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.
It's very important to say that what I mean when I say 'liberal' is liberal in the 19th-century British sense. Pro-market, pro-individual, freedom, pro-openness. Not the American sense.
I want to reclaim 'liberal.' I'm a liberal, and I think most Americans are liberals.
They that are discontented under monarchy, call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy, call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy, call it anarchy, which signifies the want of government; and yet I think no man believes, that want of government, is any new kind of government.
I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
I never use the word nation in speaking of the United States. I always use the word Union or Confederacy. We are not a nation but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States.
There are words bandied about that are being misused - words like 'socialism,' words like 'communism,' words like 'fascism.'
It really does seem that the Democrat's problem isn't that they're calling for timetables - it's that they're calling them 'timetables'. You're up against Bush and the Republicans - you've got to bring some zing. Don't call them timetables - call them 'Patriot Dates', 'Freedom Deadlines'... 'Glory Goals'.
A classic liberal is more like a libertarian. I'm sorry. Classic liberal, actually, from the 1800s has a totally different meaning than a liberal who is [modern] classic.
If every one of those good words - liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy, human rights - has been called "bourgeois", what on earth does that leave for us?
He moved to the U. S. after these events.
Progressive and liberal are Satan's pet words.
Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.
I think the word 'progressive' is a very devious term. It was created as a substitute for 'communist.' What they propose is the reverse of progress.
What is considered 'conservative' and what is considered 'liberal' changes in any given era.
I don't believe that the Democratic party has anything to do with the Left. We have two political parties in the US: a right wing party and a right centrist party. That's the Democrats. I laugh when people describe Barack Obama as a socialist president. As a socialist musician, I'll tell you when we have a socialist president. We don't have one now, not even close.
When you read about the end of the Soviet Union, it's always about the "death of socialism." They never say "the death of democracy." But it makes about the same sense.
My issue with all sort of social justice stuff and leftie stuff, and I would put myself on a social justice leftie side, is some of the terminology is jargon.
I think 'progressive' is different than 'liberal' - I know a lot of people use them interchangeably - but I think I'm far more progressive than I am liberal.
If conservation isn't conservative, then words have no meaning at all.
Fascist is not just an epithet. Fascist is a proper noun that means a specific thing. It's a real thing. It's not always referring to ancient history.
'Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see why the word had to be erased from our political lexicon.
The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended.
I do not use words like 'liberal' or 'conservative.' You can ask me a question, and I will give you an answer. Those are words rich people on television use to divide and conquer.
What is inherently wrong with the word 'politician' if the fellow has devoted his life to holding public office and trying to do something for his people?
The terms 'progressive' and 'liberal' have virtually nothing to do with each other anymore. And if you are a classical liberal, you certainly aren't a leftist.
