The American use of Liberal is strange, as it doesn't designate someone who is politically Liberal in the classical sense. Here Liberal means Progressive, and Progressivism is the American cognate of European Fascism. Once you recognize that fact, the question of why Liberals aren't Liberal answers itself.

"Political and economic liberties cannot be bifurcated. "

Ah, somebody who gets it. I hear a lot of raving about how brilliant China's Communist government supposedly is, and about how their system will bury capitalism. (Where have we heard those words before...) Well, the evidence is emerging that China's housing bubble is far worse than ours. I've long predicted that one of two things will eventually happen in China: either stealth democracy will reduce the Communists to a rump government, or the whole thing will collapse. Right now, it's looking like the latter, unfortunately, but that remains to be seen.

As we're seeing in the case of Wall Street, there is no such thing as "managed competition". Either you have a free market, or you have a market where government favor determines winners and losers. Why was Goldman Sachs bailed out when Lehman Brothers wasn't? There is no ethical explanation. The choice was all a matter of favor and influence. (An aside to the OWS'ers: Do you really think everyone on Wall Street is rich? Tell that to the people who had money invested in Lehman Brothers.)

Liberty must be defended constantly, every day. Either you're defending liberty or you're on your way to totalitarianism. People who advocate collectivism are dictator wannabees, period. They do not ever have your interests at heart and they will run over you whenever they decide that doing so will make them feel good.

One other thing I meant to add: When future historians look back at the 20th century, one of the great regrets is going to be that classical liberals allowed their party and their philosophy to be hijacked by leftists.

And yet, Vargas Llosa supported the left-wing candidate in the recent Peruvian presidential election, apparently out of personal pique. It really reduced my previously high opinion of the man.

I've long predicted that one of two things will eventually happen in China: either stealth democracy will reduce the Communists to a rump government, or the whole thing will collapse. Right now, it's looking like the latter, unfortunately, but that remains to be seen.

Right now, China's communist party maintains itself through economic growth; the rising middle and upper class are satisfied enough with their improved condition and economic liberty that they are not clamoring for political liberty. Yet. I suspect that a downturn will lead to greater civil unrest and demands for democratic reforms. This is why China is doing do much to prop up the economies of its trading partners. They need the U.S. and Europe as much or more than we need their manufacturing products.

Christopher, good point. The Chinese leaders are sitting on an economic time bomb, and I don't think there is anything they can do to keep it from going off. We know what crony capitalism did to Japan, and we're seeing what it's doing here now. There's no reason to think that it's going to work for China.

> We know what crony capitalism did to Japan

Um... They're one of the richest nations in the world. They punch far above their weight in every ring they enter, with few natural resources and with many special burdens.

This guy says fun things about China.

"They punch far above their weight in every ring they enter, with few natural resources and with many special burdens."

And W. Edwards Deming set them up. I wonder if and when they will forget the devastation of WW2, and where they get the motivation to excel.
At least they don't have to deal with our legal system.

"They're one of the richest nations in the world. " Maybe, but they are no longer the world economic force that they were in the 1980s. The Japanese car companies have offshored just about everything that the government will allow them to; in terms of their U.S. business, they aren't much less American than the American car companies are anymore. If you buy a Japanese-make car, it's likely that it was either built in North America or imported from South Korea.

Japan has never really recovered from its "lost decade" in the '90s, and they are looking at an aging population and a lot of the same long-term debt problems as we are.

> And W. Edwards Deming set them up.

He was good for them, certainly, but he was not pivotal. He doesn't explain their miracle. Their culture was poised for his insight, and would have found it elsewhere if he'd not published.

> Maybe, but they are no longer the world economic
> force that they were in the 1980s.

Tell it to the Chinese and the rest of Tigers, whose ties to Japan are ever-tighter.

> they are looking at an aging population and a
> lot of the same long-term debt problems as
> we are.

I do not understanding this kind of thinking.

Yeah, sure: They're dealing with all the problems modern economies are dealing with. So what's your point?

I mean, isn't that wonderful? Would you feel better for them if they were lagging by a century or so, with half their population dying, illiterate, out in the paddies at age 50?

As "lost decades" go, the 90's was very, y'know, recent, and hardly the lost-iest they suffered in its century. Their 90's problems were and are char­ac­tero­log­i­cal, like their strengths; things for them alone to identify and tame. (The USA has a few of those, too. As does Cameroon.)

Your comment just has an tone of almost teen-sullen cynicism. I mean, Jesus— Japan is, in the global scale, one trulyshit-together country. Other countries have learned from their example, but that hasn't made life their any worse.

When you imagine events having gone more to your taste, how is the postwar world different?

"Liberal" used to mean pro-liberty, and "gay" used to mean "happy" - language changes, get with it. I've noticed some people want to keep using the term "liberal" to refer (basically) to classical liberalism but I think this is stupid, it creates a lot of confusion (of course, in some cases this is the intention, to further an ideological agenda through mis-association). Anyway, one would also be welcome to keep using 'gay' to mean 'happy' but don't expect to be understood, and don't expect clarity of communication.

"The American use of Liberal is strange, as it doesn't designate someone who is politically Liberal in the classical sense. Here Liberal means Progressive, and Progressivism is the American cognate of European Fascism"

Indeed, except that it's not any 'stranger' than any other word in the English language changing regionally or over time, which happens every day. What I find 'strange' is some people trying to cling to what have as a result of these changes become fuzzy, ambiguous and poorly-defined terms that sew confusion, when one *knows* full well that the word has acquired a different meaning both regionally and over time and that it could be confusing. When 'gay' stopped meaning 'happy' I stopped using it that way. I see online arguments all the time that are totally pointless and stupid and un-constructive because people are simply interpreting the term 'Liberal' differently. A little clarity on what one means exactly, goes a long way in a discussion. Unfortunately political and ideological terms are extremely heavily messed up, it's a terminological mess.