For various and obvious reasons, no politician can speak freely of such matters. But I have little respect for anyone not running for office who would bother to deny that modern political liberalism tends towards more socialism. But then, I am among the minority of folks who doesn’t get scared off by boogie words. Most Americans think that we loathe and reject socialism, but we don’t. We have continually dabbled with it, and I think a strong case can be made that we have a substantial taste for it in many quarters.

And that includes a substantial portion of self-identifying conservatives who insist they utterly reject it.

Oh and it’s debatable whether JS Mill is best described as a liberal or a utilitarian. But I agree with Rich that he’d be horrified by hate speech laws.

Alan, I used to call myself a classical or old school liberal until I found out the libertarians had already laid claim. Fact is, older liberals who actually value liberty have found fault with the democrats and modern progressivism. These folks have some taste for small-l libertarianism. Such folks find precious little welcome in either of the major parties.

Some Republicans talk a good game on matters of liberty, but the Republican party remains in constant thrall to social conservatives who support policies that are anathema to social liberty.

If you ask me, modern liberals and modern conservatives strongly favor distinctly different social orders. IMO, the notion that liberals are less concerned with social order than conservatives is highly suspect. It might even be a big lie. Fascism is the result of rigorous fealty to narrow ideology, too much partisanship IOW.

I think it’s important to note that, like all mainstream American liberals, when Obama talks about redistribution, he’s talking about equality of income.

You said it, not me. Who is being dishonest? Why should equalizing income levels be a role of the government in a free society at all, since income inequality is a result of liberty and freedom?

I mean, how you guys can argue that making sure people have health care and rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 5% is somehow ushering in “serfdom” baffles me.

Answer this question JG, proposed by the brilliant Steve Conover at The Skeptical Optimist:

What percentage of federal tax receipts would the rich (those making over $250,000) have to pay in order for you to say, “Stop! That percentage of total tax receipts is just the right amount for the rich to be paying; any more than that would be unfair”?

Give me a number JG. I assume it’s higher than 35%. What about 40%? 45%? What is your answer?

Oh, and Frederick Hayek wrote that book in 1940, describing the emerging socialist movements in Europe at the time.

As Alan and Rich cover, there is indeed a gap between the political movement of liberalism as it manifests itself in the real world, and the actual definitions. Alan, I used to call myself a classical or old school liberal until I found out the libertarians had already laid claim. Fact is, the older liberals (those who actually value liberty) who have found fault with the democrats and modern progressivism have some taste for small-l libertarianism. Such folks find precious little welcome in either of the major parties. Some Republicans talk a good game on matters of liberty, but the Republican party remains in constant thrall to social conservatives who support policies that are anathema to social liberty.

FWIW, the correct and functional term for folks who privilege equality as the greatest good among various admirable goods (which may themselves conflict) is egalitarian. This term does not however seem likely to slip into common usage any time soon. We have 2 parties, and we are basically stuck with 2 inaccurate philosophical buckets to match. Oh and it’s debatable whether JS Mill is best described as a liberal or a utilitarian. But I agree with Rich that he’d be horrified by hate speech laws.

Regis. I see little harm and much good when any advocate of a particular philosophy understands the perils of where we might end up if that philosophy is taken to an extreme. I agree with you that slippery slope arguments are characteristic of sloppy thinking, but it doesn’t take much common sense to see that while there may not be an especially slippery slope, there might be a set of stairs, and a reasonable progression.

For various and obvious reasons, no politician can speak freely of such matters. But I have little respect for anyone not running for office who would bother to deny that modern political liberalism tends towards more socialism. But then, I am among the minority of folks who doesn’t get scared off by boogie words. Most Americans think that we loathe and reject socialism, but we don’t. We have continually dabbled with it, and I think a strong case can be made that we have a substantial taste for it in many quarters. That includes a substantial portion of self-identifying conservatives who insist they utterly reject it.

Jimmy, do you agree that your quote implies that it must therefore be a question of balance, of constant making of choices?

Eric, are you satisfied by those definitions? Mustn’t one wonder how liberals expect to achieve equality without the structure of some social order that imposes a version of equality to counteract human nature? The problem I have with those definitions is that “social order” is an insufficently distinct concept from freedom and equality. If you ask me, modern liberals and modern conservatives strongly favor distinctly different social orders. IMO, the notion that liberals are less concerned with social order than conservatives is highly suspect. It might even be a big lie. Fascism is the result of rigorous fealty to narrow ideology, too much partisanship IOW.

