Centrist does not mean politically neutral; those who say they do not have an ideology are just unable to see it. Being politically neutral still means working within the current overarching ideologies. I'm not saying this is bad, as everyone has a bias, but we shouldn't fool ourselves. This is still his perspective and morphed by his beliefs/ideology. Do your own additional research as well.
@@peanuttasty247 where did you say anything about centrist? He just siad he likes how neutral the video is when comes to informing people about political philosophy? Which for informational content is pretty much required to not be seen as a propagandistic.
Conservatives like to call everyone a liberal, and use it as a slur. They make it hard for me to understand what a liberal actually is. So thank you for this video!
I’m a conservative that also feels this way of other conservatives. I always knew there was a difference, it was just hard to use a separate term for what are “modern liberals” like this video describes. So i say classical liberals for people who uphold traditional liberal values. (And usually leftist for todays pro-big government liberals)
Liberals love big government. Obama said liberals need big government to tell them what to do. Because big government is smarter than them. Big government can supply the masses with everything they need to live. Long live the liberal empire?
Shout out to this guy for bringing left, right, center, independent, etc here to get a non bias explanation on terms so we can get a better understanding of terms being thrown around. This guy does his research and is fair and balanced which is like a cold drink of water in these hot times.
@@kallashnykov If you believe that any book isn't just a sustained argument for an idea, rather than a recipe for how you should live, you don't understand what books and ideas are. If his video inspired others to dig deeper or not rely on pat answers for everything, he was wildly successful. In this regard, your comment is like criticizing a tomato for not being onion-enough.
@@TuckFrump-r9h I wish this channel inspired people to dig deeper and not spread misleading, misinformed and colonial centered propaganda information about politics.
I have this book from 1961 entitled "Europe Since 1815" by Gordon A. Craig; in the introduction to Part Three, covering 1871 to 1914, pages 260 and 261: "Back in the 1850s, and even in the 1870s, it was possible for an intelligent man to subscribe to all the creeds of liberalism - individualism, competition, laissez faire, suspicion of big government, and the like - without feeling any inconsistency. By the 1880s this was no longer easy. The prevailing economic tendencies seemed to favor, not individualism and competition, but combination, for this was the age of trusts, monopolies and cartels. Industrialists who, in an earlier age, would have insisted that the government stay out of business now argued that it was the duty of government to support it by tariffs, subventions, convenient corporation laws, the acquisition of new markets in colonial areas, and the like. They not infrequently sought political support for their new ideas from parties of the Right which, because they had traditionally believed in a strong active government, were more open to these ideas than the Liberal parties; and this explains both the transformation of the Conservative parties into parties of big business (or, as in Germany, into allies of heavy industry) and the waning strength of Liberal Parties. "Simultaneously, men whose liberalism centered around a sincere belief in the necessity of protecting the individual from arbitrary power and who, for that very reason, believed in laissez faire and opposed the growth of government functions began to suspect that the real threat to the individual was the tendency toward combination in business and that only the government could protect the individual, by regulating the operations of the great economic combines. These men, when their new belief proved unpopular with their former political associates, were apt to turn to the new labor parties which did believe in government regulation, with another resultant loss to the Liberal center. This latter tendency is shown clearly in the career of John Stuart Mill; in his classic Essay on Liberty (1859) he still regarded strong government as a threat to the free individual, but by the end of his life he was drifting rapidly in the direction of socialism. "The economic tendencies of the time, then, by forcing men to revise their views on the role of government, inevitably weakened the persuasiveness of the creeds of liberalism and the strength of the Liberal parties. This in turn encouraged two things: on the one hand, a polarization of politics, a division into extremes, which was the inevitable result of the decline of the moderate parties of the middle, and was to reach its most dangerous form in the twentieth century; and, on the other, a growing acceptance of big government, the welfare state, and collectivism in general."
Honestly, it's exciting to experience reading a comment that compelled someone to remember such a passage and go through whatever process you did in not only recalling where you read it, but sharing it as well. Really does justice to this here channel content and to the author of the book you took the time to share. Sincere respect
Thank you so much for taking the time into posting this little excerpt from the book you read. I appreciate your efforts. This is a truly beautiful addition to the video.
