As a Brit, I struggle discussing politics with Americans for this very reason! In America 'liberal' seems to be used just to encompass anything that isn't conservative, whereas both of those terms actually mean something very specific here.
I struggle with this, as well. Typically, people in the U.S. categorize "liberal" as being open to change. That in and of itself is not a philosophy. Everyone is open to change when it suits them. I've become interested in liberalism over the past few years and am trying my best to give meaning to the philosophy. I LOVE that Larry David profile picture!
By the English definition Margaret thatcher was a radical economic liberal and not a conservative. But by the American definition she was a conservative.
Tom Richey progressivism is the ideology of perpetual change. But I would say it’s for malign intent. I don’t believe progressivism as much as people claim otherwise is for the betterment of man. It’s a more bifurcated system of us and them. The “us” being the party or the “leaders”. The clintons are an obvious example. And the them is the proletariat. Nowhere more was this idea expressed than under communism. The party and their family had the best food the best cars and could leave the country. The proletariat were told where to live, decision about food were made for them. And if they had a car at all they had to wait in a long line for years on end to get a god awful trabbant. Which may have been their single unit of independence.
+Tom Richey However... as another Dane ... This doesn't seem like the whole story. I assume Thomas Paine took offset in classical liberalism - right? So ... How do you put Agrarian Justice into the framework you describe? I can't see that it in any way can be called "laissez-faire". We have laissez-faire liberalists in Europe... I would call them anarcho-capitalists. However, all "liberalist" parties in Denmark does acknowledge the role of goverment for more than protecting your freedom. An example would be (as Thomas Paine argued) providing equal access to education regardless of the financial situation of your parents.
You just clarified a lot for me. Now I know why I get such a backlash from Americans when I say I'm a liberal. I thought it was so weird since your country was founded by "liberals" in the sense that I'm familiar with the word.
Glad I could help clear this up! I'm in the Netherlands right now and someone said to me, "Our government is led by the Liberals... Kind of like your Conservatives." I couldn't help but chuckle a little!
+PotatoMasher1234 Study the economic measures of Fascism and you'll find their Left wing. Hitler literally had 4 year planned economies, that actually never stopped planning. The Wikipedia page on Economics of Fascism will show it. I'll explain,Communism was pro military, so were fascistsCommunism was pro controlled Economy(more so), so are our examples of Fascism from the pastCOmmunism was racist(numerous genocides), so are fasciststhe only way fascists were conservative was their fanatical insistence on the separate spheres of the sexes, literally giving medals to women who had X amount of children. Australia on the other hand, was the first nation to give women the right to vote....with classical liberalism being dominant at the time.....SO HELL NO THEY AREN"T FASCISTS.
American Populist can come off as many ways. The Alt-Right have all, but clinched Trump(A Proto-Fascist, proto because he doesn't buy into all of the philosophy of Fascism) as the Republican nominee(Andrew Klavan speaks on this a lot). They are very pro free speech, but they have yet to realize as a group that the rights they want for themselves apply to people who disagree too. Which is why Trump bashes protestors at his rallies, but offers to pay the legal fees for whoever punches a protestor. The Left's populist movement is the Progressive(Regressive) Movement that is literally pushing insanity in various forms, that's another conversation though. The only linkage in American populism on both sides is that the current system is corrupt and needs real changes. that Iron Triangles between the congressional committees, Agencies and companies are terrible in most cases and that there should be a shake up. Both populist movements above are authoritarian, but I would argue, the Progressive/Regressive movement being far more so. So, yeah they're both kind of Fascist. But Fascism doesn't = Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism.
oh God thank you, as an italian, I never understood why when I told americans I'm a liberal, they looked at my like I was a sort of russian spy or something...
Tom Richey Im from Denmark and the only thing i learned my entire life is that liberalism is kind of on the right side of the political scale, but i never understood why my law teacher told me that if you where are liberal in the states you would be more kind of a Social-Liberal. But thanks for the video! helped me a lot! :)
+Nicklas Møller Traditional Liberalism would be considered the right side. Modern American Liberalism is Socialist/communist mix. Traditional Liberalism is more closely compared to modern day Libertarian.
Wealth re-distribution seems to happen under both left AND right wing ideologies - at least in America. Under left-wing politics it would be the classic robin hood tax; take from the rich and give to the poor. Under right-wing politics it's the reverse of the robin hood tax; take from the poor give to the rich.
Absolutely not. "Liberalism" is originally a political term that arises in opposition to (monarchical) absolutism, not an economic term that arises in opposition to the state. What you call "classical" liberalism in nineteenth-century Europe was fully integrated into the two-party system then dominant in most European countries (and which is basically the one that continues running in the United States) and did not question either the state or the political power in general, nor the representative system in particular. And, of course, it had nothing to do with the metaphysical anti-statism professed by today's self-styled "libertarians." Neither Gladstone, nor Sagasta, nor Giolitti, nor any "classical liberal" politician had absolutely nothing to do intellectually with Rothbard or Nozick.
This video helped me a lot. Currently, in Civics, we are learning about the Democratic Party, and my teacher keeps on saying that Liberals tend to put a lot of government into your life, while conservatives tend to want very limited government. Being interested in European history and politics, I found that very confusing, as it should be the other way around. Now I found out that what I am thinking of is classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism. It's almost like the US switched the two around.
Modern British liberalism is something in between; we believe in freedom of speech, free enterprise etc but there is an emphasis on equality of opportunity which doesn't exist in classical liberalism. That means the breaking up of harmful monopolies, some regulation and anti-discrimination laws based for innate factors.
Hi Tom, Some input from Europe here. We have a problem with your liberals as well. They go into several fractions of which the social liberals are the largest one by far. Someone who would promote laissez-faire over here would most probably be called Libertarian or neo-liberals. Most liberal parties in parliaments around Europe are Social liberalistic in their take on the world. Hence, I'm afraid that it's about the same people that calls themselves liberals here as at your place. We who actually are liberals (real ones) have to state this by calling us libertarians.
So, in many cases, our plights are similar! Anywhere you go in today's world, the word "liberal" lacks meaning in and of itself and needs to be clarified.
I think that the generalization you made about modern liberalism in America favoring social freedoms and economic regulation is a bit deceptive. Modern American Liberalism and Conservatism both have regulatory and free styles on a number of specific social issues. For example, gun control is a quality of modern American liberalism and it is a social issue not an economic issue, juxtaposed to conservatism which advocates for gun rights. When it comes to marriage, i know more conservatives who want the government to stay out of marriage completely than conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage. I'd say the only social issues liberals are pro choice about that conservatives aren't are drugs and abortion. Other than that, they are on a regulation frenzy where conservatives are on an anti-regulation frenzy. Liberalism is becoming increasingly anti-free speech with the SJW and PC movements.
Ithilies Shnipes These PC people who you claim exist are a fictional representation of the new conservatives aka the alt right. They don't exist in the numbers that you believe. It is you who is being deceptive.
Pacific Alliance The PC and SJW movements are leftist movements; they are not conservatives. The alt-right is a conservative movement that has nothing to do with PC. You have no idea what you're talking about.
many conservatives in US also hates LGBT, at the same time, american liberals support LGBT,| it's not only about drugs and abortion, but gender identity too
As a non-American liberal or a libertarian in American sense i always found their self proclaimed liberals closer to our social democrats in political spectrum.
Pretty biased video. The term has not been "bastardized"; it has just changed meaning. Your kind are now called libertarians. It could be argued that just about every political term has been "bastardized" in some way. Socialism originally referred to a society in which the proletariat owns the means of production publicly. Now, people think socialism is a dictatorship with redistribution of wealth, which is completely false. Also, social democracy does not equate to socialism. Libertarianism was originally used as a term for what is more or less anarchism. Now, it refers to classical liberals. Anarchism originally referred to collectivism and opposition to authority with basically a communist society. Now, anarchists are thought of as insane people who want to destroy government and society. Those are libertarians, not anarchists. I could go on.
Pretty biased comment. You certainly could go on! However, economic liberalism even today continues to mean an advocacy for free markets everywhere except for the U.S. American liberalism has its own Wikipedia page, as its meaning is different than it is anywhere else. No matter what your thoughts on my interpretation, this short talk helps American students understand what they need to know about the origins of liberalism. I appreciate you watching my videos and leaving multiple comments!
Tom Richey Yes, you do have a point there. I even get annoyed with the American usage of the word because it leads to confusion when discussing European politics. I much prefer the term "progressive" for the common American left-wing ideology. I agree that this video is necessary since many students have misconceptions about classical liberalism and assume it is socialist in nature. I apologize if I came off as rude, and I understand we all have our opinions; I just think that as an educator you are obligated to be a bit more objective. Your videos are very entertaining and informative though, so keep it up.
I, too, hope that the term "progressive" will continue to gain traction, as I think it is far more accurate. The beauty of teaching on TH-cam is that I'm not obligated to do anything except produce content that connects with people. My favorite teachers were those who had opinions yet allowed disagreement. I prefer to be pretty transparent with my students about my political leanings so everyone is aware and no one ever sees me as trying to "sneak anything in" so to speak. On the other hand, my students - both here on TH-cam and in my classroom - know when I'm speaking in a formal and informal voice. These Drive Home videos are just my musings on my drive home from work, where most of my lectures are more formal. I say all of this only to explain myself, as it looks like you're a new subscriber who I am hoping to see in the comments on a regular basis. I appreciate this chat!
American Liberalism seeks equality of outcome (fair share, wage gap, livable wage, etc). European Liberalism seeks equality of opportunity (equal protections, anti-biased market, less favoritism)
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the split in the 60s and 70s when the Libertarian philosophy came into being. The Progressives took the name Liberal and the Classical Liberals coined themselves Libertarians.
Just to add to the debate. The Liberal party in the UK is very much like your American definition. I would further add there is a broad European consensus that access to health, education and a decent standard of income is a universal right provided by the state. Paine would have approved.
Nice history lesson- the reality and bastardization of the term "liberal" is lost on most people today- and both parties engage in misrepresenting the term to their own ends regularly. At least there is one thing that should be all too clear to anyone who has heard themselves equate "liberal" with "socialist" and that is they are very different. The fact is, most Americans are more liberal minded than conservative minded but special interests have diluted definitions to the point of obscurity, and that is by design... never for one minute think that it isn't. ...and for the record? Modern conservatives believe in financial welfare for corporations and govt meddling in public affairs on corporate behalf whereas modern liberals believe in financial welfare for the people and govt meddling in public affairs on society's behalf. What I find so tragic is no matter which side is leading the race at the minute- both sides ultimately believe in corporate welfare in actual practice. The only difference is in the words they speak... but actions have always spoken louder as the cliche goes.
