The Use of the Words "liberal" and "progressive."

Phil Simcich; Philosopher, erudite wordsmith.
11/8/13

I've finally hit upon something, and I'm surprised it hadn't occurred to me sooner.

For the longest time, I've believed that the use of the words "liberal" and "progressive" among modern-day American left-wing collectivists was a fraudulent misappropriation of the words. But I couldn't say why.

 

"Liberal" is easy. As the term was originally applied in the 18th Century to Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke et al, it implied freedom from coercion, freedom from obedience to a hierarchy or the arbitrary power of others to order and command. Modern liberals too claim to be for individual liberty, only with a twist. Whereas classical liberals (of which I suppose I am one) saw the chief threat to liberty from the state and wished to rein it in, modern day liberals see the state as the protector of their liberties and the arbiter to which they turn to set out its bounds. It's a subtle difference, but underlying it is a vast philosophical gulf between differing ideas of the relationship between the citizen and the state, ultimately inverting the meaning.

 

"Progressive" was a harder term to pin down. The trouble with "progressive" is precisely its nebulousness. Who can honestly say he's against progress? This is so self evident as to be pointless, like declaring oneself to be against murder. Who isn't?

But take note of the logical sleight-of-hand - having staked their claim to the term "progressive," left-wing collectivists (as opposed to right-wing colletivists, which I'll get my thoughts around to later) can make the claim that any disagreement with their positions is "regressive," "reactionary," "fascist" or any other pejorative whose real meaning is "undesirable" or "illegitemate," however much such ideas may in fact increase the citizen's real freedom. It's a thought-cancelling word, behind whose shield all manner of assaults to individual liberties can be rationalized by merely calling them "progress."

But progress FROM what UNTO what?

In formal, academics-based physics, the word "deceleration" is not used. There is merely "acceleration," either positive or negative. Likewise, in the political arena, "progress" can be progressing toward a place of greater liberty or greater control of the state over the citizen.
We see in Comrade Napoleon's Windmill (euphemistically named the Affordable Care Act - another inversion!) how, in order to get the results they want, progressives and liberals must resort to methods which many are now finding out they have no stomach for.

 

 If anything good can be said to come of this largest of consumer frauds, it may be that of a real defining of the meaning of liberty and an understanding (among those who call themselves "progressives" but feel betrayed by the "Windmill") that people of good will can disagree on the direction of "progress."