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
hear us out… they don’t exist there’s a 1 party system and the democrats just lie would explain a bit… 🤔 also why Putin would buy Trump god that man has made life entertaining 🍿 a spy most majestic legit just promotes Russia and creates instability 🙏🏻 #2Spirit #indigenous #philosophy
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can, and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Notes: I know I put 'liberal right' on the left side of the screen and 'liberal left' on the right. If I flipped it, then 'laissez-faire' would have been on the right of the screen and 'intervention' on the left. I thought the rule of screen direction (reading from left to right) meant having conservative opinions on the left of the screen and progressive opinions on the right felt more natural, so I decided that what I did was the least awkward of my options.
Hi Ryan, I'm wondering in which sense Keynes should be considered a Liberal, it always seem to me more like he was a Socialist, in the sense that he supported the idea of Gov overspending as a means to achieve prosperity, and of course such spending only would be achieved through expropriating private property from individuals (aka taxes).
Pretty good video. Liberalism... the "it's complicated" of political philosophy ;) At the end, I really wish you would have recommended "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper Would have also been nice if you mentioned the importance to liberalism of having power vested in multiple systems, aka "checks and balances". Oh, and I realize I'm a year late, but I would love to see a similar video on progressivism. From my POV, liberalism embodies individual centered freedom and the Enlightenment concept of systems which improve/adapt over time (that marketplace of ideas thing, well-functioning economic markets, and how science science works). That's literally progressive, but I'm pretty sure that isn't quite what progressive means in political philosophy terms.
Ryan has been coming across my feed for the last couple of days. I’m ashamed to say I judged a book by its cover. I’m glad I gave him a chance. Honest and objective content has been missing from this country for some time. Thank you Ryan for putting “it is what it is“ back into content.
The guy evaded, glossed over the fundamentals. I think he knows them but you can see the fear of backlash/canceling in his eyes when he gets near truths. He didn’t even mention Marxism, the central tenet of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is fascist, uses unlimited, centralized government to force its will on the economy & culture, via regulation, DOJ/FBI police state selective persecution, censorship by collusion with media.. anything libs don’t like is ‘hate speech’, ‘terrorist’, etc. Classic liberals, libertarians & conservatives are now the same & against the modern libs/progressives/Marxists cult who use government, media, big tech, academia as tools to oppress. Wokeness is a cancer.
It’s frustrating how few people acknowledge that both major political factions in America are liberal, they only differ on how they interpret equality and freedom and how to best maximize them.
@@zacharytuttle5618 It’s like different denominations of a religion. They agree on the major stuff but can differ significantly on the minor stuff. Both parties agree on the general principles of classical liberalism. Equality under the law, separation of powers, republicanism (the government type, not the party), liberty and freedom. The differences appear when each side states what they believe freedom and equality to mean. The American right will interpret freedom to mean freedom from over reaching government, whereas the American left will interpret freedom to mean freedom from poverty and want. The American right will interpret equality as meaning everyone is treated equally under the law and should be left to succeed or fail on their own merits. The American left will interpret equality as meaning everyone being guaranteed a certain standard of living and laws being made to address past injustices in certain communities. Actual conservatism and actual leftism doesn’t really exist in America. The founders wouldn’t have considered themselves conservative because in their time conservatism meant monarchism and support for aristocracy.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 yeah those values are so vague and commonly held its like the difference between Islam and Christianity and saying they're the same cause they both believe in a deity. I think most Europeans would also say they hold those values but they have blatantly different political thought and systems. If you're point is that the meaning of words and political parties drift then yeah of course.
@@zacharytuttle5618 I disagree. The modern political parties of America are descended from the same intellectual tradition. Islam and Christianity are not. Despite sharing a deity, their perception of that deity’s nature and their day to day values are too different to be considered simply an offshoot of a main shared spiritual strain.
Your videos on CRT, identity politics and 60s radicals have helped me truly understand why so many people seem so unfiltered and unapologetically angry while touting themselves as saviors.
@@realryanchapman Great work and well deserved. I just found you yesterday from a link by James Lindsay on your CRT video and you sound like a brilliant man with an amazing ability to lay things out in layman terms, which is really needed. Keep at it and I hope you reach a million subs very soon.
Ryan is super easy to understand and relate to, he vocalizes a lot of the things I've never been able to relate to simply. I love his coherent tone and almost visibly unbiased and scholarly approach to these subjects!!
This is pretty much one of the channels I do respect from the Western media nowadays. Hope I would find more people in youtube like Mr. Chapman here. Thank you.
