To the Liberal Democrat party liberalism means the pursuit of a “fair, free and open society” in which honesty, tolerance and equality of opportunity are the key to allowing free markets to bring prosperity without the emergence of destructive inequalities. That is why I am a member of the Lib Dems.
Pangloss suggested on another thread, with some justification, that Pim Fortuyn represented liberalism too. Even his much touted anti-Islamicism can be explained away using liberal ideas; what Pangloss calls “hardline liberalism”. A ‘hardline liberal’ is someone for whom a liberal society is such an overriding goal that they are prepared to take decidedly non-liberal action against those who, in the opinion of those in power, threaten that society’s liberalism. For Pangloss and others this is a good thing. In principle I would agree, but the degree of subjectivity is such that I think ‘hardline liberalism’ is dangerous.
Pim Fortuyn was openly gay - it is no surprise he was opposed to a religion which condemns homosexuality - does this really mean that the religion is actually a serious threat? What if he had been a rampant anti-gay? He could have argued that homosexuals threaten liberty because they reduce the potential number of partners available to heterosexuals (ridiculous I know, but some people justify homophobia ‘any which way they can’). And thus he could have kicked out all the homosexuals. I think that ‘hardline liberalism’ is too subjective with too great a level of power attached to it to be called true liberalism.
When I think of Liberalism, I think of the freedom to think, speak and act without interference by others or by a powerful central state, except where prohibitive laws exist agreed by the mutual consent of the majority.
Which is fairly specific.
Social and economic considerations seem secondary to this central tenet, but I would think that Liberalism might also imply a free market economy and the promotion of equality and the destruction of social constraints.
In a twist on the ‘hardline liberalism’ concept, is it acceptable to prioritise one facet of Liberalism over another?
e.g. Communism- promoting social equality through a powerful central state and economic constraints.
Free market Conservatism- promoting economic freedoms and the dominance of big business interests at the expense of individual freedom.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
In the political sense of the word, it means the following to me. A political system that is open to amendments, suggestions, and is apt to run the country in a way that is most efficient for the people and the country, regardless of historical systems and ways of thought. A system that is not afraid to be different, an innovator, pioneer, and most importantly it is not going to keep frozen it’s policies but continue to initiate change in the face of appropriate criticism. Much like the greek system in Plato’s time. Where you are allowed to go to the government and persuade politicians or debate about the way the country is run and how it should be run. There is always the problem, that once this system was implemented it would not work because politicians would get comfortable in their jobs and the way things are run because it benefits them and anyone who criticises would be listened to and politicians would appear interested, but the persons idea would never really be even considered.
In my judgement, liberalism is a corrupted ‘term’. Classical liberalists were good guys, modern liberalists are not.
They are for very different things.
Well why don’t you tell us WHY you think liberalism is a corrupt term. Tell us what the significance is between classical and modern liberalists and why you think they are for different things. Come on now, I feel like I’m pulling teeth here.
Liberalism stands for reverse-racism, reverse-sexism, the supreme “touchy-feely” system, an overpowered government, and too much focus on political correctness and making the minorities happy at the expense of the majority.
Ideally it SHOULD mean a belief in liberty and freedom. However in Europe (at the start of the 20th century) liberal parties mixed freedom oriented thought with social democracy (one reason I dislike contemporary liberal parties in Europe like the Lib Dems in the UK).
In the USA, the term liberal has virtually nothing to do with freedom.
Really ALL organisations that call themselves ‘liberal’ should revert to freedom, as the ideology was founded on that principle.