However, we’re not talking about complete material equality under Obama. Not in the least, and to suggest otherwise is grossly intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

I mean, how you guys can argue that making sure people have health care and rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 5% is somehow ushering in “serfdom” baffles me.

But thank you for revealing your talking points for the next 4 years. They’ll be ridiculously easy to counter.

Anyone here disagree with that statement?

For example, liberals support universal health care, affirmative action, etc. Conservatives support stronger military, more police, censorship of television, etc.

I also don’t see any slippery slope argument, Alan is simply stating that liberalism taken to an extreme is communism, and the same is true for conservatism and fascism.

I knew this was what you were doing…but I wanted to be deliberately obtuse…but for a reason. To attempt to use the term “conservative” to describe someone who values freedom above all else is just as wrong as to say Liberalism = equality.

See how it becomes increasingly absurd? If…

“new” Liberalism = non-Marxist Socialism, and

“new” conservatism = “old” Liberalism…

So what equals “old” Conservatism?

It begins to feel like an old Monty Python sketch…and I dont feel like standing in the tea chest.

Not to divert the conversation, but affirmative action is a good example of putting equality of result over other considerations. I don’t want to get into the issue because my position on it is nuanced. It’s better handled over beers than on blogs.

Jim: I think there are a lot of liberals who are more concerned with equality of results more than equality of opportunity. When you talk quality of opportunity you have to be comfortable with the fact that some people are going to fail to take advantage and live in poverty. That said, I support equality of opportunity but am usually resistant to efforts to create equality of results.

Avinash: what are you arguing? That Marxism is possible? (it’s a utopian fantasy, btw) The point I made is that communism puts the goal of “equality” above all else and the attempts to achieve that goal have reached totalitarianism.

I totally reject that fervent liberalism can lead to communism at the extreme. Indeed, I believe Marx thought that society would evolve into communism from capitalism when men were replaced by machines and had substantial free time and the bourgeoisie devoured itself in greed. Sound familiar.
Soviet communism was Lenin’s bastardization of what Marx predicted would evolve naturally.

I agree that many of the liberal remedies to injustice are unfair to some but, take, for example, affirmative action. In my view the greater injustice is to allow the evils perpetrated during slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow and segregation to remain visited upon a group of people and their psyche through no fault of their own. Without affirmative action, it will take many more generations for this national disgrace to be rectified. The sins of our fathers have been passed on for so many generations that we unstigmatized Americans must provide remedies. I am not saying that affirmative action is the only remedy; education and personal experience will help significantly but we still have school systems that are purposely segregated. Look up Haley Barbour and the way Mississippi carves out new school districts when there is a possible large African American student population in an area newly inhabited by whites — new gated communities for instance. We have a long way to go.

“Equality is the central tenant of liberalism.”

In terms of the political ideology this is assuredly wrong. Liberalism is about maximizing freedom (thus the Latin root “liber”). Maximizing “equality” is, and always has been, a central tenet of socialism. (Which is different than communism…you seem to use the terms interchangably).

“Universal health care. Affirmative action. Gay rights. Welfare. Minimum wage. Labor laws. Hate speech laws. Progressive taxation. They’re all attempts to equalize us.”

And, thus, not particularly “liberal.”

Now, this distinction matters. For example, John Stuart Mill has always been classified as a liberal, but he would be horrified at the notion of “hate speech laws”…and rightfully so, as they are completely illiberal. That such laws are termed “liberal” in our weird world Mill would view as grotesque.

What is amazing about our society is there is no longer a popular term to apply to someone who values human freedom above all else.

Is says something unpleasant about the drift of our society.

But communism did begin as an attempt to make everyone equal. To do that, it required totalitarianism. By no means am I suggesting that is the natural result of wanting equality or a natural result of liberal philosophy. It’s just an extreme result. Just like the extreme result of libertarianism is anarchy and the extreme result of conservativism is some form of fascism or theocracy. People have the capacity to take any idea too far.

I think you believe I’m using “liberal” as a pejorative. I’m not.

Do you agree that equality is a central focus of liberalism? I mean “fairness” and “justice” are both pretty close synonyms of “equality.” I didn’t think I was proposing a radical interpretation.