as for people being mad at Obama as some sort of sign that they're not Liberals... I'd say that anyone who is disappointed in Obama is obviously a Liberal. A liberal actually takes these jokers seriously! Actually thought Obama would be different? Actually projected all those hopes and dreams on the guy? THAT's a liberal!
meanwhile, a good explanation of liberal can be found in Kenneth Strike's book Educational Policy and the Just Society. He explains the terms in terms of its roots in philosophical liberalism of the 18th century (small l liberalism) and its development into what others would call welfare state (big L) Liberalism (as typified by Ted Kennedy). These days, we have neo-liberals who back off from the big L Liberal position, tend to think that mucking with the free market isn't such a great idea and are generally embarrassed by the term Liberal for some reason so they call themselves Progressives, much as Hillary Clinton did when asked if she was a Liberal. We call them neo-liberals, last I knew, because they appear to be trying to resusicitate the older, small l sense of philosophical liberal (while being pragmatist with no interest in political theory anyway) in the name of the gods Free Market and TINA.
Any book with the subtitle of Yves Smith's book is a book by a Liberal. She clearly thinks that the problem has to do with unenlightened self-interest. If *individuals* just aright all that is wrong with our current political economy by acting in the *enlightened* self-interest, all would be well with the world. Who was the philosopher who first highlighted that term - enlightened self-interest- and went on and on about it? I've forgotten.
speaking of, another book I'm reminded of is Bellah et al., The Good Society where they talk about USers individualism as a tendency to see institutions as corrupt, another keyword in that subtitle that is clue to the author's fundamental Liberalism.
People should own it. They're Liberals. So the hell what? why be embarassed by that. Why do Liberals so insist that they aren't Liberals? Why do they want Marxists to love them so much?
It's all very weird!
At 10:16 PM 12/30/2011, nathan tankus wrote:
>"if you think capitalism can be fixed - proper adjustments to
>alleviate its horrors -- it is a liberal. "
>
>what does the word "fixed" mean in this context? does that mean people
>who think a benevolent technocrat can "fix" capitalism?
>what if you think that life for the average person under capitalism
>can be improved by mass social movements and intensive organization by
>working people and other such groups but still wants to see the
>creation of a socialist-or non-capitalist egalitarian- society? are
>they "liberals" too? what if someone thinks that mass social movements
>and organizations are the only way to improve society but they aren't
>convinced by the efficacy of revolution? are they also liberals?
>
>you've pretty much confirmed my intuition that this word is being used
>as a non-radical catch all. I think that is a bad abuse of that word.
>I personally like to preserve the meanings of words. by all means
>criticize people who don't think we should create a post-capitalist
>society. stuffing them all into one group and calling them liberals i
>think is an analytical mistake.
>
>--
>-Nathan Tankus
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)