conservatives, but much of our language derives from French). In Old French, “liberal” meant “befitting free men, noble, generous”, and ultimately found its roots in the Latin term liberalis, which also meant “noble, generous”, and was used to describe someone who was a freeman or a noble, rich enough to be in a position where he could afford to be generous toward others, especially as this pertained to the typical patron – benefactor relationship found in the old Roman system.

With time, the word entered the English language, and with the rise of English Republicanism, the principle of constitutionalism, and the influence of the English Non-Conformists, “liberalism” began to take on more distinctly political overtones. The set of closely allied political theories found in thinkers such as John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard (of Cato's Letters fame), William Blackstone, the William Pitts (elder and younger), and the American Founders were gathered together under the rubric of “liberalism”, what today is known as “classical liberalism.” The term came to connote ideas of religious tolerance and support for the political liberties of the individual.

These ideas still fit in with the original sense of the word. A “liberal” was one who believed in the nobility of the individual, a freeman under the arbitrary control of no man, but who was at liberty to bestow upon others the benevolence of treating them as equally free individuals, worthy of mutual tolerance and a libertarian willingness to refrain from forcing others to conform to one's own whims or desires. A “liberal”, in this classical sense of the word, was one who was generous enough to respect in others the same freedom and individual dignity that he would desire these others to respect in himself.

Unfortunately, as with everything else that is good in this sinful world, the word “liberal” has suffered from degradation and debasement by people of small minds and abilities. Such it is with those who are today called “liberals” in modern American political discourse. I simply refuse to call them by this term, however, since it is so unbefitting both they themselves, as well as the ideology of socialism that drives them. My preferred term for them is “leftist”, since that indicates their socialistic tendencies. I tend to shy away from “progressive”, since real “progress” is alien to leftist thought and action. But “liberal” is a term that I absolutely cannot apply to them, for many reasons.

To begin with, there is the fundamental difference between the way classical liberals and modern leftists look at the individual. For classical liberals, the individual is the unit of concern. The individual and his family are the ones to whom the unalienable rights of our Constitution, per natural law theories, apply. God deals with men as individuals, whether in the theological setting of salvation, or in the political setting of our inherent rights as human beings made in His image, standing before the law of the principle of government which He established for man in Genesis. As individuals, no man has a right to make demands upon the time, money, strength, or ability of any other, beyond what the other accedes to voluntarily (e.g. working for an employer at a set wage). Likewise, each man or family is free to use their own resources for their own betterment, provided they do so without harming others.

For leftists, “individual” is a dirty word (literally). Leftists think of people in terms of groups only – the proletariat, the capitalist class, etc. New Leftists have added to this the poison of racial and social tribalism. Americans are divided up into special-interest groups – Blacks, Gays, Latinos, and so forth – and are encouraged to agitate for benefits to be given to their group, rather than working hard for their own individual betterment. Rather than taking the interests of the body of individuals who make up the United States of America as a whole into account, the tribal group is all that is important.

Thus we see 97% of blacks voting for Obama – who will do great harm to the country – because he shares their skin color and is widely believed to be able to score some goodies for them as a group. Many Latinos will blindly follow the tribalists who comprise the pro-illegal immigration lobby, because of a shared heritage, despite the manifest damage that illegal immigration does to many individual Latinos. Socialism encourages people not to think of themselves as individuals within (but distinct from) the body politic, but rather to subsume their identity into that of some special-interest group that has to grasp for power and money in some imagined zero-sum competition with other specialinterest groups.

Related to the above, is the fact that classical liberalism sought to allow men to be free to pursue whatever betterment for themselves and their families that they could. Success was dependent, in many ways, upon each individual's willingness to work hard, take risks, and make rational economic decisions. Concomitant with that was the capacity which these engendered for an individual to be able to act as a full member of a politically free society. Not without reason, the correlation between economic freedom and political freedom has been noted – you can't really have the one without the other. Each individual should be free, as he so desires, to choose whether to help the less fortunate. It may be morally superior for him to do so, but he should not be forced by the state to make that moral choice.

Leftists, on the other hand, support taking away the capacity for individuals to be able to have control over their own economic lives. They do not believe individuals should be able to do as they like with their own property, but that property should be considered a conditional privilege, subject to stringent oversight, or even confiscation if the state feels it can better use that property than you can. Businesses should have to jump through ever-increasing regulatory hoops which often have little to do with the stated goals of health or safety. Success is something to be punished, so as to attract the votes of the envious underclass.

