Liberalism is now a defunct political position

Being a true liberal means having a spine and sticking up for liberal values, using military force.

That's not liberalism at all, closer to neoconservatism

That's not liberalism at all, closer to neoconservatism

For centuries a liberal outlook has been the only conscionable position for any self-respecting, rational person.

But the politics of the last couple of decades has proven that liberalism has reached the end of the road. To be a liberal politician is to be prepared to put up with just about anything. It's basically synonymous with spineless laissez-faire-ism to the extreme, and has no place in politics today.

Discuss.

Lots of liberals have neoconservative beliefs.

Liberalism is too broad a term to be called defunct. Just about all of the major political parties in the UK (Lib, Lab, Con, UKIP, Greens) could all be considered 'liberal' depending on which definition and which policies you look at.

That's just straight neoconservatism. A liberal government by definition means one that does not impose its own values by intervention.

Precisely, and the main 3 have all failed to produce an effective and popular government in at least 20 years. The modern "liberalism of restraint" that these parties demonstrate is the reason why, for instance, Putin is being allowed to flagrantly breach international law (in a markedly similar fashion to Hitler in the 30s) without fear of military sanction.

If your international in your viewpoint it can quite easily be argued that the state has a moral duty to engage in liberal and humanitarian intervention abroad.



Libertarianism at its extreme does of course justify a laizze fair attitude however liberalism and pragmatism are not exclusive. It is more than possible to hold the position that individuals should be free to do as they wish.. upto a point.

I don't really feel its defuct today, i just don't feel that any party has fully put a face to it.

what do you mean laissez faire to the extreme? economically or culturally? liberals today aren't free marketeers

Legally, culturally, militarily. It seems as if liberalism means "the unwillingness to offend" above all else.

That's precisely why it's defunct. Liberalism in the past essentially stood for the acquisition and codification of civil rights. That has now largely been achieved in the western world, so liberalism now merely stands for the preservation of these rights and by corollary, the preservation of the status quo. But that's conservatism.

Also in practical terms, it isn't possible in the western world to be a politician who exercises anything other than "liberalism of restraint". In an age of global media coverage it has become the default position; uncontroversial, agreeable, moderate, gradualistic. It succeeds in being superficially attractive, but no longer succeeds in producing an effective form of government.

Perhaps they're practicing restraint given that Blair's entire legacy has been tainted by the unpopular intervention in Iraq.

No government is popular by the end of their term, you can hardly cite unpopularity as a sign that their ideology has failed. Unless a fringe party (e.g. UKIP) become popular enough to be serious political contenders, like Labour did in the early 20th century, then I don't think you can really write off all the current political parties. (And as I've said, UKIP can be considered liberal in some of their policies).

I think your view of liberalism has been tainted by those who call themselves "liberals" but are really post-modernists or cultural relativists (the opposite of liberal in my view).

They certainly have to pander to post-modernist attitudes but i'm not sure cultural relativism so easily applies. Explain?

Look up the difference between classical and progressive liberalism.

The former is the one you're talking about, whereas the latter believes that rights should be actively safeguarded.