***** You sound like you have an agenda. Oh, and American Libertarianism was tried, and found lacking a few decades back- basically modern American Libertarianism amounts to apologizing for the market kicking it's butt to the curb and trying to force it back into play despite it being contradictory to it's own ideals. American Libertarians are hypocrites. Still might make for a good video.
right on... I just said almost exactly the same thing on another post. Why are we seemingly a minority when these are the facts? Research hyper reality if you haven't already (bet you have) be well
I think one of the main reasons this confusion arose was because the founding ideology of the United States was classical liberalism. So to be a conservative in the United States is to favor classical liberalism. That's the ideology they want to conserve. Whereas in Europe, conservatives usually want to preserve a very different kind of order.
Good explanation. In my country, Brazil, we the advocates of economic freedom call ourselves "liberals", following classical European liberalism. Not all of us are aware of the meaning of "liberalism" in the USA, though. This could lead to misunderstanding and confusion when reading about or discussing politics and economics in English, especially since most of us learn American English in school. I have one question, though: is classical European liberalism in the same line as what is called "libertarianism" in the US? Could one translate our word for classical liberalism to "libertarianism" in English?
arsnakehert There are some subtle differences, but broadly, yes - someone who subscribes to classical liberal principles in the U.S. would call themselves a libertarian, as anyone claiming to be a liberal would be understood as believing in active government. Hopefully, this discrepancy will be cleared up at some point, but American "liberalism" is so entrenched in people's minds that it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Mostly true, however, Modern American Liberals by and large are followers of Social liberalism, which does believe in the free market, but believes there has to be meaningful rules, regulations, and oversight to truly keep it free and prevent Crony Capitalism. They also believe in social safety nets during times of economic hardship, and providing more equal opportunities. If they believed in higher taxes, more regulations, and a harder push towards economic equality, as opposed to just equal opportunities, they'd be moving more toward Social democracy, but they don't.
American liberalism = progressivist social democracy European liberalism is loosely equivalent to libertarianism But then there are all sorts of combinations of social and economic positions to take, e.g. Thatcher was an economic liberal but a strict authoritarian social conservative.
He does indeed - one might argue that the UK Conservative Party has more in common at the moment with the Democrats than the Republicans. In terms of political beliefs I'd probably put Obama, Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and probably even Tony Blair around the same part of the political spectrum. Obviously the Tories have some backbench MPs who are more radical and would be more like the Republicans just as the Democrats would have representatives that are more social democrat-leaning and would be at home in the Labour Party.
I support universal healthcare... but that’s really it, other than that I don’t really care what the government does. Unless they start unnecessary wars.. ooooo that’s already the case isn’t it. IM THE POOPY PEE PEE MAN OOOGYBOOGYBOOGY!
wrong. Liberalism is the same about everywhere. The only problem is that, in fascist US America, they are perceived as left. No classic liberal politician in Europe has ever questioned universal healthcare, for example. It's a given throughout Europe.
While it's true that most European liberals are more pro a freer market many countries are strongly influenced by social liberalism. However in Sweden where I'm from a social liberal wouldn't at all be seen as a leftist as we're pro a mixed market and the real leftists, meaning socialists and to some extent social democrats focus on planned economy far more than social liberals. I think one big problem when comparing even social liberalism with American is that the US is so much more right leaning than a lot of the liberal European countries, what's considered being right and conservative here (which often is even social conservative) would at best often be considered centre in the US.
I don’t think European liberals want the government to stay out of their economic freedom. In fact, for the most part it’s quite the opposite. European governments have a heavy hand in the economy, tons of regulations, income redistribution, high taxes, unions and so on. This is essentially what American liberals are trying to achieve
Tom, while you are correct to draw a line between the connotation of the term "Liberalism" on either side of the pond, you are incorrect when you assert that American Liberalism seeks to push government out of the citizen's personal life. In fact, the American Liberal seeks to increase the presence of government at nearly every turn, in nearly all aspects of the citizen's life. You are confusing "Liberalism" and "Libertarianism", the latter being the ideology in America that seeks to push government out of the citizen's personal life. Take the issue of marriage, for example. Is it your contention that the American Liberal seeks to push government out of this area of one's personal life like the American Libertarian does? Not so. It is the American Libertarian that wants government out of marriage altogether, but the American Liberal seeks to increase the power of government in this area by enforcing gay marriage laws. Take the issue of health care. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants government out of this area of personal choice? Take the issue of government incentives for the personal consumption of "green" technology such as residential solar PV systems and wind turbines. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants the government to play a smaller role in driving personal consumption choices in a so-called "free" market? Take the issue of abortion. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to see the government less involved in directing tax payer money to abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood? Take the issue of the personal Federal income tax. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to abolish this tax like the American Libertarian, or increase it like "Liberal" Bernie Sanders and other "Liberals" on the Left? Take the issue of the 2nd Amendment. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to strengthen this Constitutional right? I think not. Take the issue of the 1st Amendment. Is it your contention that the American Liberal seeks to ensure this bedrock Freedom for all citizens, in all places, for example, for Conservatives on college campuses? Please point to an area where the American Liberal wants government out of my personal life, thank you. Maybe the legalization of drugs, but really, is that all there is?
+Garrett Lees Some of your points are well-taken. I think that American "Liberalism" has been heavily influenced by Progressivism to a point where even the remnants of the old social liberal philosophy (JFK was probably the last true American "liberal" to serve as president) are gone. I would take issue with identifying Bernie Sanders as a liberal because he has rejected the label for the progressive and socialist labels. The tension that currently exists on the American Left has put the old "liberal" Clinton faction against the more openly progressive Sanders faction. The general point of this video was to explore briefly how North Americans define liberalism differently than the rest of the world does. A more thorough exposition would take some more deliberation on my part and this talk may be ready for an update. Thanks for initiating a dialogue.
Yes, I take your point about the Clinton vs. Sanders factions, although I might argue that rather than there being a major difference in their ideologies, when push comes to shove their divide is one of expedience -- a struggle among fellow travelers for political power with some minor policy differences -- and that the bulk of their supporters are invested in the cult of personality (form) rather than platform (substance). My real contention, which I realize I didn't make clear in my opening volley (and by the way, I think you're a stand-up guy and I agree with you on every single other aspect of your talk, which I enjoyed thoroughly and found informative and helpful!), is that while it may appear the American Liberal wants government out of his own personal life (for his own sake), the net effect of his actions is that government becomes more involved in MY life. In other words, rather than removing the government from the equation altogether like the American Libertarian seeks to do, the American Liberal serves to strengthen and grow government for his own benefit at the expense of other citizens who disagree. I am reminded of Frederic Bastiat's, The Law: "What are the people's three choices when dealing with legal plunder? The few plunder the many, everybody plunders everybody, nobody plunders anybody." I do not identify the American Liberal as being in the third category as I do the American Libertarian. And finally: “Socialism [with which I identify modern-day American "Liberalism"], like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education...We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
+Garrett Lees I'm a big fan of Bastiat's work. I hope to make a video or two about him sometime. Have you seen my recent video about Kant? If not, I think you'd like it!
funny girl Sure, but the Founding Fathers were still not fond of taxes, seeing it as a neccessary evil. Which is why the wanted the State to be as small as possible.
What is really interesting to me is this: most all of us believe it is wrong to steal, but we run to the voting booth believing that voting en masse to give a small group of people the power to take from others to pay for what we want (or, to steal on our behalf) is morally justified. I've always thought this moral dichotomy was perplexing... and sad.
Well, talking about tax. It's actually not state sanctioned stealing, but robbery i.e a worse form of the crime. This since stealing is done without threat to a person (most often without their knowledge), robbery on the other hand is taking what's not yours from directly from another person (who is attending and conscious about it) under a certain degree of threat (of some kind). In the case of tax there is actually a threat of force since the government threatens to enjail you if you do not pay your taxes. Enprisonment = violence in legal terms as much as smaking someone in the face or shooting them. Hence...taxation is government sanctioned robbery (armed at that if the police gets involved).
Hi again, Maybe you should get one thing sorted. There are no direct socialist states in Europe in a classical meaning. There are however Social democratic states. Saying social democrats are socalists are about as right as saying that your democartic party is a liberal party...which they arn't. Socialist/communism wouldn't give two cents for the market economy or capitalism...social democratic views does....it bases it self on it.
European states that were liberated by the US during WWII were forced to become social democracies. That plan was already laid out. The people didn't have a choice in it. My country voted Conservative and Liberal (the classic small government kind) since the 1860's and they still did after the world wars until the early 1970's.
Your "socialism" is an ideological scarecrow. My God, and is this the best that the country that boasts of the best universities and one of the highest rates of human development on the planet can offer?
That said, when Republicans talk about economic liberty, they really mean that the rich should pay less taxes and poor people should have the "freedom" not to get government support.
+They Have A Cavetroll Not trueRepublicans look at the economic history of the War on Poverty from LBJ and the Economic prolongations of the Great Depression(A stupid Federal Reserve at the time) and say this, "WHY are we redistributing wealth through government?" Government agencies have overhead or departmental costs well over 60%. Meaning every dollar towards Food Stamps, maybe 30% is actually feeding people. Then they look at charities, which have their own regulatory functions, and see they have overhead costs of like 20% being high. That means at least 80% of every dollar goes to feeding people. Conservatives often live in a VERY DIFFERENT WORLD IN REGARDS TO CHARITY.A book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks analyzes people's different political ideologies and how much of their income goes to charities. Overhwelming conservatives give way more. Not even close. SO they scratch their head at (American) Liberals saying they need to give up money in taxes, when those same people aren't donating as much. Also, economic principles, such as the Laffer Curve, show that taxing people overly leads to less federal revenue because of decreased growth in the economy. SO the Republican party and many conservative factions are moving towards the X-TAX. A policy designed to be just as rogressive as our current system, but doesn't involve income taxes. Ths is to drastically stimulate Investment savings and the savings of families. While Education is the best way to rise in career and socio-economic status(which is why conservatives support School Vouchers, better education for students) the savings and returns from interest is the best way to grow wealth over time in size and in safety. Conservatives do poll as caring less about poor people in political polls, but all evidence show they care a lot more in charitable organizations and service work. SO NO, your comment was false. Feel free to fact check me, but read more than single post and understand the bias of an author or website. Salon.com and Thinkprogress are just not going to give (American) Conservatism a fair shake.
