Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Well, two liberals can legitimately disagree on how best to reconcile competing values like freedom of speech and freedom of religion in a particular circumstance (often a very complex issue). But, in such a situation, labelling the opposing view "the regressive left" doesn't really say anything. I mean, accepting nik's sefinition, how many people in the debate have "abandoned basic liberal principles". I can't really think of any.
|
The term 'liberal' has evolved, and come to mean something quite different, especially in the U.S., than it meant 50 years ago. The hallmarks of liberalism used to be freedom of expression, genuine tolerance of dissent, personal autonomy, and a belief that progress is best achieved by inviting diverse and competing arguments to the table and employing reason and empiricism to sift good ideas from bad.
That's why I prefer to distinguish between liberalism and the modern left. The modern left has strong authoritarian, intolerant, and conformist impulses, and has turned its back on principles like playing the ball and not the man. Like their counterparts on the right, they believe all decent-minded people know right from wrong, and we can achieve consensus if only we hammer away at the wrong-thinkers relentlessly enough. Genuine liberals recognize that consensus is not possible, or even desireable, and are willing to sacrifice comfort and security to live in a society where all ideas, good and bad, can be openly championed.