“Liberal” is a term no longer in vogue – and no wonder.
It has been totally bastardized by the Left from its original meaning, “a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal,” (Wikipedia), or, “associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government,” (Webster), to a theory based on the whim of any number of self-identified “victim” groups and an absolute identification with “community” rights, with even the community self-identified.
Classical liberals, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson, and even John F Kennedy, are nowhere to be found in today’s political landscape. The closest the Democrat party has nowadays is Joe Lieberman – and the Democrats threw him out.
And now Obama, Like Kerry before him, wants not to be associated with the “label” of being a “Liberal.” He’d rather be a “Progressive.”
Perfect. Rather than be labeled as a supporter of individual rights – which, of course, does not describe the remotest link to today’s “Liberals,” he’d like to be associated with a Party that came into being resisting the Industrial Revolution, or what began the greatest creation of global wealth in history.
I guess Obama is against wealth.
Well, that fits into his current party’s platform pretty well, actually.
Unions certainly do not create wealth. Unionized teachers not only do not create wealth, they prevent their students from creating wealth as well as they could have had they been properly educated – i.e. not in union-run schools.
Teaching victim group after aggrieved minority after left-behind lazy person that nothing is their fault, regardless of the choices they made, well, that won’t create wealth either.
So maybe Obama is right – he is a “Progressive.”
Of course an educated person might wonder why insisting the world return to a pre-industrialized way of life, to the union shops of the 1940s, to a victimology made irrelevant by advances in law, regulation, and overseas commerce can be called “Progressive,” when it is difficult to imagine any group more Regressive, but one wanders.
The fact of the matter is that today’s “Liberals,” are yesterday’s Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and various other names and labels that arose in that failed demi-continent of Europe, the geography from which has sprung every kind of ideology and hatred imaginable, and whose wars have killed tens of millions.
Today’s “Liberals” are arguably the most intolerant, anti-individual-freedom gaggle of uneducated, overage adolescents ever to run a modern political party.
They toss around names accusing others of being everything they are. One of these is to call the Right “NAZI’s,” totally clueless that “NAZI” means National Socialist Worker’s Party, something very descriptive of the current Democrats. They want to Nationalize everything, have a Socialist economy, put Workers first before those who actually create jobs – and that’s their Party. Toss in their extreme hatred of Israel and preference for barbaric Islamists and Palestinians, and it’s getting tougher and tougher to tell the old NAZIs from the new “Liberals.”
Obama may not like “Liberal,” but that’s probably because the American people have been smart enough for decades not to pass “Liberal” policies into law. Where you see “Liberal” policies implemented it normally has been at the behest of one judge overruling millions of voters to support some group or theory that the public at-large could not stomach.
So much for democracy in the Democrat party. (Even their primary system of selecting presidential delegates is anti-democratic., as we all have learned about “superdelegates.)
So much for “Liberalism” at the beginning of the 21st Century.