+Grizzly_Conservative If Republicans really looked at the history of economics, they would see that the economy was best of when taxes and wages were high. In this country there are people who work full-time jobs, who still can't afford to feed their children. These people should not be forced to live off charity. Are you saying food stamps shouldn't be a thing because they'e not efficient enough? Dude, the US wastes incredible sums of money on a military that is larger than the ones of the next countries combined, on subsidies for corporations that don't need them, on corporate welfare. Cutting food stamps is literally the last thing we should do. You know why conservatives give more to charity? Because conservatives tend to be older, rich, white people. They give more away because they have more to give away. Of course you shouldn't tax people overly. There can be too high taxes. Guess what: We're not even close to being at that point. There are profitable corporations who pay zero taxes. And people like Romney, who avoid paying taxes by hiding their money offshore. Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. The economy was doing very well back then. I'm not saying that's what we need, I'm saying we're a long way from taxes being too high. The idea of the X-tax is, that you don't pay taxes for what you make, but only for what you spend, right? So when a rich person, who makes 500 000 $ a year buys a car for 20 000 $, they pay... let's say 5000 $ in consumption tax. That means that guy pays 1% of his money on taxes (on the car alone). When a middle class person, who makes 100 000 $ a year, buys a car for the same price, that person pays the same consumption tax, which makes up 5 % of his money. So under that system poor and middle class people would pay higher tax rates than the rich, considering that the rich only spend a small part of their money and just sit on the rest. If savings are the best way to grow wealth, you are really saying that only wealth creates wealth. Don't you see that's problematic? Only rich people benefit from that kind of a system. In my comment I said that conservatives don't want government support for the poor, then you argued how food stamps are bad. I also said they want the rich to pay less taxes, then you argues we should have a tax system that benefits the rich. So thanks for proving my point.
They Have A Cavetroll Republicans do look at the history of economics if you just look at when we had growth and when we had high taxes, yeah you'll get that conclusion, but then the 1800s would also point that we shouldn't have a Federal Reserve....Republicans are Monetarists...Correlation doesn't mean causation. Arthur C. Brooks is arguably the most preeminent economist on the Conservative side and HE WILL NOT SHUT UP ABOUT POVERTY. He doesn't believe in that poor people are poor because they don't work hard and all that rhetoric and thought has been killed since 2012. Seriously, conservatives are not thinking that way anymore and didn't much then either. AND GOD no, conservatives don't want to end food stamp!!!! That's why they have work for food stamp laws being passed in Maine and Missouri. These only require 15 hours of community service a week or a part time job! it's easy really. actually expanded the benefits....but the people on food stamps dropped upwards of 50%.....people weren't willing to pick up a part time job or do some community service work, like 2 days worth....that's a bipartisan effort in those states by the way. That stuff shouldn't be controversial and that's what conservatives want. Arthur C. Brooks goes into the demographics of the conservatives that give to charities.....there was no real difference based on socio-economic status except at the poverty and near poverty rates and no real difference based on race....it was a matter of value system and principles only.....read the book or a review of it. Conservatives don't like corporations that pay zero taxes either, that's why they talk about off shore holdings as well. The ONLY reason Eisenhower presided over 90% tax rates was because we were coming off of WW2 and every other industrialized nation was destroyed...Canada and Australia being exceptions, but they weren't very industrialized compared to Europe and America. The X-Tax is progressive on its pension tax and consumption taxes.
They Have A Cavetroll The X-Tax, as I mentioned is all about consumption taxes, so that income isn't taxed. This is to increase the Savings-investment Identity. All savings = All investment. Proven Economic principle. Investment, or IG currently makes up 15% of the economy. Investment spending decreases always precede a recession, always in our history. It's going down right now. Not good. The point of the X-Tax is to be JUST AS PROGRESSIVE... Completely missed that earlier, but that's alright. If you don't tax income, people can save their money. Savings is the greatest inter-generational tool for climbing socio-economic statuses. It's how you get the impoverished out of poverty. If interest rates were normal, they aren't right now(they're artificial), the poor could be offsetting what they lose in wages and inflation with savings and interest from every month. interest rates are near zero....they can't save and there is not incentive to save, so there is no investment meaning sooner or later there is going to be a large crash. The X-Tax is about helping the poor and the economy more than anything. IT'S JUST AS PROGRESSIVE...it you increase the incentive and especially the ability to save, then you can really raise people out of poverty. I have lived in poverty, I don't hate the poor. it's actually my number one voting concern and has been for a long time. Coservatives don't hate the poor. seriously, ARTHUR C. BROOKS. Just listen to his TEDxTalks. He is a very genial and nice man that regardless of anyone's political positions, will likely find endearing and honest. If you have any other concerns or remarks, feel free to ask, even if they are strawman arguments like above. Intentional or not, they were, but I don't care. Discussion in the market place of ideas is great and I appreciate the discussion thus far. My caps lock isn't me yelling, I just want that to stick out. thank you for reading this.
+Grizzly_Conservative Republicans keep saying all we need to do to fix the economy is lower taxes. So they are the ones who claim there's a causation. Only what they say is the opposite of what the evidence shows. So there's a conservative author who doesn't think poor people are scum. Wow, I'm impressed. But, yes, other conservatives still think that. Bill O'Reilly is a good example. I didn't say conservatives want to end food stamps, but the Republican house did vote to cut food stamps by 40 billion $. And that should be controversial. More than half of all donations to charity are from the over-60s according to a new report by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) and Bristol University. So there is an age factor and since conservatives are older, that could definitely be an explanation. No, I won't read that book. Sorry. Republicans don't like corporations paying less taxes? Right, that's why all the candidates are running on a platform of really cracking down at business and increasing their taxes, right? Oh wait... they're doing the opposite. What does WWII have to do with taxes? Seriously, explain. Some rich people spend 10% or less of what they make. Middle class spends up to 100% or even more. So under the X-tax, poor and middle class will pay a higher rate.
I have to disagree on one aspect of American Liberalism. Here in the US, the liberals do, by and large, want government involved in our social liberty as much as in our economy. A purely liberty based approach would not have government penalizing thought as is done in hate crime statutes (and not very well, either). American liberals are coercive in forcing people to act against their own deeply held beliefs (cake shops and gays, religious charities and abortion coverage, etc). While this also has an economic aspect, forced association is also a social aspect of American Liberalism. Basically, American liberals don't believe you have the right to or are capable of independent thinking and choosing your own path in either a social or economic sense.
+Deck Ape PREACH! I think you have a point that the 1960s JFK kind of liberalism is largely dead in this country. I would contend, though, that progressivism is a more appropriate term to use for today's American left.
Deck Ape Abortion rights is part of liberalism and theres no american liberalism, its social liberalism, if its sjws, its not liberalism, but progressivism(socialism/marxism)
+The Intellectual Gold Standard I tend to refer to myself as a conservative liberal but for all practical purposes, yes, my way of thinking is largely rooted in the principles of classical liberalism.
I would add that a similarity both 19th century classical liberalism and modern American liberalism hold in common is the notion of "progress." Modern American liberals have a tendency to view the conditions that came out of the industrial revolution as disastrous and thus in need of some kind of government interference to change and improve the lives of the growing (and increasingly economically/politically disenfranchised) urban working class. Similarly, liberals of the 19th century viewed the mercantile economic system as antiquated and designed to encroach upon the liberties of those without landed noble titles and/or political power and keep them in a place of subordination - and thus, viewed the notion of free trade as a progressive ideal to which people ought to aspire.
I read a response you posted on another comment that effectively stated change is not necessarily a political philosophy insofar as it serves to benefit anyone who may advocate it. While I agree to an extent, I might add to my own comment, that conservatism both in 19th century Europe and modern day America is alleged to uphold "traditional" values. This, to me, suggests progress vs. tradition is a rational and valid trope to introduce as integral to, if not representative of, liberal and conservative political philosophies.
Maybe you could put this into the list of French Revolution? Because the Liberal Phase of French Revolution confounded me ( What is this Liberalism trying to achieve in the Declaration of the Rights of Man & Citizen???) until I heard that you made a video about classical Liberalism. Maybe putting this video into the list will make things much easier. Also, please please please finish the French Revolution series as soon as possible!!!
Liberalism is not the same as liberal, if you want to "teach" people something, at least use the terms right. Liberalism has a real meaning in government, and it is 100% distinct from "liberals." When referring to "liberalism" that is a term used to describe the ideal of liberal democracies, which both American and European conservatives and liberals all support. I really hope you're not an AP History teacher, because you of all people should know what liberalism actually is and isn't.
Not necessarily. Many libertarian parties here in Europe are relatively similar to the US 'Libertarian Party'. However most European libertarians are split between left-libertarianism (maintaining socialist economic structures without use of government) and right-libertarianism (laissez-faire economics but some government involvement in social policy - often to 'protect culture')
No, my friend. Original European political liberalism, which is the only "classic" one, does not have a word to say against the state. "Libertarianism", with the set of metaphysical components that it has today, is a plant fed and born exclusively on American soil, and which is largely reducible to "Rothbardianism". The current that is closest to this trend is not "classical liberalism", but anarchism, although in the American-Rothbardian version all the market mechanisms are preserved, when in most European anarchist currents (not all) tended to disappear. along with the state. If anti-state movements have arisen in Europe that call themselves "libertarian" it has been as a consequence of a direct importation of the term from the United States. In other words, a consequence of the Americanization of Europe.
Most informative drive home ever! You only touched on this point but it's true-- Classical Godfather Liberals believe you should definitely SMOKE whoever you want.
Hey Tom, I'm really liking this channel. Could you possibly do a video which simply explains the US political system vs the UK political system. Thanks!
Classical? Anyway, liberalism in North America and Europe is basically the same, but not entirely...in the modern age. In other words, not all liberals in North America now, are the same.
Regulation is essential to protecting the public interest. Big business doesn't care about the reasons for a regulation nor does it care if the regulation serves a justifiable purpose; it wants to have it's way. If I want to take a shit in middle of the street that is my right attitude is harmful. Modern social liberalism is a justifiable interpretation of classical liberal principles as applied to modern society where such attitudes for pervasive and private power and armies are abundant.
"Who regulates the regulators?" The voters. The miracle of democracy is the distribution of power. This is not "feel good" measure; it an essential component of classical liberal governance. Otherwise we could just go with the libertarians that believe you are allowed to buy power. Or perhaps we can go with Trump and the other fascists that reverse power only for those of which they approve. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!!!
This is something that i find is understated when people talk about liberalism or politics in general, the diffrences between american ideology and european ideology. Most of the time they are just mix together as one, and that complicates things. Great short vid, and drive safe :)
Where does leave the so called UK 'Liberal Party' that held government for much of the early 20th Century?? They introduced early forms of social welfare payments or at least the structures that later British governments built on. Is this the kind of 'limited government' you speak of when you talk about European 'liberalism'?
