A Shift In Defining "Liberal"
It's painfully obvious how hardcore conservatives and entrenched Republicans define liberalism: as a political ideology that denounces religion, invades privacy and wants to raise taxes at every opportunity.
But that's wrong.
Then you have people of the Thomas Sowell/Thom Hartmann ilk who believe (after checking in on some famous dead political philosophers) that liberals believe that people are essentially good and conservatives believe that people are essentially bad. Well, there's certainly people like out there that think one way or the other, but to label one "liberal" and the other "conservative" is stretching it.
Along comes Alan Wolfe. A sample of Slate.com's review of his new book, The Future of Liberalism:
Not exactly Jonah Goldberg (but then again, that's a good thing). Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the political dialogue.
But that's wrong.
Then you have people of the Thomas Sowell/Thom Hartmann ilk who believe (after checking in on some famous dead political philosophers) that liberals believe that people are essentially good and conservatives believe that people are essentially bad. Well, there's certainly people like out there that think one way or the other, but to label one "liberal" and the other "conservative" is stretching it.
Along comes Alan Wolfe. A sample of Slate.com's review of his new book, The Future of Liberalism:
"The important question is not whether human nature is good or bad; it is whether human beings can do anything about it." Since liberalism is convinced that our natures are up to be us—something made, not found—the answer here from the liberal will always be yes.
It is this conviction that explains the connection between liberalism and an optimistic commitment to politics. When Wolfe discusses the taste for governance in the penultimate chapter, he delineates liberalism's attitude by contrasting it once more with the opinions of its enemies, who believe that politics is, at best, a necessary chore. Anti-liberals think that we should have as little government as we can get away with because the real achievements of humanity come from the self-organized activity of the economy and of private life. This conviction is to be found both to liberalism's left—Marx, after all, hoped the state would wither away—and to its right, among those modern conservatives who believe, as Ronald Reagan put it, that government is the problem. For liberals, the problem is bad government, and there is a vast range of government that, when done well, is as creative and important as
anything human beings do.
Not exactly Jonah Goldberg (but then again, that's a good thing). Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the political dialogue.
Comments
Are they saying that governments are not self-organized? If not, then who did organize them? I've got more control over the government than I do over some corporation.
I think Republicans hate government not because they think it's invasive and counter-productive, but because it's a mechanism that allows the unwashed masses to make decisions that affect Republicans, and only Republicans are good enough to do that.
They are Authoritarians at heart, as long as they are the Authority.
Good point Dave. That certaintly holds true for today's GOP.