About liberalism: why I use quotation marks

Article on subjectm that I am not very interested in, comes up with the following remarkable statement:
"Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-­clericalism." 

My comments:
1. The imposition of "liberal" values can be seen in the intolerant attitudes towards the evangelical Christians in the US. Another case is the attempts by "liberal" groups to impose economic and academic boycotts on Israel, whereas in Israel itself this takes a form of anti-settler sentiment. Ironically, if a liberally-minded person tries to defend the rights of evangelicals or settlers on their views (without actually agreeing with them), he/she is branded a right-winger.

2. You may have noticed that sometimes I use quotation marks to designate the terms whose linguistic usage does not agree with their literal meaning: "liberal", "progressive", "rich/poor" etc. So, for example, in the US "liberal" is used to designate Democrats, often extremely left-wing ones. Yet, for the reason outlined in the previous comment these people frequently are not liberal in the original sense of the word.

Another case when "liberals" are not really liberals is when one refers to their views on the economy. "Liberals" often advocate limiting the market freedom and discriminating against those who are more economically successful. In this contextm the people who do hold liberal economic views are referred to as "neo-liberals" (or, in an extreme case, "libertarians".) In fact, those who are called "liberals", should be really named "neo-communists" (no offence intended - simple statement of ideology.)

The subject, that goes beyond the theme of this post, is whether one can forgo the economic liberalism, but preserve the liberal freedoms in the other areas of life (freedom of speech, freedom of gatherings etc.) Marx and Lenin would certainly disagree.

Quiz: Which part of the political spectrum do you belong to?

Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following questions:

1. If everyone owned a gun, this would make people safer, because everyone would be able to protect himself/herself.

2. Every country should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon to defend itself from aggression.

3. High taxes and government regulations harm the economy and limit our freedom.

4.The internet content should be completely free from any government sensorship and regulations.


If your answers are "yes/no/yes/no" - you are a conservative (support Romney).

If your answers are "no/yes/no/yes" - you are a "progressive" (support Obama).

If your answers are "yes/yes/yes/yes" - you are a libertarian (support Ron Paul).

If your answers are "no/no/no/no" - you are a either a communist or a fascist (support your Leader)

If you have any different combination of answers - your political views are in contradiction with your views on economy.

If you have doubts about answering "yes" or "no" to at least one of the above questions - would you like to write an article for this blog?

A comment:
Obviously, logically questions 1 and 2, as well as 3 and 4, should be answered in the same way. Libertarian and communist/fascist views are the consistent ones. The former take the personal freedom to extreme, while the latter deny any freedom at all (for the sake of the common good, of course).

Libertarianism

This article is discussing the conservative ideology represented by Rick Santorum, the new favorite of the Republican primaries. I post it however in order to give a clear definition of libertarianism (aka Ron Paul and von Mises Blog):
"Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, in which personal rights trump every other social goal and institution. It is actually a species of classical liberalism, not conservatism — more directly traceable to John Stuart Mill than Edmund Burke or Alexis de Tocqueville. The Catholic (and increasingly Protestant) approach to social ethics asserts that liberty is made possible by strong social institutions — families, communities, congregations — that prepare human beings for the exercise of liberty by teaching self-restraint, compassion and concern for the public good. Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions. Responsible government can empower them — say, with a child tax credit or a deduction for charitable giving — as well as defend them against the aggressions of extreme poverty or against “free markets” in drugs or obscenity."

A comment:
Libertarianism, represented by Ron Paul, is a curious ideology: On the one hand, in its staunch anti-war, anti-interference stance it is very similar to the extremely left ideologies, such as the extreme wing of the Democratic party in US or Meretz and Hadash in Israel. On the other hand, applying consistently the same pro-individual position to the economy, libertarianism advocates wild capitalism with minimal government regulations and totally free international trade (no tarifs, in particular) - a position antithetical to the traditionally pro-welfare left.