The definition of liberalism has changed greatly over time
By Adam Bitely — Many people—unfortunately—associate the term “liberalism” with the ideology commonly held by people who associate themselves with Barack Obama, progressivism, Occupy Wall Street, and the Democratic National Committee.
But are supporters of the above causes, politicians, and parties really “liberals?”
In the modern sense of the term as it applied to American politics, the answer would be yes. But if we were to go back in time about 200 years or so, modern day American liberals would not agree with their “liberal” forefathers.
Think of the revolutionary period in American history. American patriots rallying around the cause of “No taxation without representation,” fear of centralized governments that ruled with great authority, and a great desire for the relationship that people have with their government to forever change to one of the people holding their government in check.
American liberals in 1776, the most famous of which are known as the Founding Fathers, supported limiting the power of government as much as possible. They believed that government powers needed checks at every turn, and that power would naturally corrupt.
Furthermore, these “liberals” did not subscribe to the view that empowering the government with more and more power would lead to a better society. They stood against such expansions as they already knew what happened when the government’s size and scope was beyond control. That is why the Constitution was designed the way it was, pitting each branch of government against the other, so that no one branch would grow powerful beyond control.
As George Mason University Professor of Economics Don Boudreaux recently wrote at CafeHayek.com , “Experience and reason recommended to liberalism’s founders the opposite view, namely, restraining the power of government might not be sufficient to ensure harmony and widespread wealth, but it is certainly necessary.”
But it in the modern day, the American liberal is associated with an ideology that supports ever-expanding government powers intended to correct the ills of society. To the modern American liberal, there is no problem that a politician should not be able to solve. The modern American liberal believes the government is needed to even the playing field, and redistribute from those who have to those who have not. The modern American liberal foresees the government making our lives pain-free and directing society towards prosperity.
Simply put, the modern American liberal has an ideology based in pure fantasy.
Ludwig von Mises once wrote when the definition of liberalism was much different, “Imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme . . . there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want.”
If Mises were alive today, he would have to use the word libertarianism in place of liberalism to describe the world where government stayed out of the market and no barriers to exchange existed. The liberals of 200 years ago are now referred to as classical liberals, and the modern day people who have a similar distrust of centralized government and the powers they have in the market place are now referred to as libertarians.
What a strange world it is when you consider just how much the definition of liberalism has changed. From the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to ObamaCare in 2010, the term “liberalism” has come to stand for entirely different meanings as the power of the government has expanded.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
Study from 2012 now corrected to show liberals, not conservatives, more authoritarian
A correction to a frequently cited 2012 study has been issued, after researchers discovered they mixed up results purporting to show conservatives are more likely than liberals to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.
In fact, the correction says, the opposite is true.
“Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies,” published in the American Journal of Social Science in 2012, initially found that social conservatives might be more genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors than their socially liberal counterparts.
“In line with our expectations, [Psychoticism] (positively related to tough-mindedness and authoritarianism) is associated with social conservatism and conservative military attitudes,” the study said.
The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.
But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed.”
“Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response,” the authors said. “Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”
Pete Hatemi, a Penn State political scientist who co-authored the study, said the mistake doesn’t affect the outcome of the research. He said the study’s primary purpose was to demonstrate the “magnitude of the relationship” between political beliefs and personality traits and its source, so the direction of relationships wasn’t all that important.
“None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s a plus or a minus,” he told Retraction Watch.
The error was first spotted by Dr. Steven Ludeke, a researcher at the University of Southern Denmark, who said it is significant, pointing to the frequency at which the study was cited.
“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction; and then cited at rates that are (for this field) extremely high,” Dr. Ludeke told Retraction Watch.
The initial paper was cited 45 times, and subsequent papers that reference the finding have also been cited repeatedly. Several other journals referencing the erroneous data have issued corrections.
Link
As we see here daily, some will debate and some will just want to shut you up. Although the last day or so has been centered on one article, if you observe throughout the country and the world for that matter, those who will not allow debate on such things as climate change or anything they don't perceive as fitting their beliefs not only needs to be ignored, but silenced as well. The science is settled.
Well reasoned and stated. Your seed is timely and right on. Liberals have become control freaks.
Whether it is in the colleges, the streets, the media or in the government, the Liberal's main objective is to shut up their opponents, not debate, but eliminate them, no different than the Arabs objective is to eliminate the Jews in Israel.
They almost had it made. All those journalist from places like the Washington Post who held a campaign event for Hillary Clinton illegally and all the journalists who promoted her for President alone with all those who paid to play were totally destroyed when she didn't easily take the White House.
