5 ms·

>> Although he was mainly conservative I agree this is how he was classified on the modern spectrum but I think he was really a classic liberal, a pre-Peter Th

by skeeter2020 5y ago

>> Although he was mainly conservative I agree this is how he was classified on the modern spectrum but I think he was really a classic liberal, a pre-Peter Thiel libertarian without all the distracting noise. He's a hard person to fit cleanly into any single bucket, which is a good thing that isn't received well in our current binary environment. "There is only one basic human right: the right to do as you please, without causing others harm. With it comes our only basic human duty: the duty to accept the consequences of our actions." We're pretty good at the former, and almost universally ignore the latter.

wyclif 5y ago
He was hard to classify because he was equal parts libertarian and libertine.
Forgeties79 5y ago
[flagged]
- rpmisms 5y ago
  The GOP is not Libertarian on policy. Classical liberals are. You almost definitely prefer the CL stance to the GOP stance on almost every issue, and would therefore be well-served to encourage this movement. Your reaction to it springs from a lack of knowledge about it. Calling the difference "1 or 2 policies" is reductive and ignorant.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    My apologies for having a different view than you on how it is applied? You may be technically correct, but that is not, at least in my experience, how people use it. And that is all I’m talking about. How it is used, how people wield the term. So maybe cool it with the ad hominems?
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      I'm not attacking you personally, but I do see how I was too harsh, please forgive me. I'm simply saying that your opinion isn't fully formed and you're slinging mud at an ideology you don't understand. Classical liberalism is a relatively mature system, and claiming that it's barely real—simply because you don't get it—is silly.
      - dlivingston 5y ago
        I think parent's point is that, whatever "classical liberalism" means formally and historically, the label is typically used _today_ by people thought of as run-of-the-mill Conservatives (i.e., Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Brett Weinstein, etc.).
        rpmisms 5y ago
        All three of those people are genuinely classical liberals, or at least aligned with them, and the fact that they're now considered mainstream conservatives is a huge victory, showing how the mainstream right is swinging towards libertarianism and away from the Reagan cosplay.
        Forgeties79 5y ago
        Bingo
- atlantas 5y ago
  It's mostly old school moderate liberals who call themselves classical liberals. Because today's loudest self described liberals have abandoned core principles like free speech. So the moderate among us have to make this distinction. Calling us conservative or right wing is a way to other us, to kick us out of the tribe. It's purification. See the endless torrent of hate being directed at Bill Maher lately for maintaining liberal values. I've seen it hundreds of times on Twitter, "I'm so done with him! He's not one of us."
- ajross 5y ago
  There's a very O'Rourke style quip in there too: the term "Classical Liberal" is an attempt to explain something with a label that is too complicated (or... often too inconveniently controversial) to do with an argument. To wit: someone who calls themselves a classical liberal is doing the same thing other people do when they tell you their pronouns.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    That’s a very interesting comparison… I’ll have to give it more thought. Thank you!
    - gojomo 5y ago
      Note also: 'classical liberal' has been an attempt to clarify/brand a certain viewpoint for decades, as the US label of 'liberal' has drifted from what it previously meant. So I suspect your observation about the "last few years" is more a reflection of the evolution of your specific info-environment, & rhetoric consumption, than a broader trend. For example, Google books show it rising from nothing before the 1930s 'New Deal' era (of massive new government economic interventions), to a steep growth in the 1980s (Reaganism etc), starting to plateau in the 20X0s: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=classical+liberal&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cclassical%20liberal%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cclassical%20liberal%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=classical+libe... Search trends show interest in finding out what it is roughly stable since 2004: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22classical%20liberal%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%... In the late 1800s, 'liberal' overwhelmingly meant in favor of free trade, less government involvement in running or regulating private enterprises, & free speech – not especially "liberal" policies in present US politics. (Though, in late 20thC, US 'liberals' were still among the strongest free-speech advocates.) But in the UK & some very-left circles, 'liberal' still has some of those meanings – compared to more radical leftism, for sure – but is often labelled (or slurred) as 'neoliberal'.
rootusrootus 5y ago
He indicated repeatedly that he believed the bit about individualism and human rights applied to today's conservatives. I find his writing delightful and amusing, certainly, but he definitely fits squarely into the current political tribal definitions. Though as much as he tried to be satirical about it, he definitely saw his own side through much rosier glasses than he saw the left.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
hash872 5y ago
He was militantly anti-gay rights and anti-gay marriage. I'm not familiar with the rest of his conservative views, but I don't find much iconoclastic or libertarian in there- he was a standard-issue Republican in the GWB era
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Democrats were commonly anti gay marriage as well. Obama was anti-gay marriage in 2008. But I believe you're wrong about his view on that anyway.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    “Anti-gay marriage” isn’t the same as “not pushing for gay marriage.” Both are evil and unfair to the LGBT community, to be clear, but I find it pretty disingenuous to “both sides” that issue in the late 2000’s, especially as democrat states one after the other were legalizing it.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  He was pro-gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhTge9k1gmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhTge9k1gmQ And pro-gay rights: > I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican. — "I Agree With Me" (July/August 2004) Are you sure you're referring to the same P.J. O'Rourke?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    It's also entirely possible to be pro-gay marriage in 2004 and anti in the 1980s. Certainly a ton of people fit that description. That said, I've probably read most of his books and I don't remember him talking about gay rights one way or the other though who knows what stereotypes he wrote about that simply didn't register 25+ years ago?

wyclif 5y ago

He was hard to classify because he was equal parts libertarian and libertine.

