Schiavoni Files

The Economist had a great article on November 4th titled Liberalism and Other Insults basically talking about taking back the word Liberal:

Yet there ought to be a word—not to mention, here and there, a political
party—to stand for what liberalism used to mean. The idea, with its roots in
English and Scottish political philosophy of the 18th century, speaks up for
individual rights and freedoms, and challenges over-mighty government and other
forms of power. In that sense, traditional English liberalism favoured small
government—but, crucially, it viewed a government's efforts to legislate
religion and personal morality as sceptically as it regarded the attempt to
regulate trade (the favoured economic intervention of the age). This, in our
view, remains a very appealing, as well as internally consistent, kind of
scepticism.

Not to toot my own horn, and while I'm not as verbose or well-spoken, it does seem to compliment well my August 9th blogpost on "Part 1: Liberal." (I still haven't written Part 2...maybe I'll do that right now.)

|