RE: Liberals versus Leftists
November 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2017 at 4:07 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Sorry for the word wall. I'm trying to give as much nuance and qualification as possible.
I have been listening to Prager for a couple of years now and have been largely puzzled by his insistence that liberalism and leftism are entirely different positions. That is why I searched for and found this article. In the OP, I noted that his assessment seemed accurate but not precise and here is why.
I saw the liberal position presented by Prager as “classical liberalism” as opposed to the type of liberalism that I believe now goes by the name progressivism, largely because in the 1980’s liberalism became stigmatized and identified with maligned “tax and spend” policies. Consequently, it became more popular to call oneself “progressive”. IMHO. As such what Prager presents as liberal principles I think should properly be called conservative. And I think most people would reject the principles he defines as leftist, I know I most certainly do.
My initial opinion however does not seem to fit with the replies by AF members who I believe would identify themselves as liberal or progressive. It seems that pretty much everyone, except those holding the most fringe opinions, would agree with the liberal position as understood by Prager. To me that means that the defining principles laid out by Prager as “liberal” are basically meaningless. I think the same about the term “progressive” which basically just means advocating for social reform, with which most people agree is a good thing, but seems only to have been adopted by people who would vote for Democrats.
The differences must lie elsewhere.
This is why I said in the OP that Prager may be accurate but it is not precise. Conservatives and liberals would both agree with the opinions Prager attributes only to Liberalism. So the difference is not in the general opinion but in the purposes, means, and results of those we call right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal or progressive.
For example, I favor regulations that serve common interests and safety of the general public such as anti-trust laws, pollution control, and building codes, but I generally oppose regulations implemented as means of social engineering with goals like redistributing wealth or that grossly distort the market place, like rent controls, protectionist tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks, etc. I’m not philosophically opposed to government control/ownership of specific infrastructure and industries but state-owned centralized functions are universally inefficient, easily twisted to political aims, and prone to corruption. The conservative matra is smaller government, but I don’t think that is necessarily true. The main issue for conservatives is really to decentralize and widely distribute power to the greatest extent possible, not only to state and local governments, but to community organizations, private businesses, professionals, families, and individuals. It seems to me that progressives generally are distrustful of private entities ability to self-govern and attempt to centralize power in the name of the public good.
I would like to point out to CL et al. debating about whether it is right and proper to consider one’s own country the best that the article did not say that anything about considering one’s own nation the best; but rather, that nationalism is a virtue. I would say that America is the “best” place for American’s to live, Germany is the “best” place for Germans to live, and France the “best” place for the French to live; but only because of cultural norms, attitudes, shared language, and the unique sensibilities of each. Otherwise, the general values of liberty, freedom, and equality, are so broadly similar that living is one place is not all that different from another (IMHO) despite how those get expressed in their respective bodies politic. I have no problem with an Iranian who is very proud of his Persian heritage, the political struggles of his people, and the beauty of his countries and literature, the unique richness of the language. But it’s probably not the “best” place to live by any objective standard.
And I do not see anything wrong with a nation trying to preserve its national identity. I think it is laudable for the French to explicitly promote their language (in part because I think it is beautiful) and I think it is sad to see Dunken Donuts in Paris, not in itself. It is after all a kind of ethnic food, i.e. American, in the same way that I enjoy a good taco. But it isn’t inappropriate to recognize when something is lost when there are fewer frommage shops. Many many good and noble things were lost during Manifest Destiny and those should be remembered. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is better to live in a technologically advanced society than in a stone age culture. Organic change cannot be helped but I don’t understand people who what to recreate the countries they left in the countries to which they’ve moved and bring with them the very things they are moving away from.
So while like all countries, the US has moments of shame and historic failures, it should still be a source of pride. I think today’s Germans should be proud of their country, despite the Holocaust, and the Japanese despite its Imperialism. Prager makes a very good point. If you love your wife, it doesn’t mean she is perfect, but you don’t want to fundamentally change her into something else.