In order to find the UK Liberal Party practicing classical liberalism, you'd have to go back to their 19th century roots. Gladstone was in every way a classical liberal, but his successors were not. The rise of the Labour Party prompted Liberal Party leaders to introduce social welfare programs in order to stay in power. However, that strategy backfired and the Liberal Party experienced a permanent decline after WWI. Ever since, the Labour Party has been the chief rival of the Conservative Party, which has incorporated economic liberalism into its platform. The Liberal Party became so insignificant that it had to ally with the Social Democratic Party in order to stay relevant - this is the origin of the UK's Liberal Democratic Party. All Liberal Democrats share a belief in "social liberalism," but there is a very vibrant wing of the party that also advocates economic liberalism. Nick Clegg, the current Lib-Dem leader and Deputy PM, is an economic liberal. Remember that the purpose of a political party is to win elections - not to stay true to a philosophy. Political parties - regardless of what they call themselves - will incorporate and distance themselves from true liberalism to the extent that they believe it will make them successful in winning elections.
The Liberal party did not hold power for much of the 20th century. It was mostly the Conservatives and the Labour party. The Liberal Democrat party, as it's now called, believes in both economic and social liberalism, and occupies the middle ground(and only really has the support of a few educated, middle class people). Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are closer to the authoritarian side of the authoritarian-libertarian axis than the Lib Dems, but are on opposite sides of the left-right axis. Neither of them are extremely authoritarian(unlike communists or fascists) The Conservatives only believe in liberty for the rich(laissez-faire capitalism which is economic liberty, but it results in gross inequality and an unjust society). If you are poor, you are free to starve, or be forcefully made to work for nothing, or be made destitute, or die of disease. A choice between virtual slavery or starvation is no choice at all and therefore cannot be considered freedom. Labour are far more egalitarian and support the welfare state, but if you're not from an oppressed minority, such as an ethnic minority, religious group, a woman(actually a majority), and you criticize those groups you become labelled as a racist, misogynist, Islamophobe etc, even if your opinion is a valid criticism. Free speech is stifled by authoritarian political correctness. Unfortunately, it leads to a state where all common sense goes out the window, and you can't do anything, for fear of offending someone, the opposite of liberalism. A true liberal believes in liberty first and foremost and respects the rights of others to hold a differing opinion, including those you find personally repugnant, and allows others to believe in whatever they want, so long as they do not infringe the rights of others. A liberal also believes that the government does not own your body, and it is up to you what you do with it,including taking drugs, drinking, smoking, prostitution, being gay etc, but again only if it is consensual and doesn't harm others. However, liberals believe it is the government's duty to limit the harmful consequences of those freedoms by providing education, healthcare and welfare in an equitable manner.
It gets pretty ambiguous at time but when using the English language you have to use context to determine the meaning (like a lot of English words). For example, if I said "Columbus discovered America" based on context, you would know that this refers to the whole region. If I were to say "America is leading the air strikes on ISIS" then you would know I'm referring to USA. The trick is that one is a political term and the other is geographic and based on the context, you go from there.
In Europe, 'Liberal' refers to the political centre - not left (socialist) or right (conservative). Examples include the governing parties in Britain and Netherlands at the moment. Abolishing capitalism or collectivisation are certainly not on the agenda of European liberals. However, government intervention in the form of regulation and a welfare state are - European liberals are still capitalists but are not dogmatic about it. In this sense, they are actually quite similar to American liberals. Moreover, this is not a 'corruption' of some original, pure form of liberalism. Rather, the argument is that a certain degree of government intervention is precisely what is required to preserve the liberty of citizens. Historical experience tells us that unregulated markets gives rise to predatory, monopoly capitalism, which threatens liberal democracy - hence regulation. And the reason for the welfare state is because acquisition of resources is often (but not always) achieved through the exploitation of workers - this mandates a limited amount of redistribution to create equality of opportunity. Or in other words, to ensure that everyone has equal liberty. Modern liberalism is consist with the classical ideal of liberty if understood properly.
Wrong, the governing party in the Netherlands when you wrote this comment (not governing alone but cooperating with a labour party) is economically right wing and pro liberty.
Am I the only one who gets nervous on how the him looking at the camera vs the him looking at the road ratio is entirely to far skewed in the him looking at the camera direction? I mean I feel like It's a wreck waiting to happen
Politics are a mess in the United States....I'm more of a classical liberal but when you say it to a Conservative, you would get comments like "oh, so you're one of those....SJWs...." 🤦
IThanks so much, I can appreciate this as a classical liberal. I teach poly sci and history at university level and my students struggle to get this idea bc the word liberal has been so associated with progressivism that the idea that it originally meant more libertarianism is hard to grasp
Thank you for making this video. I think that if we threw American liberalism in the toilet as a word, people in America would be less confused about politics. American liberalism compromises because it stabs Marx in the back while singing his praises at the same time. The idea that social justice can be achieved through compromise is as inane as saying that insuring corporate profits will gaurantee that the buying power of the working class will improve because some invisible hand says it will. A true partnership between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would always benefit the proletariat because together would have an equal say. No such thing exists. So we trust liberal asshats on both sides that try to convince us that liberty in one aspect of our life is more important than another. The Democrats saying that our individuality is more important than our ability to feed our offspring, and the conservatives who try to explain that we should entrust our future(as workers) to those who have spent generations of time trying to limit our access to the fruits of our labor, only to reap malcontent offspring with limited education and prospect for the future, while they live off of there golden parachute that prevents them from experiencing hardship or contributing their own labor that might make a difference for people who have never considered investing in anything but food and a place to stay
The change began to happen around the American Great Depression due to many believing that the economic crisis of the depression was caused by laissez faire economic policies of the US. The govt. seized the opportunity to expand power while public sentiment supported such a move and voila. The rest is history. since then the US govt has gradually (and sometimes substantially) expanded power in drastic ways (such as LBJ's Great Society in the 1960's).
Nuestra América You are correct on this. We Americans (oops - I did it again!) have a habit of forgetting that there are other people who live on these continents. There was one person who commented from Brazil who told me that "liberalism" has the same meaning in economic terms that it has in Europe. Most of my audience is in the U.S., so they understand American as U.S. - not Pan-American. All of that being said, I will definitely try harder in the future to be more sensitive about this issue. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Tom Richey Thank you. But "these continents" is plural, there is only one continent named America. Which is geographically made up of two major subcontinental regions, North. and South America. That includes Greenland, and the Antilles. I consider my self a Liberal Progressive.
Tom Richey Europe, and Asia are separate continents. But North Africa, and South Africa are one continent. So is the case with America, a continent. You are smarter than that. Continents are simply regions of land named so as they were discovered. Romans named the European, and African continent, the ancient Greeks named the continent of Asia, and so on. America was named by Martin Waldseemuller, after Amerigo Verpucci. Why doesn't the U.S. consider Europe, and Asia one continent then? Because they aren't. In the case of America, its because the U.S. wants to appropriate the name America/American to apply exclusively to its self. It doesn't. So this idea to claim that the subcontinental regions North and South, are continents, is just an effort (especially since the 1950s) to force the rest of America to qualify their Americanism by prefixing it by regions, as to make America/American without prefix the exclusive use of you gringos. America/American was the name given to the continent/people of the New World by Martin Waldseemuller in 1507 upon the discovery that Cristobal Colon (a native Catalonian) had not found a new route to India, but instead a New World. This New World, this new Hemisphere, was named America. The U.S. seven continent model is informed by Nationalist politics, not geography. It's not the fault of the rest of America that your nations founders didn't give your federation a unique name. America = New World.
Tom Richey Let me ask you a simple question, Is Greenland a continent unto Its self? And why not? Oceania is. Why not Greenland? Could it possibly be because it is part of the region collectively known as the New World, America? There no EuropeS, no AfricaS, no AsiaS, no OceaniaS, no AntarticaS, and no AmericaS. Unless you are referering to the plularity of nation states that are within each continent. The difference here is that the arrogant U.S. wants the name plain America/American for its exclusive use. Just as arrogant and incorrect to say that the European Union member states are Europeans, and non-members aren't (ex: Norway). Even though they all sit in Europe.
I should smoke who I want!
He wants to smoke pole
As long as it is not harming other people
@@kangkotaks grandma's ashes ain't feeling nothing.
@@TheNathanchavez96
r/cursedcomments
As a Brit, I struggle discussing politics with Americans for this very reason! In America 'liberal' seems to be used just to encompass anything that isn't conservative, whereas both of those terms actually mean something very specific here.
I struggle with this, as well. Typically, people in the U.S. categorize "liberal" as being open to change. That in and of itself is not a philosophy. Everyone is open to change when it suits them. I've become interested in liberalism over the past few years and am trying my best to give meaning to the philosophy.
I LOVE that Larry David profile picture!
By the English definition Margaret thatcher was a radical economic liberal and not a conservative. But by the American definition she was a conservative.
Tom Richey progressivism is the ideology of perpetual change. But I would say it’s for malign intent. I don’t believe progressivism as much as people claim otherwise is for the betterment of man. It’s a more bifurcated system of us and them. The “us” being the party or the “leaders”. The clintons are an obvious example. And the them is the proletariat. Nowhere more was this idea expressed than under communism. The party and their family had the best food the best cars and could leave the country. The proletariat were told where to live, decision about food were made for them. And if they had a car at all they had to wait in a long line for years on end to get a god awful trabbant. Which may have been their single unit of independence.
i feel you. thats so strange for me too.
@@danh5637 She is not a CLASSIC Tory
Thank you. As a Dane, this has been very confusing for me for a long time.
Glad I could help!
+Stefan Westermann Same here but I'm a Swede.
+Tom Richey
However... as another Dane ... This doesn't seem like the whole story.
I assume Thomas Paine took offset in classical liberalism - right?
So ... How do you put Agrarian Justice into the framework you describe? I can't see that it in any way can be called "laissez-faire".
We have laissez-faire liberalists in Europe... I would call them anarcho-capitalists.
However, all "liberalist" parties in Denmark does acknowledge the role of goverment for more than protecting your freedom. An example would be (as Thomas Paine argued) providing equal access to education regardless of the financial situation of your parents.
Finn here. I still don't understand why some republicans call (american) liberals socialists??
"smoke who...whatever I like" haha, I'm loving these unedited videos Mr. Richey!
You just clarified a lot for me. Now I know why I get such a backlash from Americans when I say I'm a liberal. I thought it was so weird since your country was founded by "liberals" in the sense that I'm familiar with the word.
Glad I could help clear this up! I'm in the Netherlands right now and someone said to me, "Our government is led by the Liberals... Kind of like your Conservatives." I couldn't help but chuckle a little!
+Tom Richey Did you enjoy The Netherlands? Never really spoke to an American who has visited The Netherlands. What place did you go to?
Classical liberalism is real Liberalism.
The Liberal Party of Australia is economically liberal, and socially conservative.