Further, leftists have sought increasingly to enslave ever-larger constituencies to the allure of state-provided livelihood through a variety of subsidies, credits, and welfare programs. Those who refuse to participate in this control mechanism find themselves forced to subsidize it instead, through the state's power of taxation. The individual no longer has the decision whether to participate in charity or not – he is now forced to. Leftists believe in benevolence toward the poor, so long as it's on somebody else's dime. This has, of course, acted to destroy the willingness on the part of the productive class to give charitably. As Michael D. Tanner has observed,

“If people come to believe that government will act in their place, they are less likely to become involved themselves. Indeed, we already see substantial evidence that private charitable giving tends to decline when government welfare increases.”

Forcible wealth transfer cannot be considered a morally good act of “helping the poor”. For the act to have moral value, it must be made voluntarily.

Classical liberalism has traditionally been wary of taxation, not just in the sense of high rates, but as a principle. It was understood that taxation amounted to a forcible confiscation of wealth from the individual citizen. As Daniel Webster argued before the Supreme Court in 1819,

Through taxation, the government could suppress or destroy the industry of the people. It could subject the productive classes to onerous burdens which would dissipate and demolish the prosperity of a nation. Further, classical liberalism understood that taxation provides the perfect vehicle through which to take from the productive and to give to the unproductive and the lazy. The principles of what communism and socialism were all about were well-known long before Karl Marx, and classical liberals avoided them strenuously. As Clinton Rossiter has noted, while the influence of many classical liberal thinkers featured heavily in the writings of America's Founders, two groups of early radical English wealth redistributionists, known as the Diggers and the Levellers, were studiously ignored by our classically liberal Founding Fathers (see The Political Thought of the American Revolution, p. 67). Our Founders wanted no part in socialism.

Today's leftists understand these facts about taxation. The difference is that they approve of them. They readily and openly declare their willingness to use taxation as a weapon to rob the successful and productive, and to give to their constituency of government support addicts. Leftists know that taxation is the power to destroy – and destroy is what they want to do. For one must first destroy the means of support of the individual before one can enslave him – and taxation is a means to effect that slavery. A people who lack prosperity are a people who are easily led into demagoguery and envious emotional reactions. By destroying the prosperity of a nation through the taxation power of the state, the leftists can reduce everyone to poverty, and therefore make them easier to control.

One area of special importance to classical liberalism, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, was that the individual retain the ability to protect and defend his person and his property. As such, the right to keep and bear arms was of primary concern. Thomas Jefferson counseled that each citizen should keep a rifle and a store of powder and ballshot, and that one of the most manful exercises was that of shooting and remaining proficient in the use of firearms. Other of our Founders echoed his sentiments about the necessity of an armed citizenry. Indeed, these men observed that this arming was not for the purpose of hunting or target shooting, but was for the purpose of allowing the people to overthrow tyrannous government and to defend their homeland from outside enemies.

They got this idea from the self-governing republican Swiss – a people who Machiavelli described as “armatissimi e liberissimi”, armed and free. An old story is told of a German delegation to Switzerland during World War I. The leading general, upon being told that the Swiss could call up 500,000 men, all fully armed and trained, on 24 hours notice, asked the lead Swiss, “What if we were to invade your nation with 3,000,000 men?” The reply was, “Each of our men would fire six shots, and then return home.”

Modern leftists, however, oppose the individual ownership of firearms. If they can't enact outright banning, then they will try to hector gun owners into submission through a multitude of taxations, regulations, stipulations, registrations, and obfuscations. This is because leftists despise the idea that private, individual citizens might be able to protect themselves from criminals without having to rely upon the protections afforded by the paid agents of the state. They despise even more the idea that private, individual citizens might one day be able to protect themselves from the state itself. Individual freedom is secured by access to weapons, and therefore is antithetical to everything that leftists – who want to negate the individual in favor of the all-powerful state – hold dear. Leftists prefer that the citizenry become subjects, docile and unable to oppose in any way the dictates and whims of the state and its controlling bureaucracies.

Classical liberalism has always supported, and in fact has depended upon, the ability of individuals to be able to freely exchange ideas and information. Our Founders affirmed this unalienable right to know and say, regardless of who says otherwise, by codifying it into the Constitution via the First Amendment. Political speech, the printing press, the written word, were all vehicles for the individual citizen to express his opinions and ideas in a representative commonwealth.

