I have come to a decision. Now, this isn’t a life-altering decision. I did not make this decision after some sort of earth-shattering revelation. To be honest, most of you probably won’t care. You will merely see it as insignificant. But, to me, it is important.

Words have meanings. We derive their meaning from the way we interpret them. Languages are based on a common acceptance of the same interpretation. Without a common acceptance, words have no meaning. If we misinterpret words, their meaning is distorted or lost completely.

Take, for instance, the word “liberal.” What exactly does it mean? Commonly, it is interpreted as a political categorization. It is used to describe those on the left of the political spectrum (Democrats, Socialists, Progresives, etc).

But, that word is used in a variety of contexts. So, how is it defined? Well, let’s look it up, shall we?

lib•er•al [lib-er-uhl] –

1. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

2. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

3. not strict or rigorous; free

Obviously, these are dictionary definitions of the word. Wikipedia defines “liberalism” this way:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

You can see a theme in all of these definitions. The word “liberal” rests heavily on personal freedom, individuality, and non-interference from outside forces. In the classic sense of the word, a “liberal” would be absolutely opposed to more restrictions imposed by the Government or an erosion of individuality.

Contrast that, with this:

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

“At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good.”

Both of these statements were made by leaders of the Democratic Party. The first was made by Hillary Clinton, the latter by Ted Kennedy. Both of these people call themselves “liberal.” But, are they? Their statements lay the framework for their war on individualism. They want to have the power to circumvent individual rights in favor of “the greater good.”

The truth is that they have a very strange definition of “the greater good.” They consider it good when every single citizen of the United States is wholly dependent on the Government for their healthcare, retirement, medications, education, and income. They consider it "good" when individualism is defeated in favor of “what is best for society.”

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

Add to their war on individualism, the way that they view restrictions on the free market. They endorse things like the Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine states that the Government has the power to regulate Radio and Television to ensure a “balance” of viewpoints. Officials in Washington would be able to control what programs can and cannot run on the airwaves.

They also endorse the seizing of private company profits. If they feel that a company is earning too much money, they would seize those profits for Governmental use. Essentially, they would tell people how much they are allowed to earn.

Also, think about their endorsement of things like Affirmative Action. In a free market, your ability to profit depends on the demand for the skill set you possess. Ideally, your race, creed, gender, and religion would not play a factor. With Affirmative Action, it does. Affirmative Action provides a method for groups to practice reverse discrimination.

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

They want the Government to regulate more and more aspects of our lives. In their minds, it is no longer acceptable for people to be responsible for their own lives. It is no longer acceptable for people to dissent from their “consensus.” It is no longer acceptable for people to be individuals. We must do what is best for the “greater good.”

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

It is my contention that the “liberals” of today’s society are nothing of the kind. They have turned away from the ideas of personal freedom, individuality, and non-interference from outside forces. They have distorted the meaning of the word “liberal.” Therefore, that term can no longer be used to describe them.

The term that best describes them is “Statist.” A basic definition of “Statism” is

“A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters at the cost of individual liberty.

Fitting, don’t ya think?

So, from now on, you won’t see me refer to these individuals as “liberals.” The definition just doesn’t fit. They are “Statists.” And, they will be referred to as such.


Post a Comment

<< Home