4 ms·

I think there is a schism in people holding left-of-center (US context) views. I see liberals as placing a higher value on a consistent application of values an

I think there is a schism in people holding left-of-center (US context) views. I see liberals as placing a higher value on a consistent application of values and less emphasis on outcomes. I see progressives as more focused on outcomes than the means used to obtain them. Cynically phrased, a critique of liberals from progressives would be that liberals are okay dithering and letting injustices stand. A liberal criticism of progressives is that they have adopted an “ends justify the means” philosophy. Additionally liberals might question whether the “ends” are good and on what authority that determination was made. For much of my life it has felt that progressives and liberals were closely enough aligned to more be interchangeable in practice. But, I think the aforementioned cancel culture is one area where progressives see necessary change, while liberals see a sacrifice of ideals. I’m not sure my definition of progressive vs. liberal is accurate historically speaking, but this is how I interpret the current left-left divide in at least the US.

clairity 6y ago
many of today's liberals in the US are, in the parlance, neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. progressives eschew that subtle hypocrisy.
- zeveb 6y ago
  > neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. I think that's very much not what 'neo-liberal' means. I think that it means free-market liberalism — where 'liberalism' in the previous clause means 'classical liberalism,' as opposed to socialism, Communism or progressivism. Many of the neo-liberals were, as I recall, leftists (for U.S. values of, anyway) who fled not conservatism but Communism/socialism as they saw that the math simply didn't work out.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, that's the historical context (free-marketization), but i'm referring to the more recent machinations of the last couple decades, as there aren't enough communists/socialists (in the US at least) to account for the rise of our current brand of (neo-)liberalism. that arose from nominal conservatives shifting away from unfavorable connotations. the free-marketization makes that transition easier ideologically.
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      Case in point: Southern California. This is the state were Reagan served as governor after all. Southern California used to be dependably republican, but no longer. But is this because of a fundamental shift (in population or beliefs), or just a lack of desire to be associated with the racial/social policies of the national republicans, with most non-racial views retained? I suspect the latter.
      - clairity 6y ago
        yes, exactly, folks solved their cognitive dissonance by switching parties, not wholesale changes in beliefs.
ardy42 6y ago
> I think there is a schism in people holding left-of-center (US context) views. I see liberals as placing a higher value on a consistent application of values and less emphasis on outcomes. I see progressives as more focused on outcomes than the means used to obtain them. > Cynically phrased, a critique of liberals from progressives would be that liberals are okay dithering and letting injustices stand. A liberal criticism of progressives is that they have adopted an “ends justify the means” philosophy. Additionally liberals might question whether the “ends” are good and on what authority that determination was made. I think this is a very clear and succinct summation. It shows that both sides aren't exactly wrong, but they aren't exactly right either. That's what makes politics hard. I'm kinda reminded of something I was taught about English Common Law: hundreds of years ago, it was basically the law in England, but it became so focused on consistent application that it ossified and failed to provide legal relief for many clear injustices. When that happened, someone could directly appeal to the King for relief, and out of those appeals developed a Equity, a whole different body of law. There's nothing wrong with consistent application of a process, but I think sometimes some people get so focused on it that they loose sight of the actual goal the process was meant to achieve.

clairity 6y ago

many of today's liberals in the US are, in the parlance, neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. progressives eschew that subtle hypocrisy.

zeveb 6y ago
> neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. I think that's very much not what 'neo-liberal' means. I think that it means free-market liberalism — where 'liberalism' in the previous clause means 'classical liberalism,' as opposed to socialism, Communism or progressivism. Many of the neo-liberals were, as I recall, leftists (for U.S. values of, anyway) who fled not conservatism but Communism/socialism as they saw that the math simply didn't work out.
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, that's the historical context (free-marketization), but i'm referring to the more recent machinations of the last couple decades, as there aren't enough communists/socialists (in the US at least) to account for the rise of our current brand of (neo-)liberalism. that arose from nominal conservatives shifting away from unfavorable connotations. the free-marketization makes that transition easier ideologically.
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    Case in point: Southern California. This is the state were Reagan served as governor after all. Southern California used to be dependably republican, but no longer. But is this because of a fundamental shift (in population or beliefs), or just a lack of desire to be associated with the racial/social policies of the national republicans, with most non-racial views retained? I suspect the latter.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, exactly, folks solved their cognitive dissonance by switching parties, not wholesale changes in beliefs.

ardy42 6y ago

> I think there is a schism in people holding left-of-center (US context) views. I see liberals as placing a higher value on a consistent application of values and less emphasis on outcomes. I see progressives as more focused on outcomes than the means used to obtain them. > Cynically phrased, a critique of liberals from progressives would be that liberals are okay dithering and letting injustices stand. A liberal criticism of progressives is that they have adopted an “ends justify the means” philosophy. Additionally liberals might question whether the “ends” are good and on what authority that determination was made. I think this is a very clear and succinct summation. It shows that both sides aren't exactly wrong, but they aren't exactly right either. That's what makes politics hard. I'm kinda reminded of something I was taught about English Common Law: hundreds of years ago, it was basically the law in England, but it became so focused on consistent application that it ossified and failed to provide legal relief for many clear injustices. When that happened, someone could directly appeal to the King for relief, and out of those appeals developed a Equity, a whole different body of law. There's nothing wrong with consistent application of a process, but I think sometimes some people get so focused on it that they loose sight of the actual goal the process was meant to achieve.