[RE]

THEGUARDIAN.COM 2026-09-06

That sound you hear is not the world ending – it’s liberalism being monstered

Widespread disillusionment with progress has led societies to reject liberalism, as cumulative global crises eroded trust in its promise of constant improvement, fueling populist and post-liberal movements.

I've never really understood the term "Liberal" as it is used in politics.  I used to think it meant Archie Bunker's "Meathead" son-in-law, a college age long haired semi-hippie 60's era protester type.  Compared to Archie, he was supposed to seem enlightened, but also dumb-funny, as in you are supposed to laugh AT him.  Liberals were sorta weak kneed lefties.

A little later I learned about Brit politics, divided into "Labor" and "Liberal" parties.  In this case, Labor was the lefties and Liberals were the righties.  Then there was the Global concept of "Neo-liberalism", which didn't seem liberal at all but more a buttoned ddown version of corporate fascism.  With all the competing definitions and usages, I couldn't find any meaningful definition.

Here in this article, the author has his own definition of what Liberal means.

Liberalism defines almost our entire social and political order in the west. Much of this is institutional: a free press, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers, governments hemmed in by constitutions, the sovereignty of the people. Some of it reflects philosophical commitments: individual freedom as the foundation undergirding specific freedoms of speech, association, conscience, religion and trade; a belief that government rules by the consent of the governed and that all citizens are equal. And the overarching character of this arrangement is clear: less hierarchy, fewer hang-ups, fewer social mores, more and easier diversity. A world of choice, and ever-proliferating choices. And, taxes aside, it's progress without sacrifice or serious restraint. Each individual person pursuing their individual dream would make life better overall.

This definition seems to be just a re-statement of the IDEALS the FSoA was supposedly founded on and what the Constitution is supposed to codify into law and  our political system.  It's what all of us were taught in our High School Civics classes.  Many if not most Amerikans think the FSoA, at least at one time in the past actually reflected this definition.  Most clearly UNTRUE is that "all men are equal".  Hardly, there is a huge range of intelligence from dumb as rocks to Einstein, economic power from Richer than God to Dirt Poor, Photogenic and well spoken to hideously ugly to stunningly beautiful and so on.  All of these characteristics which make them different result in unequal power distribution in the society.

The REALITY is not just that it never has been true in the past,  it's that most of the assumptions aren't true either.  The Press hasn't ever been free, it's always been a money making biz.  Reporters have to make a living, papers gotta  sell.  Goobernments aren't hemmed in by separation of powers, they are just side-stepped or ignored when inconvenient.  Goobermint doesn't rule by consent of the governed, it does so through force and the application of punishment (prison) for disobedience.

With the underpinning assumptions untrue, why would anyone expect using them as principles to organize a society would work?  Just declaring them as ideals doesn't make it true and nothing actually operates this way. This is the source of the disillusionment in the society.  Nobody believes in this nonsense anymore because it just isn't true.

RE

[K-Dog]

The word "liberal" is inseparable from capitalism because it was, from the outset, the political language of the new bourgeoisie. The freedom of the liberal is the freedom to make money.  Its roots in the French Revolution make the class content unmistakable.  In America the term is deliberately mis-categorized to obfuscate rule by the monied class.  But in truth the freedom of the liberal has nothing to do with letting one's freak flag fly. 

[RE]

RE

[TDoS]

RE

That is a GREAT SONG! I hear it all the time listening to Classic Folk on Sirus radio. A little heavy leaning into outright racism (sure sounds it came from the days of Jim Crowe doesn't it?) but overall both entertaining and illustrative of its time. The live version is the one I keep hearing, where he throws in comments here and there.

[RE]

Phil was a fucking genius. Greatest folk protest singer of the 60s.  Met him once shortly before he committed suicide.  I had all his albums.

RE