I have been listening to Prager for a couple of years now and have been largely puzzled by his insistence that liberalism and leftism are entirely different positions. That is why I searched for and found this article. In the OP, I noted that his assessment seemed accurate but not precise and here is why.
I saw the liberal position presented by Prager as “classical liberalism” as opposed to the type of liberalism that I believe now goes by the name progressivism, largely because in the 1980’s liberalism became stigmatized and identified with maligned “tax and spend” policies. Consequently, it became more popular to call oneself “progressive”. IMHO. As such what Prager presents as liberal principles I think should properly be called conservative. And I think most people would reject the principles he defines as leftist, I know I most certainly do.
My initial opinion however does not seem to fit with the replies by AF members who I believe would identify themselves as liberal or progressive. It seems that pretty much everyone, except those holding the most fringe opinions, would agree with the liberal position as understood by Prager. To me that means that the defining principles laid out by Prager as “liberal” are basically meaningless. I think the same about the term “progressive” which basically just means advocating for social reform, with which most people agree is a good thing, but seems only to have been adopted by people who would vote for Democrats.
The differences must lie elsewhere.
This is why I said in the OP that Prager may be accurate but it is not precise. Conservatives and liberals would both agree with the opinions Prager attributes only to Liberalism. So the difference is not in the general opinion but in the purposes, means, and results of those we call right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal or progressive.
For example, I favor regulations that serve common interests and safety of the general public such as anti-trust laws, pollution control, and building codes, but I generally oppose regulations implemented as means of social engineering with goals like redistributing wealth or that grossly distort the market place, like rent controls, protectionist tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks, etc. I’m not philosophically opposed to government control/ownership of specific infrastructure and industries but state-owned centralized functions are universally inefficient, easily twisted to political aims, and prone to corruption. The conservative matra is smaller government, but I don’t think that is necessarily true. The main issue for conservatives is really to decentralize and widely distribute power to the greatest extent possible, not only to state and local governments, but to community organizations, private businesses, professionals, families, and individuals. It seems to me that progressives generally are distrustful of private entities ability to self-govern and attempt to centralize power in the name of the public good.
I would like to point out to CL et al. debating about whether it is right and proper to consider one’s own country the best that the article did not say that anything about considering one’s own nation the best; but rather, that nationalism is a virtue. I would say that America is the “best” place for American’s to live, Germany is the “best” place for Germans to live, and France the “best” place for the French to live; but only because of cultural norms, attitudes, shared language, and the unique sensibilities of each. Otherwise, the general values of liberty, freedom, and equality, are so broadly similar that living is one place is not all that different from another (IMHO) despite how those get expressed in their respective bodies politic. I have no problem with an Iranian who is very proud of his Persian heritage, the political struggles of his people, and the beauty of his countries and literature, the unique richness of the language. But it’s probably not the “best” place to live by any objective standard.
And I do not see anything wrong with a nation trying to preserve its national identity. I think it is laudable for the French to explicitly promote their language (in part because I think it is beautiful) and I think it is sad to see Dunken Donuts in Paris, not in itself. It is after all a kind of ethnic food, i.e. American, in the same way that I enjoy a good taco. But it isn’t inappropriate to recognize when something is lost when there are fewer frommage shops. Many many good and noble things were lost during Manifest Destiny and those should be remembered. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that it is better to live in a technologically advanced society than in a stone age culture. Organic change cannot be helped but I don’t understand people who what to recreate the countries they left in the countries to which they’ve moved and bring with them the very things they are moving away from.
So while like all countries, the US has moments of shame and historic failures, it should still be a source of pride. I think today’s Germans should be proud of their country, despite the Holocaust, and the Japanese despite its Imperialism. Prager makes a very good point. If you love your wife, it doesn’t mean she is perfect, but you don’t want to fundamentally change her into something else.
