liberals, "liberals," and Liberals

Some words are so horribly ambiguous that they become meaningless, or nearly so. When such a word is also extremely useful, however, it may be worth going to the trouble of saying what you mean by it so that you can use it with a reduced chance of being misunderstood. The word "liberal" (along with forms like "liberalism") is one such word. I am very fond of it, and I consider myself a liberal. But I am aware that I might confuse some people by saying that.

So here is how I intend to "disambiguate" it (to sound like Wikipedia). "Liberal" and its variants will appear in my posts in the following ways:

liberal, liberality (1)
classical liberal, classical liberalism (2)
"liberal," "liberalism" (3)
Liberal (4)

The forms in group (1) will be used with meanings related to generous and the like. Those in (2) have to do with the modern political tradition, dominant in the American founding, that places the highest political priority on individual freedom and equality under law. Those in (3) will bear on the frequently very illiberal, thoroughly adulterated form of classical liberalism that has arisen in America and elsewhere since the early 20th century, sometimes referred to as progressivism (or, as I like to write it, "progressivism")--and that now dominates the so-called Democratic Party. (4) has to do with Canada's Liberal Party and other similarly named parties.

I try to be liberal. I am a classical liberal. I am not a Liberal. And I despise "liberalism" (and a few "liberals").

If I were writing to political philosophers, I would be able to refer to classical liberalism as liberalism. But I'm not. So I can't. The "liberals" have stolen a noble and valuable word. C'est la vie--"liberals" stealing things, I mean.