+PotatoMasher1234 Study the economic measures of Fascism and you'll find their Left wing. Hitler literally had 4 year planned economies, that actually never stopped planning. The Wikipedia page on Economics of Fascism will show it. I'll explain,Communism was pro military, so were fascistsCommunism was pro controlled Economy(more so), so are our examples of Fascism from the pastCOmmunism was racist(numerous genocides), so are fasciststhe only way fascists were conservative was their fanatical insistence on the separate spheres of the sexes, literally giving medals to women who had X amount of children. Australia on the other hand, was the first nation to give women the right to vote....with classical liberalism being dominant at the time.....SO HELL NO THEY AREN"T FASCISTS.
American Populist can come off as many ways. The Alt-Right have all, but clinched Trump(A Proto-Fascist, proto because he doesn't buy into all of the philosophy of Fascism) as the Republican nominee(Andrew Klavan speaks on this a lot). They are very pro free speech, but they have yet to realize as a group that the rights they want for themselves apply to people who disagree too. Which is why Trump bashes protestors at his rallies, but offers to pay the legal fees for whoever punches a protestor. The Left's populist movement is the Progressive(Regressive) Movement that is literally pushing insanity in various forms, that's another conversation though. The only linkage in American populism on both sides is that the current system is corrupt and needs real changes. that Iron Triangles between the congressional committees, Agencies and companies are terrible in most cases and that there should be a shake up.
Both populist movements above are authoritarian, but I would argue, the Progressive/Regressive movement being far more so. So, yeah they're both kind of Fascist. But Fascism doesn't = Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism.
Fascist
I like the sound of that
@@chrismaunder8679 Then you're not liberal
oh God thank you, as an italian, I never understood why when I told americans I'm a liberal, they looked at my like I was a sort of russian spy or something...
Your a good teacher. This video was very informative for me as a European about American liberalism!
So glad to hear that! Honored to have an audience in Europe!
Tom Richey Im from Denmark and the only thing i learned my entire life is that liberalism is kind of on the right side of the political scale, but i never understood why my law teacher told me that if you where are liberal in the states you would be more kind of a Social-Liberal. But thanks for the video! helped me a lot! :)
+Nicklas Møller Traditional Liberalism would be considered the right side. Modern American Liberalism is Socialist/communist mix. Traditional Liberalism is more closely compared to modern day Libertarian.
Wealth re-distribution seems to happen under both left AND right wing ideologies - at least in America.
Under left-wing politics it would be the classic robin hood tax; take from the rich and give to the poor.
Under right-wing politics it's the reverse of the robin hood tax; take from the poor give to the rich.
Classical Liberal = Modern Day Libertarian.
Absolutely not. "Liberalism" is originally a political term that arises in opposition to (monarchical) absolutism, not an economic term that arises in opposition to the state. What you call "classical" liberalism in nineteenth-century Europe was fully integrated into the two-party system then dominant in most European countries (and which is basically the one that continues running in the United States) and did not question either the state or the political power in general, nor the representative system in particular. And, of course, it had nothing to do with the metaphysical anti-statism professed by today's self-styled "libertarians." Neither Gladstone, nor Sagasta, nor Giolitti, nor any "classical liberal" politician had absolutely nothing to do intellectually with Rothbard or Nozick.
This video helped me a lot. Currently, in Civics, we are learning about the Democratic Party, and my teacher keeps on saying that Liberals tend to put a lot of government into your life, while conservatives tend to want very limited government. Being interested in European history and politics, I found that very confusing, as it should be the other way around. Now I found out that what I am thinking of is classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism. It's almost like the US switched the two around.
Yes they did cause there is no left in US you have only right, the democrats and extrême far right the Republicans
"I wanna be able to smoke who I want!"
Modern British liberalism is something in between; we believe in freedom of speech, free enterprise etc but there is an emphasis on equality of opportunity which doesn't exist in classical liberalism. That means the breaking up of harmful monopolies, some regulation and anti-discrimination laws based for innate factors.
Hi Tom,
Some input from Europe here.
We have a problem with your liberals as well. They go into several fractions of which the social liberals are the largest one by far. Someone who would promote laissez-faire over here would most probably be called Libertarian or neo-liberals.
Most liberal parties in parliaments around Europe are Social liberalistic in their take on the world.
Hence, I'm afraid that it's about the same people that calls themselves liberals here as at your place. We who actually are liberals (real ones) have to state this by calling us libertarians.
So, in many cases, our plights are similar! Anywhere you go in today's world, the word "liberal" lacks meaning in and of itself and needs to be clarified.
Isn't libertarianism where you don't eat conservatives
I think that the generalization you made about modern liberalism in America favoring social freedoms and economic regulation is a bit deceptive. Modern American Liberalism and Conservatism both have regulatory and free styles on a number of specific social issues. For example, gun control is a quality of modern American liberalism and it is a social issue not an economic issue, juxtaposed to conservatism which advocates for gun rights. When it comes to marriage, i know more conservatives who want the government to stay out of marriage completely than conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage. I'd say the only social issues liberals are pro choice about that conservatives aren't are drugs and abortion. Other than that, they are on a regulation frenzy where conservatives are on an anti-regulation frenzy. Liberalism is becoming increasingly anti-free speech with the SJW and PC movements.
Ithilies Shnipes These PC people who you claim exist are a fictional representation of the new conservatives aka the alt right. They don't exist in the numbers that you believe. It is you who is being deceptive.
Pacific Alliance The PC and SJW movements are leftist movements; they are not conservatives. The alt-right is a conservative movement that has nothing to do with PC. You have no idea what you're talking about.
many conservatives in US also hates LGBT,
at the same time, american liberals support LGBT,|
it's not only about drugs and abortion, but
gender identity too
I definitely think you should be able to smoke who you want!
I view it as thus: Maynard Keynes ~ American Liberalism. Milton Friedman ~ classical liberalism.
danny mcguire This can work!
*actual liberalism vs. American liberalism
Thank you so much for clarifying this! I guess the European classical liberalism now has a name called libertarianism? I think?
As a non-American liberal or a libertarian in American sense i always found their self proclaimed liberals closer to our social democrats in political spectrum.
Pretty biased video. The term has not been "bastardized"; it has just changed meaning. Your kind are now called libertarians. It could be argued that just about every political term has been "bastardized" in some way. Socialism originally referred to a society in which the proletariat owns the means of production publicly. Now, people think socialism is a dictatorship with redistribution of wealth, which is completely false. Also, social democracy does not equate to socialism. Libertarianism was originally used as a term for what is more or less anarchism. Now, it refers to classical liberals. Anarchism originally referred to collectivism and opposition to authority with basically a communist society. Now, anarchists are thought of as insane people who want to destroy government and society. Those are libertarians, not anarchists. I could go on.
Pretty biased comment. You certainly could go on! However, economic liberalism even today continues to mean an advocacy for free markets everywhere except for the U.S. American liberalism has its own Wikipedia page, as its meaning is different than it is anywhere else. No matter what your thoughts on my interpretation, this short talk helps American students understand what they need to know about the origins of liberalism. I appreciate you watching my videos and leaving multiple comments!
Tom Richey Yes, you do have a point there. I even get annoyed with the American usage of the word because it leads to confusion when discussing European politics. I much prefer the term "progressive" for the common American left-wing ideology. I agree that this video is necessary since many students have misconceptions about classical liberalism and assume it is socialist in nature. I apologize if I came off as rude, and I understand we all have our opinions; I just think that as an educator you are obligated to be a bit more objective. Your videos are very entertaining and informative though, so keep it up.
I, too, hope that the term "progressive" will continue to gain traction, as I think it is far more accurate. The beauty of teaching on TH-cam is that I'm not obligated to do anything except produce content that connects with people. My favorite teachers were those who had opinions yet allowed disagreement. I prefer to be pretty transparent with my students about my political leanings so everyone is aware and no one ever sees me as trying to "sneak anything in" so to speak. On the other hand, my students - both here on TH-cam and in my classroom - know when I'm speaking in a formal and informal voice. These Drive Home videos are just my musings on my drive home from work, where most of my lectures are more formal. I say all of this only to explain myself, as it looks like you're a new subscriber who I am hoping to see in the comments on a regular basis. I appreciate this chat!
American Liberalism seeks equality and Classical European Liberalism seeks liberty?
American Liberalism seeks equality of outcome (fair share, wage gap, livable wage, etc).
European Liberalism seeks equality of opportunity (equal protections, anti-biased market, less favoritism)
European Liberalism seeks also freedom; for example, netherlands has legalized marijuana.
because American Liberalism seeks equality, they want everything to be equal,,
that is why they support LGBT Communities
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the split in the 60s and 70s when the Libertarian philosophy came into being. The Progressives took the name Liberal and the Classical Liberals coined themselves Libertarians.
Insightful and educational. Now what is the difference between a libertarian and a classical liberal?
Libertarianism is just like communism and nazism, a mad brute
One of these days you're going to wind up getting pulled over Tom LOL, liked the video as always :b
Just to add to the debate. The Liberal party in the UK is very much like your American definition. I would further add there is a broad European consensus that access to health, education and a decent standard of income is a universal right provided by the state. Paine would have approved.
Making videos while driving should be banned.
Oldukça sarih ve temiz bir açıklama. Biraz yargılayıcı ve hatta biraz da aşağılayıcı olsa da fkvldşvşgş
Teşekkürler
Nice history lesson- the reality and bastardization of the term "liberal" is lost on most people today- and both parties engage in misrepresenting the term to their own ends regularly.
At least there is one thing that should be all too clear to anyone who has heard themselves equate "liberal" with "socialist" and that is they are very different.
The fact is, most Americans are more liberal minded than conservative minded but special interests have diluted definitions to the point of obscurity, and that is by design... never for one minute think that it isn't.
...and for the record? Modern conservatives believe in financial welfare for corporations and govt meddling in public affairs on corporate behalf whereas modern liberals believe in financial welfare for the people and govt meddling in public affairs on society's behalf.
What I find so tragic is no matter which side is leading the race at the minute- both sides ultimately believe in corporate welfare in actual practice. The only difference is in the words they speak... but actions have always spoken louder as the cliche goes.
*****
You sound like you have an agenda. Oh, and American Libertarianism was tried, and found lacking a few decades back- basically modern American Libertarianism amounts to apologizing for the market kicking it's butt to the curb and trying to force it back into play despite it being contradictory to it's own ideals. American Libertarians are hypocrites.
Still might make for a good video.
*****
No facial expression mixed with posts online are hard to read intent- my apologies for making such a broad assumption. I have no excuse.
right on... I just said almost exactly the same thing on another post. Why are we seemingly a minority when these are the facts? Research hyper reality if you haven't already (bet you have)
be well
I think one of the main reasons this confusion arose was because the founding ideology of the United States was classical liberalism. So to be a conservative in the United States is to favor classical liberalism. That's the ideology they want to conserve. Whereas in Europe, conservatives usually want to preserve a very different kind of order.
Good explanation. In my country, Brazil, we the advocates of economic freedom call ourselves "liberals", following classical European liberalism.