The classical liberals were wellacquainted with governments that sought to silence dissent and muzzle the inherent right of the people to speak and think freely. The Founders were well aware of the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, a New Yorker who was arrested and tried (but, to the credit of his jury, acquitted) on charges of “seditious libel” against the Royal Governor of New York for having published articles which criticized him. Zenger's trial was just a means by which to silence him. Zenger himself was later to write,

“No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves.”

A free people can write, publish, and speak as they please, however much the powers that be are opposed to their ideas and beliefs.

Leftists, on the other hand, support free speech for nobody but themselves. While they vigorously look out for any imagined “violation of their free speech”, they are perfectly ready to silence any dissent to their socialistic programs. Remember, it is the Left that has brought us the “Fairness” Doctrine, understood by all on both sides of the aisle to be primarily intended to silence conservative talk radio. The Left gave us “political correctness” and campus speech codes, “hate speech” and those teeny, tiny “free speech bubbles”. It is the Left who would like to police the internet, muzzling all non-leftist writing and publication. Again, it is the Left who would desperately like to see the dissemination of information remain under the control of the Main Stream Media, which itself basically acts as an organ of the Democrat Party and the leftist agenda.

The Left demonstrates its true illiberality by its efforts to suppress speech and thought with which it disagrees. This has been shown to be true in pretty much every nation where the Left has gained control. It was true in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, but is equally so even in the “democratic socialist” nations of Western Europe. From Spain to Sweden, it is almost impossible for any dissenting voice to get around the information blockade enforced by the state-run media. You simply don't have any credible outlet for dissenting voices in Western Europe able to receive a wide hearing. This is all because socialists cannot allow opposing viewpoints to be aired. Socialism is, in effect, a knowledge-control cult.

For more great commentary, please see Conservative Underground's back issues and browse around! If you like what you see, please sign up to receive Conservative Underground for FREE, every other Tuesday!

I agree wholeheartedly and have been saying it for years.

Norman Thomas, socialist candidate for president in the mid 20th century, has a great quote about "liberalism":

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

I thought that is why they were first called ‘knee-jerk liberals’ - they could hear a thought, actually think almost-critically for a second, then come up with a totally stupid conclusion. Might sound good on the surface, but if you scratch past the surface, their ‘solutions’ end up compounding the problem.

>So call them what they are—LEFTISTS!<

You use the word “Leftists” to describe who I describe as Communists.

“The Left” liked to use the word, “Liberal” until “Liberal became a very dirty word.

Progressive is a pleasanat word. It means “going somewhere, growing - pretty positive in meaning. Well the “Liberals” have now adopted the word “Progressive” to describe themselves. So because Liberals are Communists Progressive has also become a very dirty word.

They despise even more the idea that private, individual citizens might one day be able to protect themselves from the state itself. Individual freedom is secured by access to weapons, and therefore is antithetical to everything that leftists – who want to negate the individual in favor of the all-powerful state – hold dear. Leftists prefer that the citizenry become subjects, docile and unable to oppose in any way the dictates and whims of the state and its controlling bureaucracies.

And that's the rich creamy center of the Left's animus towards firearms ownership. Surrounded by a nougat of slaughter and atrocity and enclosed with a thick shell of tyranny.

History tells us that it's far better to resist them, fight them, kill them before you surrender your means to defend yourself. We all know what the alternative is.

Once upon a time there were “liberals” as you so aptly describe them in the Democratic and even Republican partys. Alas the term was stolen by Marxists aka “socialists” who masquerade as “liberals”.

I wish that conservative talk show hosts would do this; and that includes canidates running for office and those of us who write about them. Instead of missapplying the term “Liberal” or “Progressive” to the current crop of socialists, unmask them. By preceeding it using the word pseudo (false) Pseudo Liberal.

Doing this would go a long way in correcting a misconception. Along with marking Republican’s on polling sheets in blue instead of red.
FYI Checkout this latest effort by Wisconsin’s pseudo liberal governor Doyle saving the world from “global warming
http://www.theusmat.com/lakebea.htm

Excellent piece.

I agree with you 100%, I avoid using the word to describe anyone on the Left, I just won’t do it. Language has become debased enough without me adding to it.

For what its worth, I’ve noticed a change on the Left. Until recently Democrats have always had to at least pretend to honor the founding fathers. This administration, the O and his gangsters and their enablers don’t even pretend. They hate everything the founders believed in, which is not new, and they don’t even pretend otherwise. That is new.

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.