That is what I think of as a progressive. I think we get all confused with our labeling because to historians or political philospophers, the terms liberal and conservative have more of a fixed meaning, whereas today they label two ends of the political spectrum, almost regardless of what the actual content of belief is. Our present-day conservative, G. Bush, fights for the extension of liberalism in the world. Our seemingly left-wing writer, Andrew Bacevich, tells us his loyalties are with conservatism. The terms just aren't much good, unless we keep the older meanings in front of us. I think a conservative is basically distrustful of anyone who claims to to be able to change either human nature or the world through whatever new program or idea. The more things change, the more they stay the same--essentially a conservative idea. Liberals will believe more in the possibility of fundamental change, seen in the heralding of new epochs or in the dawning of new philoosophies that will sweep away old barriers of human nature.Grim wrote: This goes against what I would previously defined a liberal as, I always assumed that to be a liberal was to accept things as they are and to move forwards to a more accepting social order for the benefit of all people.
Bacevich is talking like a true conservative, who will always be skeptical of any kind of millenialism or talk of entering a new phase of history.However, does Bacevich, a former army official, ever debate the necessity of war under appropriate situations, or of protecting American freedoms? Not directly he talks rather about his great concern that the notion of exceptional America responsibility/legitimacy to act out of turn with the rest of the world has gone beyond the limits of the system by which it was created, especially considering the results and consequences. A liberal would feel that any action is necessary to spread the democratic form of freedom and realize the ideological ends of the system.
Interpreting freedom AS the right to accumulate as much as could be accumulated is Bacevic's criticism of America here.When he talks of "the crisis of profligacy," he never actually denies that the people had the rights do do as they wish all along, rather that the results of their blinded and unleashed inhibitions should have been rationally moderated. Again I feel that the liberal would advocate freedom for the members of his ideological group at any cost to the outsiders.
A conservative would think this is all bosh. No single society has ever really had such a role; it is all delusion wherever it comes up. Neoconservatives are therefore liberals."...neoconservative hearts certainly beat a little faster, as they undoubtably did when he went on to declare the United States to devote itself to 'ending tyranny in our world.' Yet Bush was simply putting his own gloss on a time-honoured conviction ascribing to the United States a uniqueness of character and purpose." (Limits of Power pg 18 )
Not sure if I understand you, but my reading of Bacevich is that the loss of our freedoms while acting to protect them is a consequence of our belief that we can do anything necessary for our security. Bacevich follows the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who would have labeled this effect part of the irony of American history, i.e., we become less secure and less free while pursuing security and protecting freedom.Finally, and most importantly in my view, he shows concern that as a result of recent American history the people have lost a measure of their freedoms, where in fact the defense of the required yet unintended loss of necessary freedom is what I see as a motivating rational behind his entire book. The end of American Exceptionalism ie The end of American Freedom as we Enjoy it. I believe that this is technically a conservative arguement: that the loss of certain freedoms currently taken for granted will be a necessary yet acceptable result of the current atmosphere.
My comment is that this definition of liberal does not agree with the current use of the word. Liberals today are likely to believe that governments can design societies and that they should."Liberals therefore reject any design or plan for society - religious, utopian, or ethical. Liberals feel that society and state should not have fixed goals, but that 'process should determine outcome'. This anti-utopianism became increasingly important in liberal philosophy, in reaction to the Communist centrally-planned economies: it anticipated the extreme deregulation-ism of later neoliberalism."
Today's political liberals wouldn't be in favor of the unrestrained market, whereas conservatives would be more likely to be. To my understanding, this is just about opposite of the original sense of these words.To respond quickly to another comment it is to my imperfect understanding that market liberalism is typified by the free-market rather than conservatism which would favour regulations.