AH! So you presuppose I wasn't speaking in classical terms.
(Remembering that I was replying to the idea that the term "liberal" might be derogatory in nature; not that I was supporting concept.)[/wuote]
Of course you weren't speaking of classical liberalism. You made that more than evident when you went on to say, in defense of liberalism as you understood it, that an adequate distribution of wealth would cure all. Such a claim could never be made in association with classical liberalism by anyone who had the least grasp of the philosophy. Clearly you were speaking as a modern liberal in defense of modern liberalism.
So again, you think I was correct? But have chosen to express it in a negative way.
Interesting how you continue to believe someone is agreeing with you when they are flatly disputing everyting you have said. Arrogance, ignorance, or some pathetic defense mechanism?
I may, in fact, be uneducated. And assuming I am, one look at you post would go a long way in convincing me (that what you describe yourself to be) is the pendulum at the extreme. And most things that are taken to the extreme, prove harmful or counterproductive.
Since you are "attmitedly" uneducated, you will pardon me if I don't put much stock in your perceptions. Clearly you have already missed the mark on a topic as easily studied and understood as the political philosophy of classical vs modern liberalism so the chances of you hitting the mark on a topic so obscure as the as of yet expressed political thinking of an individual are about nil.
I'm not sure I made a distinction between classical liberalism and what you describe as modern liberalism. But I take your point.
It is like not making a distinction between oxygen and cyanide gas. Such distinction is absolutely necessary to the discussion if it is to have any meaning at all.
I'm not sure that I subscribe to the notion that strict compliance of a doctrine, two centuries old, without the benefit of evolution, is the correct approach. I tend to think that "strict constitutionalism" (originalist perspective ) is just as harmful as "extreme judicial activism;" each being at opposite ends of the spectrum; contentious theory. But if one exists, so must the other to achieve balance in the continuing interpretation of The Constitution.
And therein lies the basis of the never ending chain of unintended consequences and misery that lies in the wake of modern liberalism. Moden liberals seek change for change's sake and don't seem never to learn that the torch of progress all to often turns out to be a devouring conflagration. There is as distinct a difference between natural evolution of political philosophy and the change for change's sake undertaken by modern liberalism as there is between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Many people, lightyears beyond my meager understanding, express the idea that The Constitution is a "Living Document."
The self same group, by the way, at whose feet the ongoing economic and societal disentigration that has been going on since the time of FDR can be laid.
Well, actually, when I went to school, we had to study both the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers. But I don't claim to be as enlightened as you are on the subject.
Study and understanding are two different things.
Again, you are injecting something not in evidence. I don't believe I did a comparative analysis on America relative to other social, economic and political constructs (socialist, marxist, communist, or fascist, etc).
You attempted to defend modern liberalism which is by definition a smörgåsbord of socialism, marxim, communism, and fascism, etc.) To look at modern liberalism as it is practiced in the US is to look at the aforementioned "isms".
I believe I was discussing whether or not "liberal is a justifiably-derogatory term." It is a matter of whether we consider all alternative views in a derogatory light, or as an or simply one of a number of possibilities worth of consideration.
What you were doing was attempting to portray the classical liberalism espoused by the founders of this nation as having a close philosophical relationship to the modern liberalism being practiced today. To do so is disingenuous in the extreme as the one bears no resemblence in practice to the other.
The expansion of government duties and responsibilities has been (for the most part) a result of Congressional Action, derivative of Constitutional Authority. Whether they are observed as serving classical liberal or conservative views is virtually unimportant as the implementation and funding was done by the will of the people. However, individually, they are all open for debate.
Which goes back to the modern liberal idea of the constitution being a "living" document subject to corruption and degradation whenever the ends seems to justify it; which in turn has resulted in the seemingly endless human and economic carnage left in the wake of said expansion.
While a discussion of the alternative mental lexicon governing the interpretation of what it means to be a "liberal" or a "conservative" may be philosophically entertaining, it ultimately has no relevance to the nature of governance.
It does if one undertakes to claim that modern liberalism and its goals are anything like the classical liberalism and associated goals upon which this nation was founded. It has great relevance if one undertakes, as you clearly did, to propagandize modern liberalism as the basis for the founding of this nation.
In this short discussion, my commentary was focused on the derogatory connotation of the labels and not the political outcomes of the legislative processes in governance.
Liberal as it applies to the modern use of the word holds great derogatory connotations. It, in fact, is the very symbol of the deterioration of our social and economic fabric. The OP was entirely correct in its assumption that very few if any of the troubles we find ourselves facing today can't be laid at the feet of modern liberalism. Any attempt at defending modern liberalism necessarily brings on a rebuttal and the deeper the conversation goes, the more sinister and if I may say, evil, modern liberalism appears to be.