What's in a name?

People often talk past each other because they are using the same word with different meanings. Also, a common logical fallacy is to ascribe a different meaning to a word than your interlocutor intends. For example, a guy I once knew claimed that the concept of organic food is meaningless because "organic" means "carbon compounds" and all food consists of carbon compounds. He wasn't joking, he really believed he had a "gotcha" argument.

This Jen Sorenson cartoon sketches some of the confusion about the word "liberal."

 

 

First let me get "liberal arts" out of the way. Apparently some people think this means that universities indoctrinate students in a particular political perspective. The term "liberal" in this context has nothing to do with liberalism in any of its political senses. In fact the term dates back to ancient Roman times and it refers to the methods of inquiry dating back to classical Greece. Essentially is means a broad education in the humanities and sciences that equips a student to think critically and pursue understanding of the world. So just put that aside, okay? 

As a political ideology, "liberalism" has its roots in the 18th Century but had its fullest development in the 19th. It was a reaction to the oppressive nature of monarchy and feudalism, and was essentially the ideology that underlay development of capitalism and the European and North American republics. Previously, government consisted of a hereditary aristocracy that ruled by force. Only a small elite had any substantial degree of autonomy or opportunity. In that context, securing individual freedom meant eliminating the privileges of the aristocracy and limiting government. The Bill of Rights emerged in this context.

As capitalism developed, however, it soon became evident that government was not the only threat to individual liberty. Corporations and the tycoons who owned and managed them became as powerful, in their own way, as nobles and kings had been. The condition of many workers was no better than the condition of serfs had been under feudalism. In some ways perhaps it was even worse. Serfs didn't work twelve hours a day, six days a week, at dangerous and soul destroying repetitive tasks, for one thing. Capitalism was destroying the natural environment, and with its wild swings between boom and bust, often left even relatively affluent people suddenly impoverished.

In this context, liberalism acquired a new meaning. Government was no longer monarchical, it had at least some degree of accountability to the populace; and only government could secure liberty and well being against the depredations of commanding private interests. That's why liberalism came to stand for an activist government that regulated capitalism, protected workers, provided a basic standard of living, promoted opportunity through such means as universal public education, and promoted greater equality by protecting groups that were historically disadvantaged and discriminated against.

In the 1980s, a reaction to this form of progressive liberalism arose among political elites, largely through the influence of wealthy political donors. Called neoliberalism, it represented in large measure a return to ideas of classical liberalism. It emphasized free trade, deregulation of business, and limiting the social safety net. While this already largely represented the Republican party, elements of the Democratic party were captured by it, including president Bill Clinton. Unfettered globalization under the neoliberal regime was disastrous for much of the American working class. Workers were still tied to their countries, but capital crossed borders as freely as the wind, in search of the cheapest labor and least environmental regulation. 

I won't belabor the policy debates of the past 40 years. All I wanted to do here is clarify the use of a word. We can't have a reasoned discussion if we don't understand what we mean by it.