However, I just came across a very interesting article in Saturday's Post- Statism isn't Liberalism. George Jonas talks about his belief that he is an actual "classical liberal", whereas he feels that "big L" Liberals are actually statists, or perhaps merely "socialists in slow motion", compared to the NDP.
What exactly is a statist? A person who doesn't think that walking on the grass should ever be simply permitted. Walking on the grass should either be forbidden or compulsory. Oh boy. Can someone be a charming statist, you ask? Yes, provided one is like the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
And on human rights:
Liberals tried to cook a dish by keeping the ingredients raw and separate: multiculturalism. They tried to balance one injustice with another: affirmative action. They abandoned the individual as the focal point of humanity's quest for liberty and justice, and focused instead on the group. Rather than equality for each person, they sought parity for every racial, sexual or ethnic aggregate.
Liberals lost sight of the fact that, while equality is a liberal idea, capable of fulfilment in a free society, parity is an illiberal notion that requires coercion to achieve. Guaranteeing opportunity is liberal; guaranteeing outcome is illiberal. It's as simple as that, but they didn't see it.
The article is a great analysis of the kind of renewal that is necessary for leaders and members of Liberal party to rediscover their roots.
Penny has a very thought-provoking post that is related to this subject (What's Right and What's Left?).
Perhaps trying to fit everyone into neat little catagories is the problem. It is a very human characteristic, but often leads to anger and discrimination. Maybe we should just try looking at each other as people.
And that's about as much as I can coax out of this sleepy head. Good night.
Update: Now is this Right or Left or just plain Left Behind? (H/T to Steve Janke).