Leftist physician - Heal thyself!
were finally getting through
American politics have been fractious since the founding.
Remember Aaron Burr and Alexander hamilton. At least we don’t fight duels anymore. I can give dozens of examples in the years since, but I won’t bother since the Financial Times doesn’t care anyway.
Republicans shouldn’t worry about the Financial Times and their bogus analysis. They even stoop to using an irrelevant meaning of “conservative” to try to bolster their argument.
How about they look this one up: “disingenuous”.
These leftist morons do not realize that we want to return to the Constitution, not destroy it as they have done.
Why do I get a page asking me to subscribe, and when I delete that page I no longer see the page your link directs me to? Not that I really care what the left wing rag has to say.
Hillary is asked to name one accomplishment in the last six years. We should also ask the current congress the same question. I’m betting both will come up with the same answer, “I don’t know.”
From “The Road to Serfdom”, F. A. Hayek;
“The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adorning tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”(1)
“I use the term “liberal” in the nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free markets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in which it means almost the opposite.” (2)
(1) Entire passage from The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek, 1956 preface.
(2) this quote from the 1994 introduction by Milton Friedman.
Here is another quote from “The Road to Serfdom”;
“It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adorning tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
have to sign up. ain’t gonna happen.
Holding accountable politicians who ran on one agenda and went to DC and did the opposite is “scorched earth” politics?
I guess to a flaming Leftist like this author, things like promise, decency and honor are incomprhehensiable