Another conservative vs liberal debate...
This time by the University of LONDON, egads brain, isn't the European liberal regarded different than US liberals?
Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1956), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."[11] In continental Europe, liberalism usually means what is sometimes called classical liberalism, a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economics, and more closely corresponds to the American definition of libertarianism—itself a term which in Europe is instead often applied to left-libertarianism.
In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, the term liberalism has come to mean support for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, reproductive rights for women, equal rights for minority groups such as Blacks, women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, multilateralism and support for international institutions, and support for individual rights over corporate interests. All but the last of these are shared by British and other European liberals.[12] American liberals support a role for government in the relief of poverty, universal healthcare, universal education, organized labor, and protection of the environment, and support payment for these services by a progressive income tax. In continental Europe, these positions would be described as Social democracy.[12]
So the real question is to which liberals they refer. The "old" classical liberals, which promote liberty in all spheres of life, or the new "progressives", which only promote liberty in social lives?
If it is the former, then that would discount Fazda and good ol Wizard. This likely makes more sense, as I see the true liberals (In the original, old sense of the word), had faith in people and didn't fear everyone and everything, and did not call for state control of everything because of this lack of fear.
Where as the "new" liberals, fear the evils of capitalism, and thus need control in certain areas of life!
In my personal opinion, having "courage" means having the balls to speak up against the status quo, and the libertarians or old liberals are the guys who have always done this. "Courage" is not populism.
In my personal opinion, leaving "emotions" out of political thought logically leads one to anarcho-capitalism, "Liberalism and capitalism address themselves to the cool, well-balanced mind. They proceed by strict logic, eliminating any appeal to the emotions. Socialism, on the contrary, works on the emotions, tries to violate logical considerations by rousing a sense of personal interest and to stifle the voice of reason by awakening primitive instincts." - Ludwig von Mises
So it seems to me, they were referrring to libertarians (old liberals) vs conservatives, not US Democract "liberals" vs US Republican Conservatives.
That being said, "new" or progressive liberals would have as much in common with conservatives as you do libertarians! Fear and Emotions to boot.
Atleast that was my take on the article, unless you can demonstrate that these guys from London hold the American view of liberal/conservative and not the European view. The article wasn't clear, and it could be either.
