But even accepting this distinction, I have trouble seeing how it applies to the case at hand. I take it you’re not a fan of Jacob Talmon. What aspects of life were Robespierre, and more generally, the Jacobins, uninterested in? I was not aware that their virtue knew any bounds.

All these things are features of totalitarian regimes as well, but they are not sufficient for totalitarianism. To use this definition, every authoritarian dictatorship and corporatist state would be considered “totalitarian,” but totalitarian regimes involve thoroughgoing involvement in all aspects of life. (There are even some who argued that the level of control achieved or even attempted by fascist regimes never reached this point.) Robespierre was a tyrant, a despot and a fanatic, but once again this does not make him a totalitarian.

I mean, not that Wikipedia is the Great Authority On Everything, but it is usually pretty good at at least defining the customary use of English words, and “totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party state, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics” sounds about right to me.

And explaining that you in fact meant “liberal” in the 19th-century Prussian sense of the word (which could certainly include totalitarians, such as Robespierre) doesn’t exactly come across as a clarification.

Or was Robespierre not a totalitarian, either? He was certainly “reform-minded” - I’ll give him that.

The context of referring to Hegel as a “moderately liberal constitutional monarchist” is clear enough for those who know something about Hegel. The context is 19th century Prussia, where Hegel *was* a liberal and reform-minded academic.

Robespierre *was* a liberal. Rather by definition, a Jacobin was a liberal. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution. Please don’t make me explain that one to you. You want to narrow down what liberal means so as to make it impossible to include unpleasant or otherwise objectionable people under that label. You want it to mean libertarian or pro-libertarian as you understand those terms, which is yet again another embarrassing anachronism. Just stop. My credibility is not the one being jeopardised with this debate. Anytime you would like to retract your insult and apologise would be fine by me.

Hegel’s “practical politics” may have been the same as K-L’s. But neither was a politician, and it is not their policies but their philosophies that are at issue.

You just accused Popper of “retrojecting” when he said that Hegel exalted the state. Now you don’t deny it. This at least is progress.

“Liberal,” as we agree, means many different things in many different contexts. When we use this dangerous and deceptive word, therefore, it is all the more important for us to understand the context in which the reader will understand us. If this is not “precision,” what is?

When you say that someone is not a totalitarian and that, quite the contrary, they are a liberal, a reasonable reader will believe that by “liberal” you mean an anti-totalitarian or proto-libertarian liberal, such as K-L, Acton, Mill, etc. In other words, someone who believes that the state exists to serve man and not the other way around. But by the standards you propose applying to your evaluation of Hegel, Robespierre was also a liberal. I stand by my original point that this is not the best way to maintain one’s credibility.

I agree with the general argument tying together left-liberalism and fascism, because I accept K-L’s argument that fascism is a product of revolutionary leftism. Goldberg also accepts it, which is fine as far as it goes. He then drags Hegel into the mix and begins talking about totalitarianism in connection with Hegel, which makes less sense.

K-L himself was a right-liberal constitutional monarchist, *not significantly different in his practical politics from Hegel*. One of his major arguments was, as you may know, for the appropriateness and justness of monarchy as a political regime. K-L eschewed the word conservative when describing himself and preferred to use the word liberal. He believed that 19th century liberalism was fine, and that things went awry with self-styled liberals in the 20th as they moved more to the left.

It doesn’t matter whether you don’t like how the word has been used. I don’t like the way conservative has been used, but that’s the way things are. “Liberal” is used to describe several groups of people from very different times, so precision is all the more important. In the 19th century, a European liberal could fairly be described as someone who accepted the principles of constitutionalism and a legal enshrining of protections of liberty and equality in a constitution. By that definition, Hegel was most certainly a 19th century European liberal. You may not like what European liberalism entails (I don’t), and you may see dangers in its assumptions about human nature and society (as I do), but that should make you glad to endorse my description of Hegel as a 19th century liberal. Calling him that isn’t a compliment, but it is a vital distinction that gets lost when you begin talking about totalitarianism.

I don’t deny that Hegel exalted the state. Abraham Lincoln, who was assuredly a 19th century liberal, exalted the state in word and deed, and it didn’t work out well for many people–but that didn’t make him a totalitarian. It is possible to exalt the state without being totalitarian. I deny that Hegel is a totalitarian or the source of totalitarianism that Popper and the like want to make him out to be. In some sense, Maistre also “exalted the state,” and so did Filmer. That doesn’t make them totalitarian or even precursors of totalitarianism. I refuse to endorse the view that if someone exalts the state, as Hegel does as a matter of theory, he is therefore not actually a 19th century liberal constitutional monarchist. He is.

However, to use his 19th century liberalism as some sort of a bridge to reintroduce the accusation of totalitarianism would involve condemning essentially all European classical liberals (including Chesterton and Belloc, among others). Additionally, the way in which 1789 led to 1917 and 1933 requires significant explanation. It would not be sufficient to say, for instance, so-and-so approved of the revolution of 1789 and is therefore implicated in later totalitarianism.

You end up agreeing with Goldberg (and K-L) here on the liberal-fascist connection. Of course you do, because you and K-L are right. The only problem is that Goldberg is right, too (although probably for the wrong reasons).

This sort of thing is exactly why I don’t like the word “liberal.” It moves around faster than the pea under the cup. In the 18th and 19th century, a “liberal” is basically anyone who’s opposed in any way to the clerical-conservative status quo. Any word that can embrace both Shelley and Acton is nonsensical, just as is the modern use of “conservative” to embrace both you and Goldberg.

I do believe that 1789 led to 1917 and 1933 (though “inexorably” is a bit much). But you simply can’t deny that Hegel exalted the state, or claim that Popper is “retrojecting” when he so rudely points that out. It’s not as if the text is lost and all we have is the commentary.