Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size   
You are here: Home arrow Blog arrow Reclaiming liberalism
Skip to content

Contact us

Tel +44 (0)20 7222 3546
Fax +44 (0)20 7222 2363
Full contact details

RSS feed

Subscribe to this blog's feed



E-mail list

Keep up-to-date with the work of the GI with our e-mail bulletin every few weeks.

Subscribe
Unsubscribe

Six of the best

CIPE Development Blog
Johan Norberg
Philippe Legrain
Pienso
World Bank PSD
Trade Diversion

Blogroll

About Globalization
Adam Smith Institute
Atlantic Blog
Brian Micklethwait
Business & Economics
Cafe Hayek
Capital Spectator
Catallaxy
Center for Global Development
Chippla's weblog
Civitas Blog
Club for Growth
ConservativeHome
Daniel W. Drezner
David Smith
De Gustibus
EconLog
Franck's blog
Freedom Institute (Ireland)
From the Heartland
Gavin Sheridan
Global Growth Blog
Hillary Johnson
Hit and Run
Iain Dale
IndiaUncut
Institutional Economics
Knowledge Problem
Kurt Johnson
Market Center Blog
Mises Institute
Mutualist Blog
Natalie Solent
ODI
Owen Barder
Pharmopoly
Positive Externality
Private Sector Development
Radley Balko
Right to Create
Rip Mix Burn
Samizdata.net
Sobering thoughts
Social Affairs Unit
Spontaneous Order
TechDirt
The American Mind
The Commons Blog
The Liberal Order
The Welfare State We're In
Tim Worstall
Tom G. Palmer
Trade Diversion
Unrestricted Domain
Vaccines for Development

Reclaiming liberalism PDF Print E-mail
Written by Alex Singleton   
Sunday, 30 January 2005
Prominent American Prospect journo Matt Yglesias thinks that referring to the Cato Institute

as a "leading liberal think tank" is an "um, interesting description of Cato".

Why? In Washington DC, Cato is one of the the most liberal think tanks - and certainly the most prominent. But few Americans would describe Cato as "liberal". The word has been warped into a term of abuse, a way of attacking the left. Hence Republicans denounced John Kerry in the 2004 election as the most liberal member of the Senate.

Liberal is also a term of abuse in Europe, too, as The Economist has pointed out:

Rather than being keen on taxes and public spending, European liberals are often derided (notably in France) for seeking minimal government - in fact, for denying that government has any useful role at all, aside from pruning vital regulation and subverting the norms of decency that impede the poor from being ground down. Thus, in continental Europe, as in the United States, liberalism is also regarded as a perversion, a pathology: there is consistency in that respect, even though the sickness takes such different forms.

So who are using the term correctly: the Europeans or the Americans? I'm with the Europeans on this one. Don't get me a wrong: I'm not a fuddy-duddy who worries about Americanization. But calling American statists "liberals" is really inappropriate. "Liberal" makes you think of liberty, freedom, the individual: not state control of economics.

The Economist says it is time to reclaim the word, and to use other words as general insults:

For the use of the right, we therefore recommend the following insults: leftist, statist, collectivist, socialist. For the use of the left: conservative, neoconservative, far-right extremist and apologist for capitalism. That will free "liberal" to be used exclusively from now on in its proper sense, as we shall continue to use it regardless.

Quite right.

Comments (0) >>
Write comment


Write the displayed characters