I'm from China & thank you for this amazing introduction. The political debate in quality liberal democracies (i.e. the west) is distracted with polarized differences domestically and is eroded by oversimplified slogans & geopolitical zero-sum game externally. Maximizing personal liberty under the condition of preserving basic social cohesion & functions & with a balance for equity should be a political philosophy that appeals to the overwhelming majority of Chinese. Yet unfortunately, it is now sold as a cheap political religion (one has to comply without question or scrutiny or risking being punished) & abused as an ideological weapon for geopolitical gains. A huge shame and a big loss for both sides...
Holy cow - this and your other videos are super helpful and informative. There's a serious dearth of concise, distilled, information available that isn't filtered or slanted with biased agenda these days. Even less that provides quotation, citation and attribution. Thanks for your work, Ryan!
As an Italian citizen I recently struggled a lot to understand how American are now looking at liberalism vs Europeans but your video clarified a lot of concepts. I’m just wondering why you didn’t talked about who’s considered to be the father of classical liberalism (John Locke ). Keep it up with the good works , your content is pure perfection.
He mentioned Locke once. I don't think he wanted to get bogged down discussing the background too much or this would not have been a concise presentation. he focused on the crystallization of liberalism in its nineteenth century heyday. That is why he mentioned the highly influential John Stuart Mill. The only thing is that he could have mentioned that Mill was British, not American. Not wanting to get bogged down can be taken too far.
Here in the United States, John Locke was never considered a liberalism today in the United States. He is considered a far right fascist no joke. Our constitution was very influenced by John Locke, which I am a constitutional is so although I’m being considered a fascist I believe we should stick to the constitution. That’s where our rights are.. but what do I know I’m a fascist 🙄🙄🙄
I've been saying Liberalism is Conservativism for years now. Eyeing opening to see that my perception simply did not have the right terminology being applied to what I am observing. Love your channel. Excited that you can now monotize.
Same. And I would actually still maintain that stance because the majority of people who identify as conservative think more like the liberal right, even if they hold some conservative values. Or at least that's my perception.
@@dustinb1275 I think within my social circles the conservatives are hard to mistake for progressives. Mainly due to their religious beliefs and/or their desire to conserve the "old way." But I can think of a few examples where the progressives in my life fall more inline with the conservative capitalist. The again what do I know? It's all so confusing to fully understand to where you don't feel like a complete idiot.
I think the Republican party needs to drift a little to more a Social Conservatism, where we embrace the liberal ideology of "gay marriage and a compromise on abortion" and get rid of the communist/socialist left that have infected the DNC. However the GOP are so inept and put self interest first that it lets the DNC walk all over it. So yeah I miss the times where the biggest debate was how much the budget was and what we were putting our tax dollars towards.
It's easier to understand the political divide if you assume there are liberals and conservatives, libertarians and big government activists, and then assume a separate class of professional seditionists who are professional liars and hypocrites, who have a meaningless nonsensical ideology, and who are solely concerned with seizing power and making themselves rich. This is what we think of today as the progressive Left and what I would call Left fascists.
this video is helping me so much with my essay in liberal theory! I really appreciate all the sources clearly cited in your video. you clearly put a lot of effort into this video so thank you!
I appreciate your encyclopedic presentation of these terms and ideologies. Problem is, in the real world, politics, parties and business interests often pervert them or use their terminology to achieve their goals which can often be different or downright antithetical to it
manipulation of language is core to all politics. Since the beginning, politics has taken advantage of language, the emotional weight of certain words, and their associated meanings.
The normal US citizen, regardless of party affiliation, is a liberal conservative, however, the word "liberal" has been hijacked to mean a crazed commie leftist BUT the word "conservative" has also been hijacked to mean a crazed gun-nut, religious uneducated person so people end up having to choose which false stereotype they want to ID with and neglect their real feelings in favor of not embarrassing themselves in front of their work and/or social circle.
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Thank you for the insightful videos. Its nice to see the breakdown of some of these things without a hard opinion weaved into it. I've found my own opinion lines more with a liberal right (libertarian viewpoint), but I remember as an 22 year old watching a republican debate with my father in 2008 and seeing Ron Paul I asked what was up with him since he was challenging so many things on the debate state, and I agreed with him mostly and my father just blurting out "oh he's just a liberal pretending to be a republican". It was funny because at the time I thought "he doesn't really sound liberal" because of what I had always heard. As I grew I began to understand where he stood (as well as I did) really on the spectrum and I have said for a while, I find myself with far more in common with the liberal left (or I've said the libertarian left) than I have anything to do with the primary republican or democratic values. This kind of stuff is utterly fascinating to me.
