Almost Classical

Following a post on Krugman, probably because that is what he was reading, Nathan posted the following comment: In your description of yourself, you are a classical liberal defined as: "Classical liberalism embodies the original concept of liberalism: a faith in freedom to, not freedom from as a guiding principle." Yet the concept of 'freedom to,' which is positive liberty, is contained nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of our country were, as far as the definition of classical liberal that I know, mostly classical liberals - hence where we get the term. Yet, the U.S. Constitution is only written in terms of negative liberty, or 'freedom from.' How do you reconcile what appears to be a modern interpretation of classical liberalism from what is most assuredly a different actual and historical definition of the term classical liberal? Check the definition with references from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before answering ...

The political terminology of the United States is often at odds with the terms used in Europe and the U.K. When corresponding with colleagues, I've had to recognize terms such as "neo-liberal," "Anglo-capitalist," and several others. The greatest confusion, though, is the simple "liberal" — which is seldom a compliment in European commentaries. What I consider "libertarian" might be close to "liberal" in European usage, but not quite a perfect equivalent. Regardless, this is an interesting column on the word "liberal." Can The L-word Be Saved?    WALTER RUSSELL MEAD Politically speaking, America may be the most confused country in the world.  Millions of people in this country are conservatives and even reactionaries who think they are liberals; we have millions more liberals and radicals who call themselves conservative. It is an unholy mess and it needs to be cleared up.  It’s time for a language intervention. Despite...

I heard a Democratic consultant complain about Frank Luntz this morning. The problem is, Luntz and George Lakoff give the same type of advice, but to different parties: words and phrasing matter. Politicians left, right, and center learn to manipulate words. A lot of science goes into this -- it is marketing, after all. The New York Times Magazine had a lengthy article on attempts to persuade people to be more environmentally responsible. Neurologists, linguists, psychologists, and experts from a dozen other fields are trying to shape words and messages to get citizens to do the "right" things. Politics and activism require marketing. Call it rhetoric. Call it manipulation. Call it framing, nudging, or whatever else you prefer. The reality is we choose words with the intention of obtaining a desired result. For one side or the other to claim: "Our opponents use rhetoric!" is nonsense. Reading the books of Luntz and Lakoff, you realize it is all the...

I know politicians omit and embellish facts. I know court is not about "the whole truth" but rather only those facts a judge and the lawyers decide to present -- and as they see fit to present them. I know the press is not "truthful" but whatever facts and statements the reporters can squeeze into limited space and time, as influenced by biases. I know texts are never "the truth" nor is my reading of them likely a complete appreciation for what was written. "A well-regulated militia..." reads the Second Amendment. Does anyone know what "regulated" means? It's not what most people assume it means. "Regular" meant well-prepared, or well-equipped. Hence, a "regular" army is better than a "guard" on-call. Regulated does not mean "governed" in all instances, just as "run" does not always mean something people in track meets do. "Regulated" can mean "well-prepared" or...