I skimmed that piece and it’s interesting and one that I will try to read through and respond fuller when I get the chance. Pieces like that though illustrate a problem with those who claim the mantle of “classic Liberal” in today’s political and intellectual environment. So much of what is claimed as “classic Liberalism” is trotted out as a defense of a movement that is profoundly opposed to liberalism of both the classic or present variety. It’s used to argue for a movement that is both anti-intellectual, xenophobic and authoritarian in nature. As such it's arguments frequently are contradictory and lack intellectual rigor. We see that even here where arguments of free speech are primarily focused on defense of speech favoring an ideology at the expense of other rights such as property or even speech that they disagree with. We also see it recently with issues regarding health and safety where concepts such as “freedom” and “liberty” are argued without any societal context. This is a profound misunderstanding of those concepts from what Locke, Burke and other philosophers thought. So yes there is a difference between what Liberalism was thought of as classically and what it is now. That doesn’t mean that most of those who claim to be classical Liberals are actually following that.
It seems like modern classical liberalism is even scraping the concept of private property rights for pure individualism. Like vaccines for example. Now it's "authoritarian" for a private company to set policies on vaccinations in regards to people on their property which flies against the notion of private property rights which is a Hallmark of true "classical liberalism".
There is no system being racist. False. This is a concept made to avoid harsh truths. The over reliance on the govt handouts for single mothers... the same one that is supposedly racist by its nature... has led to the breakdown of the family unit in black communities. The distaste in authority is tied to the history of racism in the past for sure.. that bleeds through and is echoed and amplified in media such as rap. This has been part of a larger distaste for the dominant "too white" culture, a racist notion but something we can see by prevailing attitudes of many in the black community who knock on blacks for being "too white." The harsh reality is that other minorities do not have a historic chip on their shoulder and extreme prejudice to the dominant "white" culture. This is why they have surpassed the black community which struggles. They participate in society while blacks continue to self isolate AND try to tear down "white" culture because they largely literally cannot get over slavery. It is an obsession and until the entire system is changed, we will have black leaders leading a crusade to tear down anything deemed... too white. Or they can realize the world is not all full of racists and they have a valued place society. This is hard to do with race grifters continuing hate for profit and power. When the black community kicks its racist black nationalists and prevailing hate toward all that is "too white"... they will have no problem as a community. Other groups have proven it possible. Latinos and asians are evidence. So maybe if single family homes are a symptom... we need to treat the real issue. The unaddressed racism in the black community. This lack of willingness to accept society and entitled attitude that the world must change to their will is extremely toxic.
Most minorites in this country especially Asian immigrants have migrated here past the age of Redlining being legal which means majority of other immigrants didn't experience the systems in place that stripped away generational wealth opportunities. Welfare didn't create single mothers. Wealth inequality did. Wealth inequality in terms of the Black community relative to the white community occured through land stealing and Redlining. This results in higher crime rates and combine that with overpolicing and mass incarceration if the Black community, you create single parent homes in mass. Giving poor people money doesn't create single parent homes. This flies in the face of the science of cognitive brain development which states the most important ages that determine mental health and intelligence of an adult is ages 0-10 and more specially ages 0-3 which means the opposite of your premise. It means that stripping kids of that age range of resources like mental healthcare, early childhood education services, high nutritional dense foods, stable shelter increases the odds of mental health issues and becoming a "bad parent" as adults. If you want to argue for a more targeted welfare system where the state decides what specially any welfare should be spent on, I'm down for that. People with bad upbringings tend to not have the best spending habits so a welfare system that's targeted in the sense that instead of a welfare check, you have free early childhood education services, free healthcare services, clean stable housing and basic utilities, a selective "meal plan" that only allows for nutrient dense foods rather than junk food is something that I believe is better than just handing out a check.
Economic inequality is the mother of all negative feedback loops. I believe a goal of government is to mitigate the negative feedback loop as much as possible.
It was one of the three fundamental rights to Locke, "Life, Liberty and Property." These labels like "Classic Liberalism" seem far more about reaction than it seems to be about a philosophical basis of thought.
