[ExI] Liberals and Political Labels (was History of Slavery)

[Lee Corbin]

gts writes

> I'm well aware of the difference between classical liberalism (which in  
> its modern form is probably best identified with libertarianism) and "what  
> passes for 'liberalism' today" (which has socialist connotations). Even  
> so, I think these supposedly disparate ideas of liberalism share some  
> elements in common with respect to the slavery issue.
> 
> The points I was making were that 1) abolitionism is fundamentally a  
> liberal idea in both senses of the word "liberal" (even despite Lincoln  
> and the word's association in the US with the Republican party of the 19th  
> century), and that 2) the Torys were not liberals in either sense of the  
> word, at least with respect to slavery.

I agree.

> If anyone deserves credit for freeing the slaves, I'd say it was the  
> political liberals and the Quakers.

Yes.  It's the same "mentality", if you will.  Having both its good and
bad aspects, a sort of idealism that we the prosperous can indulge in.
(I mean to say that it's a luxury many of us can afford, especially
since the beginning of the 19th century.)

It's very interesting to read about late 19th century "progressivism",
as in the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

It was the same abolitionist mind-set  run amuck.  (Not that I disdain
running amuck now and then.)  They were all for socialism, eugenics,
prohibition (of alcohol), prohibition of drugs, women-sufferage,
"et cetera"!!

This mentality sees as its own province events both large and small,
near and far. Whether you are a Northerner who has never even 
seen a slave, or someone today who knows nothing about Africa
except that some slavery is practiced you feel free to opine to the
point of boarding trains and taking guns a thousand miles away to
make your point.  Or voting for your country to go "regulate".

Likewise, even though Saddam Hussein never harmed a hair on
your head or of anyone's you ever knew, you are certain that
your country needs to get rid of him.  Or, similarly, even though
you are not at all personally affected by the war in Iraq, or what
the $cientologists are doing to innocent people, you know all
about it and whether it should go on or not.

All in all, it stems from a tendency to lift one's eyes from one's own
paltry affairs and strongly will that others in distant arenas conform
to your own views morality.  "Evil triumphs when good men do
nothing" is another example. 

Without (hopefully) provocatively mentioning a certain writer
whose initials are T.S., it's what he or she calls "the unconstrained
vision".

Just about everyone I know, including myself, freely indulges in
this.  Doubtless the  "conservative Tories" of the 18th century
were the same way.  Some opposed the breaking away of the
American colonies for economic reasons, some for patriotic reasons. 

All in all, political labels are a real mess, as the coordinate system
shifts under you from decade to decade, century to century. But
they still are necessary because they describe an actual reality.

I used to wonder ever since high school whether I'd be a Patriot
or a Tory if I had been raised in the American colonies. After
many, many years reading about the conflict, I can see clearly
now that it would have depended on what part of the country
I was grew up in, and what were the economic assumptions of
the class I had grown up with.  Else how to explain both 
George Washington and Thomas Paine?

Lee