Not all of us are aware of the meaning of "liberalism" in the USA, though. This could lead to misunderstanding and confusion when reading about or discussing politics and economics in English, especially since most of us learn American English in school.
I have one question, though: is classical European liberalism in the same line as what is called "libertarianism" in the US? Could one translate our word for classical liberalism to "libertarianism" in English?
arsnakehert There are some subtle differences, but broadly, yes - someone who subscribes to classical liberal principles in the U.S. would call themselves a libertarian, as anyone claiming to be a liberal would be understood as believing in active government. Hopefully, this discrepancy will be cleared up at some point, but American "liberalism" is so entrenched in people's minds that it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Mostly true, however, Modern American Liberals by and large are followers of Social liberalism, which does believe in the free market, but believes there has to be meaningful rules, regulations, and oversight to truly keep it free and prevent Crony Capitalism. They also believe in social safety nets during times of economic hardship, and providing more equal opportunities. If they believed in higher taxes, more regulations, and a harder push towards economic equality, as opposed to just equal opportunities, they'd be moving more toward Social democracy, but they don't.
i hope i didn't just learn what freudian slip means lmao
American liberalism = progressivist social democracy
European liberalism is loosely equivalent to libertarianism
But then there are all sorts of combinations of social and economic positions to take, e.g. Thatcher was an economic liberal but a strict authoritarian social conservative.
+c0wqu3u31at3r All of these statements are true! Current PM David Cameron considers himself a "liberal conservative."
He does indeed - one might argue that the UK Conservative Party has more in common at the moment with the Democrats than the Republicans. In terms of political beliefs I'd probably put Obama, Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and probably even Tony Blair around the same part of the political spectrum.
Obviously the Tories have some backbench MPs who are more radical and would be more like the Republicans just as the Democrats would have representatives that are more social democrat-leaning and would be at home in the Labour Party.
I support universal healthcare... but that’s really it, other than that I don’t really care what the government does. Unless they start unnecessary wars.. ooooo that’s already the case isn’t it. IM THE POOPY PEE PEE MAN OOOGYBOOGYBOOGY!
Usa democracy 😂😂😂😂😂benjamin franklin was great writing we are american have equal rights in philly i adore that shit😂😂😂😂😂
wrong. Liberalism is the same about everywhere. The only problem is that, in fascist US America, they are perceived as left.
No classic liberal politician in Europe has ever questioned universal healthcare, for example. It's a given throughout Europe.
While it's true that most European liberals are more pro a freer market many countries are strongly influenced by social liberalism. However in Sweden where I'm from a social liberal wouldn't at all be seen as a leftist as we're pro a mixed market and the real leftists, meaning socialists and to some extent social democrats focus on planned economy far more than social liberals. I think one big problem when comparing even social liberalism with American is that the US is so much more right leaning than a lot of the liberal European countries, what's considered being right and conservative here (which often is even social conservative) would at best often be considered centre in the US.
I don’t think European liberals want the government to stay out of their economic freedom. In fact, for the most part it’s quite the opposite. European governments have a heavy hand in the economy, tons of regulations, income redistribution, high taxes, unions and so on. This is essentially what American liberals are trying to achieve
Tom, while you are correct to draw a line between the connotation of the term "Liberalism" on either side of the pond, you are incorrect when you assert that American Liberalism seeks to push government out of the citizen's personal life. In fact, the American Liberal seeks to increase the presence of government at nearly every turn, in nearly all aspects of the citizen's life. You are confusing "Liberalism" and "Libertarianism", the latter being the ideology in America that seeks to push government out of the citizen's personal life.
Take the issue of marriage, for example. Is it your contention that the American Liberal seeks to push government out of this area of one's personal life like the American Libertarian does? Not so. It is the American Libertarian that wants government out of marriage altogether, but the American Liberal seeks to increase the power of government in this area by enforcing gay marriage laws.
Take the issue of health care. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants government out of this area of personal choice?
Take the issue of government incentives for the personal consumption of "green" technology such as residential solar PV systems and wind turbines. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants the government to play a smaller role in driving personal consumption choices in a so-called "free" market?
Take the issue of abortion. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to see the government less involved in directing tax payer money to abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood?
Take the issue of the personal Federal income tax. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to abolish this tax like the American Libertarian, or increase it like "Liberal" Bernie Sanders and other "Liberals" on the Left?
Take the issue of the 2nd Amendment. Is it your contention that the American Liberal wants to strengthen this Constitutional right? I think not.
Take the issue of the 1st Amendment. Is it your contention that the American Liberal seeks to ensure this bedrock Freedom for all citizens, in all places, for example, for Conservatives on college campuses?
Please point to an area where the American Liberal wants government out of my personal life, thank you. Maybe the legalization of drugs, but really, is that all there is?
+Garrett Lees Some of your points are well-taken. I think that American "Liberalism" has been heavily influenced by Progressivism to a point where even the remnants of the old social liberal philosophy (JFK was probably the last true American "liberal" to serve as president) are gone. I would take issue with identifying Bernie Sanders as a liberal because he has rejected the label for the progressive and socialist labels. The tension that currently exists on the American Left has put the old "liberal" Clinton faction against the more openly progressive Sanders faction.
The general point of this video was to explore briefly how North Americans define liberalism differently than the rest of the world does. A more thorough exposition would take some more deliberation on my part and this talk may be ready for an update.
Thanks for initiating a dialogue.
Yes, I take your point about the Clinton vs. Sanders factions, although I might argue that rather than there being a major difference in their ideologies, when push comes to shove their divide is one of expedience -- a struggle among fellow travelers for political power with some minor policy differences -- and that the bulk of their supporters are invested in the cult of personality (form) rather than platform (substance).
My real contention, which I realize I didn't make clear in my opening volley (and by the way, I think you're a stand-up guy and I agree with you on every single other aspect of your talk, which I enjoyed thoroughly and found informative and helpful!), is that while it may appear the American Liberal wants government out of his own personal life (for his own sake), the net effect of his actions is that government becomes more involved in MY life. In other words, rather than removing the government from the equation altogether like the American Libertarian seeks to do, the American Liberal serves to strengthen and grow government for his own benefit at the expense of other citizens who disagree. I am reminded of Frederic Bastiat's, The Law:
"What are the people's three choices when dealing with legal plunder? The few plunder the many, everybody plunders everybody, nobody plunders anybody."
I do not identify the American Liberal as being in the third category as I do the American Libertarian.
And finally:
“Socialism [with which I identify modern-day American "Liberalism"], like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education...We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
+Garrett Lees I'm a big fan of Bastiat's work. I hope to make a video or two about him sometime. Have you seen my recent video about Kant? If not, I think you'd like it!
+Garrett Lees Feel free to email me sometime. I'd like to know more about you and discuss some of this further.
I figured you were a fan of Bastiat's. Thanks, I'm going to take a look at your Kant video, and looking forward to your future Bastiat video.
Doing a documentary while driving. I've never had respect for ones who don't respect other people's lives. Bad example to kids
This is very relevant at the moment, as many Republicans have misinterpreted Brian Deese's words about defending the liberal world order.
Libertarians, maybe?
Taxation WITHOUT representation is what drove us to rebel. Not simply taxation.
funny girl Sure, but the Founding Fathers were still not fond of taxes, seeing it as a neccessary evil. Which is why the wanted the State to be as small as possible.
What about Libertarianism? And why do you call Liberals to the Democrats?
Liberal = conservatives, right in Europe
What is really interesting to me is this: most all of us believe it is wrong to steal, but we run to the voting booth believing that voting en masse to give a small group of people the power to take from others to pay for what we want (or, to steal on our behalf) is morally justified. I've always thought this moral dichotomy was perplexing... and sad.
You sound like someone who has read Bastiat!
Only a few dozen times or so. =)
Well, talking about tax. It's actually not state sanctioned stealing, but robbery i.e a worse form of the crime. This since stealing is done without threat to a person (most often without their knowledge), robbery on the other hand is taking what's not yours from directly from another person (who is attending and conscious about it) under a certain degree of threat (of some kind). In the case of tax there is actually a threat of force since the government threatens to enjail you if you do not pay your taxes. Enprisonment = violence in legal terms as much as smaking someone in the face or shooting them. Hence...taxation is government sanctioned robbery (armed at that if the police gets involved).
Excellent point! Thank you for correcting me, and for reminding me of Spooner's comparison between government and "The Highwayman." =)
Love it. What's your opinion on how so many European nations became socialist states?
***** I agree sir. Sadly, America is on the path or the Road to Serfdom, quoted by the Great F A Hayek.
Hi again,
Maybe you should get one thing sorted. There are no direct socialist states in Europe in a classical meaning. There are however Social democratic states. Saying social democrats are socalists are about as right as saying that your democartic party is a liberal party...which they arn't.
Socialist/communism wouldn't give two cents for the market economy or capitalism...social democratic views does....it bases it self on it.
European states that were liberated by the US during WWII were forced to become social democracies. That plan was already laid out. The people didn't have a choice in it. My country voted Conservative and Liberal (the classic small government kind) since the 1860's and they still did after the world wars until the early 1970's.
There are no socialist states in Europe.
Your "socialism" is an ideological scarecrow. My God, and is this the best that the country that boasts of the best universities and one of the highest rates of human development on the planet can offer?
I think this divide is more a divide between classic liberalism and social liberalism; both existed in both countries.
That said, when Republicans talk about economic liberty, they really mean that the rich should pay less taxes and poor people should have the "freedom" not to get government support.
+They Have A Cavetroll Not trueRepublicans look at the economic history of the War on Poverty from LBJ and the Economic prolongations of the Great Depression(A stupid Federal Reserve at the time) and say this, "WHY are we redistributing wealth through government?" Government agencies have overhead or departmental costs well over 60%. Meaning every dollar towards Food Stamps, maybe 30% is actually feeding people. Then they look at charities, which have their own regulatory functions, and see they have overhead costs of like 20% being high. That means at least 80% of every dollar goes to feeding people. Conservatives often live in a VERY DIFFERENT WORLD IN REGARDS TO CHARITY.A book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks analyzes people's different political ideologies and how much of their income goes to charities. Overhwelming conservatives give way more. Not even close. SO they scratch their head at (American) Liberals saying they need to give up money in taxes, when those same people aren't donating as much. Also, economic principles, such as the Laffer Curve, show that taxing people overly leads to less federal revenue because of decreased growth in the economy. SO the Republican party and many conservative factions are moving towards the X-TAX. A policy designed to be just as rogressive as our current system, but doesn't involve income taxes. Ths is to drastically stimulate Investment savings and the savings of families. While Education is the best way to rise in career and socio-economic status(which is why conservatives support School Vouchers, better education for students) the savings and returns from interest is the best way to grow wealth over time in size and in safety. Conservatives do poll as caring less about poor people in political polls, but all evidence show they care a lot more in charitable organizations and service work. SO NO, your comment was false. Feel free to fact check me, but read more than single post and understand the bias of an author or website. Salon.com and Thinkprogress are just not going to give (American) Conservatism a fair shake.
