Category: Culture

An interesting posting to the OWL discussion group by Erik Herbertson, of Sweden:
I have a suggestion for especially those of you who are Americans. When you write about “liberals” of the American variety, i.e. welfare statists, it would be good if you used quotation marks to underscore that it’s a false liberalism. Ayn Rand used to do that. It’s also a point to state, if there’s room for it, the reasons.
In most countries in the world, except apparently in the U.S., the terms “liberal” and “liberalism” can be used in the sense we approve of, namely a position in favour of free markets, individual freedom and limited government.
Sure, “liberalism” can even in Europe (and my country Sweden) be used in the welfare statist meaning, but there’s no problem for me to attach my pro-capitalist, pro-individualist views to the word “liberalism”. The welfare statist variety of liberalism is often called “socialliberalism” in Scandinavia, or “sozialliberalismus” in German-speaking countries.
Free market liberalism sometimes is called neo-liberalism, classical liberalism, old liberalism (confusing for beginners :-)), laissez-faire-liberalism or Manchester liberalism, but also just liberalism or “pure liberalism”.
The Liberal parties throughout the world are not always the same as true liberalism. But in most countries, those parties who call themselves liberal are the most free-market-oriented.
The Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Democrats of UK belongs to the left wing of the Liberal International. But in especially the European continent and Eastern Europe, Liberal parties are the parties of low taxes, free markets and personal freedom, even though they are not libertarian (Partito Liberale in Italy is libertarian).
The Estonian Reform Party and Polish Freedom Union have libertarian leanings, and the Costa Rican Movimiento Libertario (libertarian) is a member of the Liberal International.
One can question if it’s wise for free-market-oriented liberals to cooperate with “social liberals” in an International, but I wanted to make a point about the orientation many Liberal parties have, an orientation you wouldn’t even expect from a U.S. Republican.
Even in Canada, there’s the provincial party “B.C. Liberals” (British Columbia), which is separate from the Liberal Party of Canada, and have a policy in favour of free enterprise and lower taxes. Consistent advocates of laissez-faire could question some of its implementations, but it seems that there’s a change in Canada over the meaning of “liberalism”.
In other English-speaking countries like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, “liberalism” is often meant to be pro-capitalism and pro-individualism.
In France, “liberal” is almost always used in the correct way, and therefore the French left use it as a derogatory term :-). Good that the French at least are right about this terminology.
Erik Herbertson, true liberal

Prominent cultural analyst (and Ayn Rand admirer) Jack Wheeler sounds a note of optimism in his latest discussions of current events. Excerpts are included in the article “‘Clintonian childish perversity’ finally dies,” published at WorldNetDaily:

Dr. Jack Wheeler, whose death-defying adventures span the globe and whose achievements have inspired wide-ranging acclaim, has penned a positive, historically relevant analysis of the election, saying the days of “Clintonian childish perversity” are behind us.
On his unique intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler analyzes the re-election of President Bush and declares the nation is now on a continuing upward trend of moral decency. […]
“The election of 2004 was the last gasp of the left’s attempt to maintain its stranglehold on American popular culture and moral values,” he writes. “George W. Bush leads a finally-maturing Boomer generation that leaves Clintonian childish perversity behind, with America’s youth demanding clear and decent moral standards. […]”

Longer excerpts are available in the full article at WND.

Front Page Mag has reproduced Thomas Bowden’s op-ed on Columbus day under the title “Columbus Day: Another Weapon Against Terrorism.” From the article:

We cannot win a war in which Islamic totalitarians loudly proclaim that their way of life is superior–while liberals trot out the cliches of multiculturalism, claiming that there is no objective standard by which to judge a society good or evil, and conservatives downplay the religious motives driving Islamic terrorism, clinging to the notion that religion promotes peace despite blood-soaked centuries of evidence to the contrary.
This moral uncertainty is dividing Americans into two equally ineffectual camps. Liberals, mortified by world opposition, want to demilitarize the conflict in favor of a criminal-justice approach, granting every Muslim killer his day in court. Conservatives, although seemingly willing to address the conflict militarily, wring their hands if a stray bullet chips gold leaf off the dome of a mosque.
Americans can escape this quagmire of moral vacillation only by becoming fully, rationally convinced that our values are objectively worthwhile–that they are worth pursuing, worth upholding, and worth defending, by force if necessary. One way to attain such moral certainty is to understand, with full clarity, why we celebrate Columbus Day.

See the full article for further elaboration.

Writing for LewRockwell.com, Charley Reese has some interesting comments on what makes a hero (and what doesn’t), especially during times of war.

The novelist Ayn Rand made an interesting point once. She said the words we use and our moral approval are a kind of currency we use to reward virtue. If we fail to withhold our moral approval from people who don’t deserve it, then in effect we make it counterfeit and thus cheat those people who do deserve it.
In other words, if you’ll smile and shake hands with any lout, bum or criminal, what good is your handshake and smile? If you’re going to call heroes people who just happen to be soldiers, police officers and firefighters, what are you going to call those individuals who do something really outstanding?
Rand said something else interesting once. She said the way to kill greatness was not to attack it, but to simply reward mediocrity. We certainly do that in our society. If you put a chimpanzee on live television 20 minutes a day, five days a week, within a fortnight it would be national celebrity. A young woman who in smarter days would have been called what she is ? a spoiled slut ? achieves worldwide fame just by videotaping herself copulating with some guy.
No nation can do great things once its people lose the ability to define greatness and to distinguish between the truly outstanding and the mediocre. That is just as important as knowing the difference between right and wrong.
I do not intend to imply that people who do the unpleasant jobs, like policing and soldiering, don’t deserve respect. They certainly do. But we should reserve the word “hero” for those who perform extraordinary and outstanding deeds.

See the full article for further elaboration.