[extralego]

The author is confused.

He says he is a liberal “in the enlightenment sense.” He cites John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

But then he makes a “contrast”:

>In contrast, today’s so-called progressive liberals are often intolerant, calling for official censure against anyone perceived as uttering non-progressive views.

What the author fails to reconcile is that this “progressive liberal” target of his is all but the product of John Stuart Mill’s brand of liberalism that includes many wonderful things but has a certain clause that makes all the difference. Mill’s liberalism defended democratic ideals predominantly in cultural terms. That is, democracy to the extent that it does not interfere with free market capitalism.

Fast forward 150+ years through 2 world wars, the Great Depression, the federal reserve Vietnam, globalization, corporate takeover, etc., etc. and old Mill’s ideas are not looking so spiffy. The instability is anything but defensible, so what can the ole’ liberals do now but hunker down on the culturalism? There you have it.

There is nothing new or complicated about this. Mill and Marx defined the terms way back when.

The youngsters in the US are having trouble working through it because their parents skipped the conversation entirely, but they’ll figure it out. Fool them once.

So, this is not about free speech. The only problem here is this author’s insistence that it’s a contention between old and new. It’s not, of course. It’s a contention between capitalism, it’s glories, and messes it makes.