69 million page views

Liberal - Modern or Classical?

Reader comment on item: [Bureaucratic Leftism and] Globalthink's Perils

Submitted by Mark W. Glenn (United States), Sep 25, 2002 at 18:22

I commend Daniel Pipes and John Fonte for their research, clarity and, in general, right-thinking. What they present is eye-popping.

Still, I think I must quibble with some of Mr. Fonte's terminology. He repeatedly contrasts "liberal democratic" with "transnational progressive." It is his use of various forms of "liberal" and "democratic" that will mislead many readers. I assume he is referring to classical liberalism, and to democratic, or democrat in a general sense. Yet the American transnational progressives he quotes are registered in, and can be counted on to support, the Democratic Party. They are not registered in, nor will support, the Republican Party. American transnational progressives consider themselves to be liberal. They do not consider themselves to be conservative.

If you want up-to-date terminology that contrasts reliably with "transnational progressive," say "conservative Republican." That gets it right.

John Fonte rightly points out that trans-national progressivism follows in the footsteps of National Socialism and Communism. In the 20th century there has been considerable overlap between the socialism, communism circle, and American liberalism, Democratic Party circle. Sad to say, but true. The same overlap does not exist with "conservative Republican."

I did not find these articles in the N.Y. Times; I found them in WorldNetDaily. John may not realize it, but his allies are "conservative republican," not "liberal democrat." It may seem crass to say, but here's the reality. John should find ways to give verbal support to his allies, not his opponents.
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (44) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Great Article [101 words]Johnny CarpatiNov 14, 2005 20:3028382
Transnational Progressivism Has Infiltrated the GOP and Free Republic [192 words]Steve SadlovJan 5, 2005 13:2119435
Global economy is like swiss cheese with more holes than cheese [242 words]Tapart Real NewsOct 20, 2003 00:0011846
Don't forget fanatical secularism [323 words]ChanaMar 13, 2003 20:547224
Why should the world bow to the US' policies? [133 words]Hugh BarrOct 1, 2002 07:472770
No ones asking anyone to "bow" to the US [147 words]BillBixbySep 7, 2009 08:102770
Two points [137 words]Andrea BayneSep 28, 2002 12:162685
Only for us [80 words]Marcus WhiteSep 27, 2002 16:472671
President Bush made his point very clearly [32 words]Greg OfieshSep 27, 2002 14:232669
U.N.: a nice idea but... [36 words]Andrew SummeySep 27, 2002 13:252665
EQUALITY - discontent in disguise. [135 words]A Canadian named LennSep 27, 2002 00:332660
The views of Dr. Pipes are not welcome in left wing Canada [203 words]Jeff BercovitchSep 26, 2002 09:412655
Curious premises [424 words]Mark BaberSep 26, 2002 07:062653
Let Europe Fight its Own Battes [94 words]Eugene A. GenoveseSep 26, 2002 01:222650
Schism of UN into Oceana and Eastasia... [241 words]Steven KlonSep 26, 2002 00:112647
Liberal - Modern or Classical? [238 words]Mark W. GlennSep 25, 2002 18:222644
Why the appeal??? [315 words]Howard VeitSep 25, 2002 18:132643
Communist Goals in 1963 Congressional Record [43 words]C.G. DavisSep 25, 2002 16:432642
Homosexuals will be persecuted, too [127 words]Steven Malcolm AndersonSep 25, 2002 14:142639
"Transnational Progressivism" or Globalization? [275 words]Leon HadarSep 25, 2002 13:502638
Bureaucracy as mass movement [352 words]John J. OlsonSep 25, 2002 10:452634
Next war - against lethargic monstrous bureaucracies. [97 words]John B. JaymesSep 25, 2002 10:322633
Free Association [419 words]Jean L. Martin (M.A., M.S.S.W.)Sep 25, 2002 09:582632
World Tyranny [136 words]Tom HalleySep 25, 2002 09:372631
Taxation Without Representation [202 words]Dave MarciniakSep 25, 2002 08:352629
A friendly criticism [129 words]Joe WillinghamSep 24, 2002 23:282624
Globalitarianism [218 words]C.G. DavisSep 24, 2002 22:272622
It might be worse now~ [199 words]Lawrence RicciSep 24, 2002 22:022621
So what is the surprise? [182 words]Robert FusfeldSep 24, 2002 21:432620
Welcome To Canada [313 words]Stephen BlogginsSep 24, 2002 20:252619
Very Perceptive! [61 words]Paul TardifSep 24, 2002 18:582618
The Dream Palace of the Liberals [325 words]Ben ShniperSep 24, 2002 17:052615
And one more thing... [18 words]Howard GoldSep 24, 2002 16:122613
Add Judicial Overreach to the Perils of Bureaucratic Leftism [516 words]Andy SteinfeldSep 24, 2002 15:142612
Not just Leftist [263 words]Glenn KlotzSep 24, 2002 15:042610
Nothing new under the sun. [375 words]SheerahkahnSep 24, 2002 14:262609
American ingenuity or Imperial iniative? [129 words]Mark FeldsteinSep 24, 2002 14:252608
"Bureaucratic Leftism" [15 words]Mordecai J. GoldSep 24, 2002 14:252607
You must be kidding! [114 words]C Murray AdamsSep 24, 2002 14:152606
Bureaucratization of Decision Making [74 words]Alan PerlmutterSep 24, 2002 14:062605
New World Order [298 words]Terrall PutnamSep 24, 2002 14:042604
The New World Order [266 words]Ken BesigSep 24, 2002 13:192602
The Nanny State [102 words]Dan SchwartzSep 24, 2002 13:012601
Recent NY Post article [21 words]norman rushSep 24, 2002 10:322599

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)