Don't fool yourself, it would be the same with any other Republican President, only Trump is more easily attacked, mostly because of his own doing, but they would be closing the government down with every chance they could come up with to keep anyone from working for Americans if it was beneficial to their cause, which is to have single party government led by them.
Loretta Lynch obstructed Hillary's email investigation, thereby obstructing the election. She was appointed by Bill Clinton as US Attorney in 1999. Obama nominated her to be the Attorney General in 2013. She had the secret meeting with Bill Clinton during the height of the Hillary Clinton investigation, which she insisted James Comey refer to as the 'Hillary Clinton Matter", the same thing the Hillary Clinton campaign called it.
It is not to much of a stretch to imagine what was said on that tarmac when Bill reminded her how he had made her a US Attorney and if Hillary is elected, she will make her a Supreme Court Justice, since talking about grand children is too much of a National Security Risk to make it available to the public as far as the NSA is concerned.
Comey was on the short list in 2009 to be nominated by Obama as a Supreme Court Justice, but he wasn't far enough left or of good enough character at that time, not much different than he was back in mid 2016, when the Democrats were criticizing his credibility. That's no different than a black Conservative. He or she has no credibility or is considered a minority unless he or she is a Liberal, which trumps all ethnic groups and genders.
I can see how much it has changed over time. I grew up in a union democrat home and around democrat grandparents. It took a lurch to the far left with the McGovern "reforms" and the watergate babies, and then the extremes response to Reagan being President. Then Clinton brought the party back to some reason particularly after Hillarycare failed. Since then the party has been repudiating everything he did or stood for. 1976 is the year that decided which party I would join and it was an ex new deal democrat who was greatly influential in that decision.
If our FF could come back today and sit in on some these discussions! I would, particularly, like for them to sit in on the Supreme Court which was supposed to have been a check and balance for our Country. They would be appalled that this of supposed group of intellectuals would base their opinions on their own political persuasion and not on the Constitution.
Their words are explicit and it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to interpret them. They never said "separation of church and state". They said there would be no state religion. And, there isn't.
These men toiled day and night attempting to give us in the simplest terms what they envisioned for the new United States of America. Yet, we continue to interpret, interpret and interpret what they said.
It ain't that difficult. A free society that all men created equally. That includes, white, black, brown, purple and grey. Nothing about abortion. Nothing about same sex marriages. Nothing about voting districts. Nothing about divorces. Nothing about a lot of things that each State should handle on their own.
The federal government, IMO, have overstepped their authority dealing with individual States' rights. When a State blatantly refuses to give equal rights to its citizens that is when the federal government steps in as that guaranteed by the Constitution.
Our FF were no fools. They knew from whence they came. BUT, they were God fearing men as is demonstrated by their using God's name In every step of the way in our independence.
And, all of you who think yourselves so clever that you have the freedom to denounce saying the Pledge of Alliance or sing our National Anthem take a moment to thank our FF.
Very good comment magnoliaave!!!
Indeed. Our founding fathers were not perfect but they were exceptionally great men who created the best founding document and constitution ever known to mankind before or since. Our country is still exceptional because of them.
This article really hits home with me. I get and it's good to see others still see things the way I do too. This knowledge of what our founding fathers believed in is no longer being taught in public schools.
"Though I might travel afar, I will meet only what I carry with me, for every man is a mirror. We see only ourselves reflected in those around us. Their attitudes and actions are only a reflection of our own. The whole world and its condition has its counter parts within us all. Turn the gaze inward.
......Correct yourself and your world will change."
- Kirsten Zambucka
Does that mean I have to buy a pink dress vote Democrat? I would have to avoid mirrors from then on.
Have you looked in the mirror lately?
I look in the mirror every day and reflect on how I've contributed to a misunderstanding. I reflect on my actions and sometime feel bad if I lashed out in error. And then I look around me and see those in our society that have aligned themselves with a repugnant, repulsive, vulgar man like Donald Trump and I don't feel so bad about where my moral compass is.
No, don't wear the pink dress unless you shave those gawd awful harry legs.
Those who walk quietly and go about their business righting the wrongs in our Country are the ones I put my money on and support.
Those who beat their chests and loudly protest creating havoc are those who will accomplish nothing but chaos. For instance, MLK, accomplished more with his peaceful march while carrying a Bible than any of the recent protest marches.
The big difference between most conservatives and liberals is that liberals honestly believe that they are the only group that care about human rights. Conservatives don't scream about it.....we just do it. Day to day we go about our business helping those who are less fortunate while showing respect.
One of the things I taught my two sons....to be able to look in the mirror at the end of your day and say "job well done".