Forgeties79 5y ago

[flagged]

rpmisms 5y ago
The GOP is not Libertarian on policy. Classical liberals are. You almost definitely prefer the CL stance to the GOP stance on almost every issue, and would therefore be well-served to encourage this movement. Your reaction to it springs from a lack of knowledge about it. Calling the difference "1 or 2 policies" is reductive and ignorant.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  My apologies for having a different view than you on how it is applied? You may be technically correct, but that is not, at least in my experience, how people use it. And that is all I’m talking about. How it is used, how people wield the term. So maybe cool it with the ad hominems?
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    I'm not attacking you personally, but I do see how I was too harsh, please forgive me. I'm simply saying that your opinion isn't fully formed and you're slinging mud at an ideology you don't understand. Classical liberalism is a relatively mature system, and claiming that it's barely real—simply because you don't get it—is silly.
    - dlivingston 5y ago
      I think parent's point is that, whatever "classical liberalism" means formally and historically, the label is typically used _today_ by people thought of as run-of-the-mill Conservatives (i.e., Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Brett Weinstein, etc.).
      - rpmisms 5y ago
        All three of those people are genuinely classical liberals, or at least aligned with them, and the fact that they're now considered mainstream conservatives is a huge victory, showing how the mainstream right is swinging towards libertarianism and away from the Reagan cosplay.
      - Forgeties79 5y ago
        Bingo
atlantas 5y ago
It's mostly old school moderate liberals who call themselves classical liberals. Because today's loudest self described liberals have abandoned core principles like free speech. So the moderate among us have to make this distinction. Calling us conservative or right wing is a way to other us, to kick us out of the tribe. It's purification. See the endless torrent of hate being directed at Bill Maher lately for maintaining liberal values. I've seen it hundreds of times on Twitter, "I'm so done with him! He's not one of us."
ajross 5y ago
There's a very O'Rourke style quip in there too: the term "Classical Liberal" is an attempt to explain something with a label that is too complicated (or... often too inconveniently controversial) to do with an argument. To wit: someone who calls themselves a classical liberal is doing the same thing other people do when they tell you their pronouns.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  That’s a very interesting comparison… I’ll have to give it more thought. Thank you!
  - gojomo 5y ago
    Note also: 'classical liberal' has been an attempt to clarify/brand a certain viewpoint for decades, as the US label of 'liberal' has drifted from what it previously meant. So I suspect your observation about the "last few years" is more a reflection of the evolution of your specific info-environment, & rhetoric consumption, than a broader trend. For example, Google books show it rising from nothing before the 1930s 'New Deal' era (of massive new government economic interventions), to a steep growth in the 1980s (Reaganism etc), starting to plateau in the 20X0s: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=classical+liberal&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cclassical%20liberal%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cclassical%20liberal%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=classical+libe... Search trends show interest in finding out what it is roughly stable since 2004: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22classical%20liberal%22 https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%... In the late 1800s, 'liberal' overwhelmingly meant in favor of free trade, less government involvement in running or regulating private enterprises, & free speech – not especially "liberal" policies in present US politics. (Though, in late 20thC, US 'liberals' were still among the strongest free-speech advocates.) But in the UK & some very-left circles, 'liberal' still has some of those meanings – compared to more radical leftism, for sure – but is often labelled (or slurred) as 'neoliberal'.

rootusrootus 5y ago

He indicated repeatedly that he believed the bit about individualism and human rights applied to today's conservatives. I find his writing delightful and amusing, certainly, but he definitely fits squarely into the current political tribal definitions. Though as much as he tried to be satirical about it, he definitely saw his own side through much rosier glasses than he saw the left.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

hash872 5y ago

He was militantly anti-gay rights and anti-gay marriage. I'm not familiar with the rest of his conservative views, but I don't find much iconoclastic or libertarian in there- he was a standard-issue Republican in the GWB era

hunterb123 5y ago
Democrats were commonly anti gay marriage as well. Obama was anti-gay marriage in 2008. But I believe you're wrong about his view on that anyway.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  “Anti-gay marriage” isn’t the same as “not pushing for gay marriage.” Both are evil and unfair to the LGBT community, to be clear, but I find it pretty disingenuous to “both sides” that issue in the late 2000’s, especially as democrat states one after the other were legalizing it.
aerostable_slug 5y ago
He was pro-gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhTge9k1gmQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhTge9k1gmQ And pro-gay rights: > I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican. — "I Agree With Me" (July/August 2004) Are you sure you're referring to the same P.J. O'Rourke?
- ghaff 5y ago
  It's also entirely possible to be pro-gay marriage in 2004 and anti in the 1980s. Certainly a ton of people fit that description. That said, I've probably read most of his books and I don't remember him talking about gay rights one way or the other though who knows what stereotypes he wrote about that simply didn't register 25+ years ago?