Who is a 'true liberal'? It is far from obvious and that's partly because in Canada there is a confusion between a liberal and a Liberal.
Terms must be clear -- someone who is a committed Liberal may be, in fact, deeply conservative. A Liberal defined by party allegiance only is someone who belongs to, supports financially and otherwise, and votes for the Liberal Party provincially and federally.
A committed liberal, on the other hand, may be a member of the NDP or the Conservatives or no party at all. The defining feature here, and it is elusive, is a belief in societal progress and in the goodness of humanity. Add to this a sense that individuals have certain rights that cannot be withdrawn lawful and you have, broadly drawn, a liberal. To equate liberals to whigs would be fair.
(Of course, many Conservatives would fit this definition of liberal).
Now, in fairness, there is a rough equivalence between Liberals and liberals. Most Liberals are liberals and many, maybe most, liberals are Liberal (at least in voting). But there are enough exceptions to make it impossible to say a Liberal is a liberal or vis-a-versa.
Certainly Red Tories (who are by definition Conservatives) are liberals. And there are Liberals who do not believe the world improves over time or that humanity is basically good.
So why the discussion at all? Perhaps because it is easy to confuse party loyalty with political sagacity. In truth what matters is whether someone is liberal -- the colour of their Party's sign is, ultimately, not all that important.
The American Republican Party was the party that ended slavery while the Democratic Party historically supported slavery and segregation -- party names are not a steady guide to their policies.
Put otherwise, wouldn't Joe Clark have been (wasn't he in fact) a great liberal Prime Minister?
2 comments:
An interesting topic, but I've always thought that "liberalism" revolved around the concept of freedom which in turn leads to a balance between positive and negative liberty.
Those who think humanity is more or less good emphasize positive liberties, those who think humanity is more or less evil emphasize negative liberties, and those who don't think human is essentially good or evil (like me) shoot for somewhere in the middle.
I agree that the broad definition of liberal should include societal progress and the defense of individual rights, but I'm not sure that "a belief in the goodness of humanity" quite fits the bill. Perhaps I should state that the latter attribute isn't limited to liberalism.
I think that most people, including many Liberals, liberals, Conservatives, conservatives, NDPers, etc. have a basic belief in the goodness of humanity. It would be a pretty sad world indeed if that were not the case.
Post a Comment