I've never seen someone who labels themselves a classical liberal who doesn't overtly support nearly all mainline Republican talking points It always seems like an obvious mask. "Hey, I'm not republican, I'm a principled free thinker, ... and it so happens to be the republicans are just right on nearly everything. If I'm saying that and I'm the middle man it shows the Libs have gone far off the deep end yada yada yada" I'm sure truly principled "classical liberals" probably do exist, I'm just saying they aren't who comes to mind when I hear classical liberal, because there aren't many of them, wherever they are
I just got around to watching the piece from John Oliver. I don't agree with reparations. You could apply the same logic to any number of people and groups state/federal governments have screwed over over the years. It just so happens John Oliver, his television program and its money decided to high light this particular injustice. What about all the other sh**y stuff?
People of across different persuasions would hate the idea, but i wouldnt mind government backed "Blacklining" to desegregate a nation that has mostly segregated itself organically after the 80s. Blacks and other minorities were hit hard with the 07 housing bust, especially with the refi frenzy to junk neg. am. loans and adjustable rate mortgages that wiped out black home ownership to a point where they never recovered today. I'm aware of the complaints that knee jerk from the idea...how CRA supposedly caused the "sub prime bust" (08 was not caused by subprime...) or how Obama policies like HARP didnt work because "there weren't enough eligible applicants." Yeah because there wasnt an incentive to be creative, plus there wasn't an obvious bag holder in these proposals unlike the racist past where minorities paid higher rates or were flatout denied cheaper terms while others received discounts. How do you think welfare started in the first place? The original recipient and target demo weren't Blacks. The question over "who pays/holds the bag" that makes groups hate the idea carries the implication that things were just fine when Blacks and other minorities were eating it. Banks and lenders were creative before. I'm sure that financial creativity is possible again with the right incentive and motivation. A threat of total revolution that upends Old Money and their rigid mindsets should be in the back of their minds.
Liberalism isn't as defined as conservative philosophy. A classical conservative would want limited government in every situation Being liberal in terms of government is more about how can government be beneficial in different situations. A classical conservative would want
"Classical Liberalism" as coming from people like John Locke and Rousseau was about inherent rights of man versus the divine right of Kings. Later it became associated with monetary policy by people like Friedrich Hayak and the Austrian school. Many current conservatives follow Classic Liberalism because of it's association with Adam Smith and later Hayak. The belief in the markets and tighter fiscal policy is now tenants of modern Conservatism. Many of those claiming "Classical Liberalism" seem mostly to be claiming it as a reaction to Political Correctness and / or towards perceived "Socialism". There is a good argument for that Classically Liberal view is opposed to the idea that speech and thought that is considered offensive or degrading should be restricted. The problem that I see though is many now jumping on Classic Liberalism are doing so in defense of a person and a movement that is actually against the principles of Classical Liberalism. In their rush to argue against what they perceive as censorship they are also contradicting the principles of property and free market in Classical Liberalism. This leads to such bizarre and contradictory arguments as that private companies can restrict content for profit reasons but can't do so for cultural reasons. Adam Smith recognizes that there isn't a difference between them and that culture is expressed through profit.
Your post is overly generalizing. Anyways, classical liberals are not right wing or conservative. They are conservative in the eyes of leftists though which are not true liberals. Which through such a lens one cannot grasp the centrist position properly. The reason real liberals are having to go in with the populist right, not the establishment elitist right by the way, is because they have really no better option at the moment since the Dems are are too far left at the moment and hyper authoritarian. This is not a true a liberal approach. That is why people often, who remember, frame Trump as a 90s business Dem. He is socially liberal, populist oriented, and not actually that conservative (before the Dems swung way the **** hard left). In fact many former Dems, the centrist ones like myself, simply back Trump because he is the best way to stick it to an elitist media, run by the DNC and billionaire class. The real story everyone is missing is the element of populism v elitism playing out. But of course you'll strawman it to some kind of "classical liberals" are convervatives BS that keeps getting trotted out. The truth is classical liberals are natural allies of the conservatives in today's political theater. That's about all and that's why it is so easy to misconstrue them as right wing. It wasn't always like this, but sadly there is no better option for true liberals.
A classical liberal is just a flavor of libertarian (like an anarchist, a minarchist, an ancap or ancom, etc.) Not surprisingly, they are going to have a bit of overlap with Republicans on financial/economic issues and not as much on social issues. Your run of the mill fiscally conservative, socially liberal type that wants lower taxes and less spending but also doesn't oppose gay marriage or support the drug war could fit nicely into classical liberal.
