Defending Classical Liberalism

To surprise some, I am a "classical liberal" in the form and function of the Framers. I know to some readers this will be a shock. Click the hyperlink and see that indeed "classical liberalism" is defined as "a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press assembly and free markets."

Does much of that sound like the efforts of those that sometimes call themselves "liberals" today? As the wiki article explains, liberalism has undergone a metamorphosis of sorts. Allow me to give a basic explanation. After the fiasco of early 20th Century progressivism, the progressives sought to rid themselves of the weight around their necks of being called "progressives' as Woodrow Wilson's progressivism was soundly rejected immediately upon him leaving office.

Remember, progressivism thought eugenics, among many other goofy concepts, were the coming way of purifying society in order to rid itself of the unwanted lame, retarded and otherwise mentally ill. This would include the criminally insane as well as schizophrenics and other people who are so stricken with mental illness that they cannot successfully function in society. It was embarked upon for two reasons - to rid us of the dead weight as well as an attempt at purifying the gene pool. Ya know, like Hitler and the Nazi's tried to do? Yeah, like that!

Early 20th Century progressives began the break with classical liberalism in their attempting to distance this nation from the Founding principles. When they and Wilson failed they attempted to shun the label "progressive" so they began to call themselves "liberals." Ever wonder what the bumper sticker "Jefferson was a Democrat" really means? It is an effort - a foul and lying one at that - to attempt to tie classical liberal Jefferson to modern liberals who now vote Democrat basically.

Modern "liberals" are no way even remotely "Jeffersonian" in any way but they bank on the disinterested not knowing it, thus they adopt, drop and readopt the term liberal and progressive depending on which is most pejorative at the time. Recall Hillary during the campaign making sure to define herself not as a liberal but as an "early 20th Century American Progressive." And in fairness she is, so points for honesty on her part. Her clearing the air on what she was/is was not an effort at true enlightenment but rather a sloughing off of the pejorative term "liberal."

Liberal acquired it's ugly association because of progressive political failures. No one wanted to be associated with such a resoundingly rejected concept as progressive political failures. Wilson's "League of Nations" was progressive governing and the result was Hitler and WWII. The UN is progressive nonsense and what have we? Blue helmeted foolishness in the cesspools of this planet where small groups of rebels shoot at the Blue Helmets and the Blue Helmets run away. Does that sound like an effective way to govern? Global governing is nonsense, but that is the sum total of progressive wishes. Look it up,

Can anyone name a single truly progressive political system that can compete with the classically liberal one as the US is? Just one will do...any one will do. The deafening silence is because when we compare systems only classical liberalism delivers anywhere near its promises. Our system was so successful we were able to financially underwrite, albeit some of it with borrowing money, the defense of Western Europe from them there Godless Commies. The Western European system, progressivism, could not even produce enough wealth to defend themselves from the threat of a million Ruskies rushing the Fulda Gap. Nope, only classical liberalism could generate the wealth to do that.

Lastly I would like to ask "How is it progress to actively engage in regressive thought?" We are unique...we are the only nation in the world in our image. Sure other nations have constitutions and all and many speak to the rights of the individual, but they do not actually live it as we do here in the US. It was and is classically liberal to favor small government, individual liberty and free markets. How is it "progressive" thus "progress" to want the US to become a mirror image of Western Europe? That's NOT progress...that's regressive, NOT progressive. We already "progressed" well past Europe when we were Founded. Any move toward European society and governance is regressive.

It is not progress to be a political or ideological progressive. It is just an old term recycled so as to not have to wear the chain of "liberal" in the modern sense of the word. As well, never forget, it is these progressives who continually rebrand themselves. Isn't that just like a 20th Century thing? To give something a new name, or a recycled old one, and to then claim it's all new and fantastic? Ya know...take the old product, give it a shiny new box and call it "new and improved," when the reality is it's the same "old and crappy" in a shiny new box?

Not me folks. I am a classical liberal. I will always be for two distinct reasons. The first is because it's a fact and unlike many lefties, I do not run from facts - I embrace them. The other reason is because I do not need to rebrand myself or my ideology. Call me "conservative" if one prefers but know what that means - one who adheres to the classically liberal founding of this nation. Yes, I am "conservative" in beholding to the change of the US Constitution, but remember, in the days of the Founding of this nation, to be conservative was to be one who favored the monarchy.

Never allow the leftist tendency to redefine words and their meanings to shift the light of scrutiny from them. It is the lefty who keeps trying to repackage the same old, same old. It's that "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet," as the Bard rather eloquently penned so long ago.