A new center formed of those divorced from dysfunctional former allies is the only hope of a paralyzed nation
I prefer to call myself a classical liberal, but I find interesting that the actual definitions of classical liberal, liberal, and libertarian aren’t actually notably distinct from one another. It is only in what we mean by them in contemporary political discussion that they find distinction. To explain the distinction between at least a classical liberal and a libertarian, I think the easiest point to make is that libertarianism is often associated with alternative right wing politics & ancap fundamentalism. One can prioritize freedoms and rights without being a fundamentalist who believes the government has no place in regulating the emergent power structures of necessarily sociopathically behaving private institutions.
it is also interesting that the definition of Neo-liberal isn’t obviously distinct from what we actually mean when we say Classical-Liberal. What we mean when we say Neo-liberal, however, has more to do with political behavior than actual political ideology. It is referring primarily to politicians who are seemingly ideologically agnostic, prioritizing pleasing other holders of power to the ends of maintaining their own power. Worrying only about short term outcomes as CEOs do, not the long term vision and viability of a nation. It is political behavior that emphasises corporatism and war hawkishness.
I understand that many reject labels and camps, and I understand why. The moment you identify with a group of some sort, you are instantly vulnerable to tribalistic biases in which you forgive or fail to recognize the moral inconsistencies and failings of your group. However, it is an embarrassing thing to clearly hold an ideology that is defined and in use and yet to claim that you aren’t that thing, because you’re too unique to be labeled or whatever. Evolutionarily we categorize, label, simplify. We make distinctions and value judgments and we think and speak as if groups are a monolith despite our best efforts to reject such generalizations. People will label you regardless of your intentions. Better to understand what it is you believe, to own it, and to clearly and honestly articulate your beliefs and positions.
Classical liberalism is at the heart of a new and growing center of reasonable thinkers that include liberals who reject the suicidally idealistic and anti-science ravings of their SJW counterparts, conservatives who reject the real bigotry of their worst examples on right, as well as libertarians and other independents. People who are coming together on core values such as freedom of speech as the essential and supreme right that allows for all other rights. People who reject extremes and fundamentalism, opting for reasoned and measured moral pragmatism — aiming at morally good outcomes considering all available knowledge and context, not simplistic moral ideals that fail to take reality as it really is. People who are tired of tossing the football of abortion back and forth and think it’s time we focus on the real existential threats facing our nation and species.
This is a group that must form a coherent and mainstream identity. It must seize political power, not by any means but by virtue of being most correct and most prepared in a battle of ideas — as I feel Bernie broke ground in attempting this election. We’ll make no progress as a nation when the relevant political powers are hordes of politically retarded extremists on both sides struggling against each other and against sociopathic politicians whom leverage the deep state to hold power and do essentially whatever benefits them and their most powerful allies in the corporate and political world at the cost of the people. At best we swing between extremes, mostly at the cultural level but politically only in superficialities — and at worst we’re watching as our system of governance and economics serves a specifically anti-human end, threatening human existence as we know it.