Why use progressive instead of liberal? Why bring back the word liberal? Eric Alterman explains here in his bloggingheads appearance with National Review’s Byron York.
Most peculiar claim (for me) was Alterman’s remark that liberalism is largely “pragmatic” and conservatism is “much more ideological.” York raised no obvious objections to this characterisation. Does this make any sense according to a traditional conservative understanding of ideology and Kirk’s description of conservatism as “anti-ideology”? Discuss.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Grumpy Old Man
The word “progressive” in contemporary politics is a pet peeve of mine, as expatiated upon here The Communist Party consciously adopted it as an Americanized avatar of the Popular Front. “Progress” is a dangerous illusion when applied to culture and political institutions.
“Liberal,” which once meant something akin to “libertarian,” and still does in Europe, has morphed into a euphemism for “democratic socialist.”
Meanwhile, “conservative” has morphed so often that unmodified it means very little other than “not liberal.”
For all, dented and scuffed, the Dustbin of History still stands on Desolation Row. As in a mother’s heart or a paddy wagon, there’s always room for one more.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Pithlord
“Social democrat” would probably be most accurate.
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Grumpy Old Man
You’re probably right. I avoided “social democrat” because that’s what Lenin called his party in the runup to revolution.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
James Kabala
I think it would be cool if you were on blogging heads. Ross should lobby for you.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks to you all for your comments. If there were a label that would be even more of a clunker in American politics than liberal, it would have to be “social democrat.” Endless Weimar and Eurosclerosis jokes would drive any politician who used it right out of politics.
As for bloggingheads, I would probably be a disaster in any sort of televised exchange. I tend to speak very quickly once I get going, but then become ponderously slow as I make some connection or transition. It would be like watching Patricia Madrid try to answer a question–okay, maybe not that bad, but not good. With practice, my speaking for lectures and talks has gotten a lot better, but I am really not eager to be in front of cameras. I don’t even like having my picture taken, and not just because it steals your soul. This will undoubtedly disappoint the growing Draft Larison movement (I am not eligible to run until the 2016 election anyway), but what can I say?
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Grumpy Old Man
We could try this.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Daniel Larison
What, are you trying to make me out to be some sort of anti-democratic reactionary? Oh, wait, I am an anti-democratic reactionary!
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:28 am
kevinjjones
“The candidate for the democratically challenged.”
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:35 am
M.Z. Forrest
Progressive is a wonderful Chestertonian moniker. The seeking of movement in policy while assuming you are going forward is perfect Chesterton. As for conserative, libertarian seems to me to be the most apt label dispite the convulsions libertarians will have over this label. I have great difficulty considering myself a conservative or a progressive, because each notion seems to subscribe to the notion that the greatest obstacle to personal secular fullfillment is the State/society. Each is exceedingly pagan in its desires even if each throws off the accidents of religion on occaison. I think I’m to the point of being decidedly anti-American - in the nationalist sense - and pro-Wisconsinite, no offense to our flat-lander host.