+Grizzly_Conservative If Republicans really looked at the history of economics, they would see that the economy was best of when taxes and wages were high.
In this country there are people who work full-time jobs, who still can't afford to feed their children. These people should not be forced to live off charity. Are you saying food stamps shouldn't be a thing because they'e not efficient enough? Dude, the US wastes incredible sums of money on a military that is larger than the ones of the next countries combined, on subsidies for corporations that don't need them, on corporate welfare. Cutting food stamps is literally the last thing we should do.
You know why conservatives give more to charity? Because conservatives tend to be older, rich, white people. They give more away because they have more to give away.
Of course you shouldn't tax people overly. There can be too high taxes. Guess what: We're not even close to being at that point. There are profitable corporations who pay zero taxes. And people like Romney, who avoid paying taxes by hiding their money offshore. Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. The economy was doing very well back then. I'm not saying that's what we need, I'm saying we're a long way from taxes being too high.
The idea of the X-tax is, that you don't pay taxes for what you make, but only for what you spend, right?
So when a rich person, who makes 500 000 $ a year buys a car for 20 000 $, they pay... let's say 5000 $ in consumption tax. That means that guy pays 1% of his money on taxes (on the car alone).
When a middle class person, who makes 100 000 $ a year, buys a car for the same price, that person pays the same consumption tax, which makes up 5 % of his money.
So under that system poor and middle class people would pay higher tax rates than the rich, considering that the rich only spend a small part of their money and just sit on the rest.
If savings are the best way to grow wealth, you are really saying that only wealth creates wealth. Don't you see that's problematic? Only rich people benefit from that kind of a system.
In my comment I said that conservatives don't want government support for the poor, then you argued how food stamps are bad.
I also said they want the rich to pay less taxes, then you argues we should have a tax system that benefits the rich.
So thanks for proving my point.
They Have A Cavetroll Republicans do look at the history of economics if you just look at when we had growth and when we had high taxes, yeah you'll get that conclusion, but then the 1800s would also point that we shouldn't have a Federal Reserve....Republicans are Monetarists...Correlation doesn't mean causation. Arthur C. Brooks is arguably the most preeminent economist on the Conservative side and HE WILL NOT SHUT UP ABOUT POVERTY. He doesn't believe in that poor people are poor because they don't work hard and all that rhetoric and thought has been killed since 2012. Seriously, conservatives are not thinking that way anymore and didn't much then either.
AND GOD no, conservatives don't want to end food stamp!!!! That's why they have work for food stamp laws being passed in Maine and Missouri. These only require 15 hours of community service a week or a part time job! it's easy really. actually expanded the benefits....but the people on food stamps dropped upwards of 50%.....people weren't willing to pick up a part time job or do some community service work, like 2 days worth....that's a bipartisan effort in those states by the way. That stuff shouldn't be controversial and that's what conservatives want. Arthur C. Brooks goes into the demographics of the conservatives that give to charities.....there was no real difference based on socio-economic status except at the poverty and near poverty rates and no real difference based on race....it was a matter of value system and principles only.....read the book or a review of it.
Conservatives don't like corporations that pay zero taxes either, that's why they talk about off shore holdings as well. The ONLY reason Eisenhower presided over 90% tax rates was because we were coming off of WW2 and every other industrialized nation was destroyed...Canada and Australia being exceptions, but they weren't very industrialized compared to Europe and America. The X-Tax is progressive on its pension tax and consumption taxes.
They Have A Cavetroll The X-Tax, as I mentioned is all about consumption taxes, so that income isn't taxed. This is to increase the Savings-investment Identity. All savings = All investment. Proven Economic principle. Investment, or IG currently makes up 15% of the economy. Investment spending decreases always precede a recession, always in our history. It's going down right now. Not good. The point of the X-Tax is to be JUST AS PROGRESSIVE... Completely missed that earlier, but that's alright. If you don't tax income, people can save their money. Savings is the greatest inter-generational tool for climbing socio-economic statuses. It's how you get the impoverished out of poverty. If interest rates were normal, they aren't right now(they're artificial), the poor could be offsetting what they lose in wages and inflation with savings and interest from every month. interest rates are near zero....they can't save and there is not incentive to save, so there is no investment meaning sooner or later there is going to be a large crash. The X-Tax is about helping the poor and the economy more than anything. IT'S JUST AS PROGRESSIVE...it you increase the incentive and especially the ability to save, then you can really raise people out of poverty.
I have lived in poverty, I don't hate the poor. it's actually my number one voting concern and has been for a long time. Coservatives don't hate the poor. seriously, ARTHUR C. BROOKS. Just listen to his TEDxTalks. He is a very genial and nice man that regardless of anyone's political positions, will likely find endearing and honest. If you have any other concerns or remarks, feel free to ask, even if they are strawman arguments like above. Intentional or not, they were, but I don't care. Discussion in the market place of ideas is great and I appreciate the discussion thus far. My caps lock isn't me yelling, I just want that to stick out. thank you for reading this.
+Grizzly_Conservative Republicans keep saying all we need to do to fix the economy is lower taxes. So they are the ones who claim there's a causation. Only what they say is the opposite of what the evidence shows.
So there's a conservative author who doesn't think poor people are scum. Wow, I'm impressed. But, yes, other conservatives still think that. Bill O'Reilly is a good example.
I didn't say conservatives want to end food stamps, but the Republican house did vote to cut food stamps by 40 billion $. And that should be controversial.
More than half of all donations to charity are from the over-60s according to a new report by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) and Bristol University. So there is an age factor and since conservatives are older, that could definitely be an explanation. No, I won't read that book. Sorry.
Republicans don't like corporations paying less taxes? Right, that's why all the candidates are running on a platform of really cracking down at business and increasing their taxes, right? Oh wait... they're doing the opposite.
What does WWII have to do with taxes? Seriously, explain.
Some rich people spend 10% or less of what they make. Middle class spends up to 100% or even more. So under the X-tax, poor and middle class will pay a higher rate.
I have to disagree on one aspect of American Liberalism. Here in the US, the liberals do, by and large, want government involved in our social liberty as much as in our economy. A purely liberty based approach would not have government penalizing thought as is done in hate crime statutes (and not very well, either).
American liberals are coercive in forcing people to act against their own deeply held beliefs (cake shops and gays, religious charities and abortion coverage, etc). While this also has an economic aspect, forced association is also a social aspect of American Liberalism.
Basically, American liberals don't believe you have the right to or are capable of independent thinking and choosing your own path in either a social or economic sense.
+Deck Ape PREACH! I think you have a point that the 1960s JFK kind of liberalism is largely dead in this country. I would contend, though, that progressivism is a more appropriate term to use for today's American left.
Deck Ape Abortion rights is part of liberalism and theres no american liberalism, its social liberalism, if its sjws, its not liberalism, but progressivism(socialism/marxism)
are you a classical liberal
+The Intellectual Gold Standard I tend to refer to myself as a conservative liberal but for all practical purposes, yes, my way of thinking is largely rooted in the principles of classical liberalism.
Very interesting. Thank you for the clarification!
an example of a modern day classical liberal party in america is the libertarian party
I would add that a similarity both 19th century classical liberalism and modern American liberalism hold in common is the notion of "progress." Modern American liberals have a tendency to view the conditions that came out of the industrial revolution as disastrous and thus in need of some kind of government interference to change and improve the lives of the growing (and increasingly economically/politically disenfranchised) urban working class. Similarly, liberals of the 19th century viewed the mercantile economic system as antiquated and designed to encroach upon the liberties of those without landed noble titles and/or political power and keep them in a place of subordination - and thus, viewed the notion of free trade as a progressive ideal to which people ought to aspire.
I read a response you posted on another comment that effectively stated change is not necessarily a political philosophy insofar as it serves to benefit anyone who may advocate it. While I agree to an extent, I might add to my own comment, that conservatism both in 19th century Europe and modern day America is alleged to uphold "traditional" values. This, to me, suggests progress vs. tradition is a rational and valid trope to introduce as integral to, if not representative of, liberal and conservative political philosophies.
I don't care why you're here.
Please keep your eyes on the road.
Someone told me that Europe is as anti-Christian and socially liberal as the US today, if not more
Colt Walls do u even know how many countries rvin europe? All of them are diferent...
super interesting channel and the drive home talk is a super cool concept, it's chill watching you. you kinda look like mark wahlberg by the way.
Maybe you could put this into the list of French Revolution? Because the Liberal Phase of French Revolution confounded me ( What is this Liberalism trying to achieve in the Declaration of the Rights of Man & Citizen???) until I heard that you made a video about classical Liberalism. Maybe putting this video into the list will make things much easier. Also, please please please finish the French Revolution series as soon as possible!!!
Liberalism is not the same as liberal, if you want to "teach" people something, at least use the terms right. Liberalism has a real meaning in government, and it is 100% distinct from "liberals." When referring to "liberalism" that is a term used to describe the ideal of liberal democracies, which both American and European conservatives and liberals all support. I really hope you're not an AP History teacher, because you of all people should know what liberalism actually is and isn't.
so
classical liberalism = american libertarianism?
and european libertarianism = libertarian socialism?
Thank you in advance for any answers.
Not necessarily. Many libertarian parties here in Europe are relatively similar to the US 'Libertarian Party'. However most European libertarians are split between left-libertarianism (maintaining socialist economic structures without use of government) and right-libertarianism (laissez-faire economics but some government involvement in social policy - often to 'protect culture')
@@crypticlocker Left-Libertarianism is called Libertarian-Socialism in the US, which is a hijacked term. It's basically communism.
No, my friend. Original European political liberalism, which is the only "classic" one, does not have a word to say against the state. "Libertarianism", with the set of metaphysical components that it has today, is a plant fed and born exclusively on American soil, and which is largely reducible to "Rothbardianism". The current that is closest to this trend is not "classical liberalism", but anarchism, although in the American-Rothbardian version all the market mechanisms are preserved, when in most European anarchist currents (not all) tended to disappear. along with the state. If anti-state movements have arisen in Europe that call themselves "libertarian" it has been as a consequence of a direct importation of the term from the United States. In other words, a consequence of the Americanization of Europe.
Most informative drive home ever! You only touched on this point but it's true-- Classical Godfather Liberals believe you should definitely SMOKE whoever you want.
Hey Tom,
I'm really liking this channel. Could you possibly do a video which simply explains the US political system vs the UK political system. Thanks!
Classical?
Anyway, liberalism in North America and Europe is basically the same, but not entirely...in the modern age. In other words, not all liberals in North America now, are the same.
