Actually, I think Evangelicals and the religious right in general are not liberals in this sense. They are anti-Enlightenment.
--- On Tue, 3/10/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com>
> shag carpet bomb wrote:
>
> > the thing is we are _all_ liberals -- in the
> enlightenment liberal sense, yes? Lockes, Hobbes, J.S.
> Mills, Kant, Hume, Smith, etc. When I took a foundations of
> social theory course, the instructor made us read Isaiah
> Berlin's The Crooked Timber of Humanity and then De
> Maistre in order to understand what conservatives were in
> the 18th c. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre)
> >
> > Everything that follows is, really, reformist attempt
> to correct for enlightenment liberalism in one direction or
> the other --without ever going to Marx or De Maistre. As
> such, by their very character, it seems to me that libs and
> cons are going to be captive to business interests in
> generally and, as such, there can only be piecemeal,
> reactionary writing about small fixes here, and maybe a
> moderate enhancement there. ha. in the lingo of my job:
> tactical bug fixes and tactical enhancements. little
> niggling fixes to make what is considered essentially OK
> work just a leetle bit better -- or sometimes, to intervene
> with a major fix because something went haywire -- but such
> a fix is just restoring thing to "normal".
>