Liberalism in America

Intercollegiate Studies Institute ^ | Fall 1991 | Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

[kjvail]

Liberalism in America by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 44 THE INTERCOLLEGIATE REVIEW—Fall 1997 Liberalism in America Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn In spite of local and temporal differences, the authentic meaning of liberalism is understood correctly throughout the world, with the possible exception of contemporary America. Whereas “democracy” answers the question: “Who should rule?” and answers that it is directly or indirectly the majority of politically equal citizens, liberalism answers the question: “How should government be exercised?” Whatever the form of government, the exercise of power should not prevent citizens from enjoying the greatest amount of liberty compatible with the Common Good. (Not even the most celebrated liberal has the right to drive 100 miles per hour through a village.) Democracy can be liberal or illiberal, but while an absolute monarchy cannot be democratic, it can be liberal. The monarchy of Louis XIV, who allegedly said “I am the State,” was in many ways far more liberal than a number of modern democracies. He could not require an annual income tax or conscript his subjects for military service, nor could he issue a law banning champagne from dinner tables. Conversely, many of the horrors of the French Revolution were democratic (but not liberal).

[kjvail]

A poster had noted he didn't see much of Herr Leddihn around here these days, so I thought I'd throw some more into the mix. In addition to this a interested person might look at his lectures posted on ISI website

Is Collectivism Inevitable? — Panel Discussion and "Neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism"

[Theophane]

Unfortunately, Kuehnelt Leddihn is deceased, but I certainly agree he is well worth reading.

Also in the same vein, Frederick Wilhelmsen.

[Chi-townChief]

I see the late Leddhin is confused about the l-word.

[subterfuge]

" the authentic meaning of liberalism is understood correctly throughout the world, with the possible exception of contemporary America."

It's contemporary LIBERALS in America that don't understand the authentic meaning of liberalism. They think it means be all things to all people.

[kjvail]

I just got to the end of this essay - this man was awesome his expression manages to completely eviscerate his opponent without resulting to base polemics:

Contemporary liberalism reveals its hedonistic character with the mass murder of the unborn. What we have in the West is Childermass of “unwanted life,” similar to the practices of National and International Socialism in Europe and East Asia. What did Nicolas Gomez Davila, brightest thinker on the Right, tell us? “The cult of man must be celebrated with human sacrifices.” As a result, pregnant women no longer walk as cradles but as swinging coffins.

WOW.... that's gotta leave a mark

[xcamel]

Eight years later and people still insist on wasting $30,000 a semester for their kids to learn how to twist the language. "Liberals = The Liberated"

Whatta Maroon!

[headsonpikes]

Socialism is ultimately a Cult of Death.

That is why it's result is always some form of genocide.

No mystery here.

[Dumb_Ox]

^