Regulation is essential to protecting the public interest. Big business doesn't care about the reasons for a regulation nor does it care if the regulation serves a justifiable purpose; it wants to have it's way. If I want to take a shit in middle of the street that is my right attitude is harmful. Modern social liberalism is a justifiable interpretation of classical liberal principles as applied to modern society where such attitudes for pervasive and private power and armies are abundant.
iMaDeMoN2012 "Justifiable interpretation of classical liberal principle as applied to modern society". Well said.
"Who regulates the regulators?"
The voters. The miracle of democracy is the distribution of power. This is not "feel good" measure; it an essential component of classical liberal governance. Otherwise we could just go with the libertarians that believe you are allowed to buy power. Or perhaps we can go with Trump and the other fascists that reverse power only for those of which they approve. THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!!!
This is something that i find is understated when people talk about liberalism or politics in general, the diffrences between american ideology and european ideology. Most of the time they are just mix together as one, and that complicates things. Great short vid, and drive safe :)
Where does leave the so called UK 'Liberal Party' that held government for much of the early 20th Century?? They introduced early forms of social welfare payments or at least the structures that later British governments built on.
Is this the kind of 'limited government' you speak of when you talk about European 'liberalism'?
In order to find the UK Liberal Party practicing classical liberalism, you'd have to go back to their 19th century roots. Gladstone was in every way a classical liberal, but his successors were not. The rise of the Labour Party prompted Liberal Party leaders to introduce social welfare programs in order to stay in power. However, that strategy backfired and the Liberal Party experienced a permanent decline after WWI. Ever since, the Labour Party has been the chief rival of the Conservative Party, which has incorporated economic liberalism into its platform. The Liberal Party became so insignificant that it had to ally with the Social Democratic Party in order to stay relevant - this is the origin of the UK's Liberal Democratic Party.
All Liberal Democrats share a belief in "social liberalism," but there is a very vibrant wing of the party that also advocates economic liberalism. Nick Clegg, the current Lib-Dem leader and Deputy PM, is an economic liberal.
Remember that the purpose of a political party is to win elections - not to stay true to a philosophy. Political parties - regardless of what they call themselves - will incorporate and distance themselves from true liberalism to the extent that they believe it will make them successful in winning elections.
Well, if you want real english liberals...take a look at Mrs. Thatcher (joined by the hip to your own Mr. Reagan)...that's laissez-faire :)
The Liberal party did not hold power for much of the 20th century. It was mostly the Conservatives and the Labour party. The Liberal Democrat party, as it's now called, believes in both economic and social liberalism, and occupies the middle ground(and only really has the support of a few educated, middle class people). Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are closer to the authoritarian side of the authoritarian-libertarian axis than the Lib Dems, but are on opposite sides of the left-right axis. Neither of them are extremely authoritarian(unlike communists or fascists)
The Conservatives only believe in liberty for the rich(laissez-faire capitalism which is economic liberty, but it results in gross inequality and an unjust society). If you are poor, you are free to starve, or be forcefully made to work for nothing, or be made destitute, or die of disease. A choice between virtual slavery or starvation is no choice at all and therefore cannot be considered freedom.
Labour are far more egalitarian and support the welfare state, but if you're not from an oppressed minority, such as an ethnic minority, religious group, a woman(actually a majority), and you criticize those groups you become labelled as a racist, misogynist, Islamophobe etc, even if your opinion is a valid criticism. Free speech is stifled by authoritarian political correctness. Unfortunately, it leads to a state where all common sense goes out the window, and you can't do anything, for fear of offending someone, the opposite of liberalism.
A true liberal believes in liberty first and foremost and respects the rights of others to hold a differing opinion, including those you find personally repugnant, and allows others to believe in whatever they want, so long as they do not infringe the rights of others. A liberal also believes that the government does not own your body, and it is up to you what you do with it,including taking drugs, drinking, smoking, prostitution, being gay etc, but again only if it is consensual and doesn't harm others. However, liberals believe it is the government's duty to limit the harmful consequences of those freedoms by providing education, healthcare and welfare in an equitable manner.
America/American is the continent/people of the New World. As is Europe/European the continent/people of the Old World( as in Europe).
It gets pretty ambiguous at time but when using the English language you have to use context to determine the meaning (like a lot of English words). For example, if I said "Columbus discovered America" based on context, you would know that this refers to the whole region. If I were to say "America is leading the air strikes on ISIS" then you would know I'm referring to USA. The trick is that one is a political term and the other is geographic and based on the context, you go from there.
In Europe, 'Liberal' refers to the political centre - not left (socialist) or right (conservative). Examples include the governing parties in Britain and Netherlands at the moment. Abolishing capitalism or collectivisation are certainly not on the agenda of European liberals. However, government intervention in the form of regulation and a welfare state are - European liberals are still capitalists but are not dogmatic about it. In this sense, they are actually quite similar to American liberals. Moreover, this is not a 'corruption' of some original, pure form of liberalism. Rather, the argument is that a certain degree of government intervention is precisely what is required to preserve the liberty of citizens. Historical experience tells us that unregulated markets gives rise to predatory, monopoly capitalism, which threatens liberal democracy - hence regulation. And the reason for the welfare state is because acquisition of resources is often (but not always) achieved through the exploitation of workers - this mandates a limited amount of redistribution to create equality of opportunity. Or in other words, to ensure that everyone has equal liberty. Modern liberalism is consist with the classical ideal of liberty if understood properly.
*****
correction...its a mix of liberalism and social democracy - i.e social liberalism. ;)
Wrong, the governing party in the Netherlands when you wrote this comment (not governing alone but cooperating with a labour party) is economically right wing and pro liberty.
You dont need to iconic click fingers when you drive - we need you SAFE and ALIVE, dear teacher!
Am I the only one who gets nervous on how the him looking at the camera vs the him looking at the road ratio is entirely to far skewed in the him looking at the camera direction? I mean I feel like It's a wreck waiting to happen
i thought liberalism in the American sense favoured free markets etc with laws allowing them to function such as contract law
Matt Damon???
Politics are a mess in the United States....I'm more of a classical liberal but when you say it to a Conservative, you would get comments like "oh, so you're one of those....SJWs...." 🤦
lol That is what Fox News does to people
You look a little like Mark Wahlberg.
IThanks so much, I can appreciate this as a classical liberal. I teach poly sci and history at university level and my students struggle to get this idea bc the word liberal has been so associated with progressivism that the idea that it originally meant more libertarianism is hard to grasp
WHY ARE YOU DISTRACTING YOURSELF AS A DRIVER!?
I should smoke who I want lol 😂 💀
As a german guy, a lot of things make sense to me now!
So European liberal is American libertarian?
THank you, this was very helpful
As European myself you clarified the liberalism in North America for me.
Glad I could help!
classical liberalism=american libertarianism
Thank you for making this video. I think that if we threw American liberalism in the toilet as a word, people in America would be less confused about politics. American liberalism compromises because it stabs Marx in the back while singing his praises at the same time. The idea that social justice can be achieved through compromise is as inane as saying that insuring corporate profits will gaurantee that the buying power of the working class will improve because some invisible hand says it will. A true partnership between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would always benefit the proletariat because together would have an equal say. No such thing exists. So we trust liberal asshats on both sides that try to convince us that liberty in one aspect of our life is more important than another. The Democrats saying that our individuality is more important than our ability to feed our offspring, and the conservatives who try to explain that we should entrust our future(as workers) to those who have spent generations of time trying to limit our access to the fruits of our labor, only to reap malcontent offspring with limited education and prospect for the future, while they live off of there golden parachute that prevents them from experiencing hardship or contributing their own labor that might make a difference for people who have never considered investing in anything but food and a place to stay
Love it! Would love to see a video explaining how the switch occurred from classical to modern American liberalism.
The change began to happen around the American Great Depression due to many believing that the economic crisis of the depression was caused by laissez faire economic policies of the US. The govt. seized the opportunity to expand power while public sentiment supported such a move and voila. The rest is history. since then the US govt has gradually (and sometimes substantially) expanded power in drastic ways (such as LBJ's Great Society in the 1960's).
interesting
What a fantastic little video
PERFECT
Great video
American Liberal != U.S. Liberal
Nuestra América You are correct on this. We Americans (oops - I did it again!) have a habit of forgetting that there are other people who live on these continents. There was one person who commented from Brazil who told me that "liberalism" has the same meaning in economic terms that it has in Europe. Most of my audience is in the U.S., so they understand American as U.S. - not Pan-American. All of that being said, I will definitely try harder in the future to be more sensitive about this issue. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Tom Richey
Thank you. But "these continents" is plural, there is only one continent named America. Which is geographically made up of two major subcontinental regions, North. and South America. That includes Greenland, and the Antilles.
I consider my self a Liberal Progressive.
Nuestra América If that's the case, then would Eurasia and Africa be one continent?
Tom Richey
Europe, and Asia are separate continents. But North Africa, and South Africa are one continent. So is the case with America, a continent. You are smarter than that. Continents are simply regions of land named so as they were discovered. Romans named the European, and African continent, the ancient Greeks named the continent of Asia, and so on. America was named by Martin Waldseemuller, after Amerigo Verpucci.
Why doesn't the U.S. consider Europe, and Asia one continent then?
Because they aren't.
In the case of America, its because the U.S. wants to appropriate the name America/American to apply exclusively to its self. It doesn't.
So this idea to claim that the subcontinental regions North and South, are continents, is just an effort (especially since the 1950s) to force the rest of America to qualify their Americanism by prefixing it by regions, as to make America/American without prefix the exclusive use of you gringos.
America/American was the name given to the continent/people of the New World by Martin Waldseemuller in 1507 upon the discovery that Cristobal Colon (a native Catalonian) had not found a new route to India, but instead a New World. This New World, this new Hemisphere, was named America.
The U.S. seven continent model is informed by Nationalist politics, not geography.
It's not the fault of the rest of America that your nations founders didn't give your federation a unique name.
America = New World.
Tom Richey
Let me ask you a simple question, Is Greenland a continent unto Its self? And why not?
Oceania is. Why not Greenland? Could it possibly be because it is part of the region collectively known as the New World, America?
There no EuropeS, no AfricaS, no AsiaS, no OceaniaS, no AntarticaS, and no AmericaS. Unless you are referering to the plularity of nation states that are within each continent.
The difference here is that the arrogant U.S. wants the name plain America/American for its exclusive use.
Just as arrogant and incorrect to say that the European Union member states are Europeans, and non-members aren't (ex: Norway). Even though they all sit in Europe.
Also, Jefferson was definitely America's first big-government president. At least based on his actions in office. (:
Zane Huseth If you had evidence to support this proposition, you would present it.
Wrong…Jefferson or the Jeffersonian Democracy he was against big government, industrialist and bankers.
either way its cancer