The following is a commentary, meaning that it is me editorialising a lot. Some listeners may find some of what is said to be opaque. I am particularly aware that my use of the term âliberalâ may be unfamiliar and problematic. I won't go into what it is exactly that I mean by âliberalâ, but it is broadly consonant with the usages in political science when describing regimes, policies or ideological formations. It is a definition of liberal that doesn't fall apart when one tries to put it in a broader context. In contrast, Chris Hedges has recently written of The Death of the Liberal Class. Everything Hedges writes makes perfect sense and everyone knows what he means when he uses the term 'liberal'. What Hedges would be hard-pressed to do is to reconcile this usage of the term liberal with other unavoidable usages such as as a way of describing the inescapably (if not virulently) liberal policies of âconservativesâ and âneo-conservativesâ. I'm sure that Hedges is aware of this. What he is doing is referring to self-identified âliberalsâ which roughly corresponds to what US political scientists refer to as âwelfare liberalsâ. I don't believe that there is any such thing as a âwelfare liberalâ. It is very well understood in political science that most in the US who identify as âconservativeâ are actually liberals, and I would argue that anti-socialist sentiment has driven many to misidentify themselves as liberals. Most âwelfare liberalsâ are very much at one with their fellow liberals in the âconservativeâ camp. The putative divide between them is much as the divide between Republican and Democrat â not really a divide at all. If, at times, it seems that I am overstating matters out of some callow need to dramatise and you feel that my credibility is tarnished, I would urge consideration of the following. 1) It is not possible in this medium to demonstrate the evidence and reasoning behind every position I take; 2) conservatism is not neutral â it is a positive affirmation of an orthodox position; 3) in many cases the orthodox position is not even a reasoned position, but rather simply unexamined âcommonsenseâ received ideology, in other cases it is specious; 4) thus by the avoidance of statements which cannot be demonstrated I would, of necessity, be promulgating fallacies; 5) if there really are things that you simply cannot allow to pass unremarked, please feel free to contact me with and questions and I will happily explain the basis of any such assertions on my part. I hope that makes this talk a little clearer.
![<?php echo $config['site_title']; ?>](/static/images/rp-navimg.gif)
![Support the <?php echo $config['site_title']; ?>](/static/images/support.png)