An excellent, scholarly and lucid presentation. In Australia we confuse 'liberal' further by having a Liberal Party, which is essentially conservative/liberal, centre right. When we speak about liberalism in the modern American sense of quasi-progressive, we sometimes use the term "small L liberal" to distinguish it. The Liberal Party in Australia are also better connected with and cognisant of their classical roots. To confuse it further we have the world's first Labor Party, which is essentially progressive-ish centre left. In turn they would also be much more in touch with Fabian roots (indeed Australia still has a Fabian Society). Neither of the major parties are quite as ideological as in the USA, and to some extent are a bit more focussed on management policies that remedy issues. This occasionally produces some results which would surprise Americans, such as 1996 gun control being introduced by the centre right Liberal party (who are more like Republicans), while the centre left Labor party (more like Democrats) floated the dollar, deregulated banks and promoted industry productivity in the 1980s. The Labor Prime Minister who presided over the latter was formerly the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). In the late seventies as the 'oil shock' subsided, the retail cost of fuel remained stubbornly high. So he had the ACTU combine with a modest independent chain of discount gas stations (becoming ACTU-Solo) and out-grew and out-competed other suppliers until they brought prices down to reasonable levels - not the usual sort of 'industrial action' you expect from unions.
I love this! Getting a neutral perspective on what these terms mean can help heal the division in our country. People throw around these words, especially in politics, without understanding their meaning and oftentimes purposely use them as trigger words to divide people or get a reaction from people. You are providing a great service to America and I hope more people listen to what you have to say. You have done remarkable research.
Love the bumper music, has a Pulp Fiction vibe. I would argue that modern conservatives are the new classical liberals. Bill Maher represents the aging form of Liberal as we've come to understand it and that progressives have nothing to do with Liberalism. As somebody on the hard right, I wish our opposition was 2008 Obama, 1990's Clinton, etc., but I think our opposition is much darker, much more nefarious than that. Anyway, I love you videos and have been spreading the word as much as possible. Thoughtful, balanced, easy to understand videos about complex topics - well done.
I've been doing a deep dive into your videos, Ryan, and I continue to be so impressed with your work. This channel is an excellent educational resource. I'd be curious to hear from you down the road in some kind of "The Feedback I've Heard" video that summarizes the main criticisms of your more popular video essays (especially those that you feel may have some merit, in retrospect, as well as those voices that annoyingly misrepresented your analyses). I don't know if such a video would be helpful for you or other viewers, but I think it would add tremendously to your credibility. (Not that I think you have much to worry about. Generally, your channel is one of the few on RUclips doing political, historical and cultural analysis that strives to be as fair-minded and balanced as possible. For that reason especially, as I've mentioned in a previous comment, I feel comfortable sharing your videos with our MS ? HS Philosophy Club.) Bravo.
Hi, thanks again and that's an interesting idea for a video. Whenever I release these videos I picture getting a mountain of criticism, but so far I've seen surprisingly little, so I've been able to respond directly in the comments section to any halfway decent criticism that I see. There was one case where after sitting on a comment for a while I decided to take a video down entirely, not because I had anything necessarily wrong, but because it made me realize I had missed an area of research, making my argument conceptually misshapen. But so far comments like that have been rare. The channel is still in its early stages, so I imagine if it finds a bigger audience I'll get more robust criticism and I could see making a feedback video at that point. We'll see!
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Thanks for the video! I feel thoroughly educated. Here are my typed up notes for anyone interested: Liberalism Classical liberalism Core tenets of classical liberalism (1800s) 1. FREEDOM - 1. Not freedom for a community or a country, but specifically on an individual level. 2. How much? As much as possible. 1. Some constraints of freedom paradoxically maximise freedom 2. A railing atop a skyscraper limits your capacity to jump, but maximises your capacity to stand on the edge 3. It must be illegal to physically hurt others and to limit other’s freedoms 1. This doesn’t include mental harm as it is too hard to define 4. The right to think, speak, and pursue your own aims 5. They believe that, if a state is given too much control over an economy, that control will eventually limit people’s freedom 1. Thus, they had a hands of “laissez-faire” attitude to the economy (government should not regulate beyond necessary requirements) 2. Equality 1. Any freedom that is going to be backed by law needs to be equally distributed to all members of society 1. Rich and poor cannot have different sets of rights 2. You cannot infinitely support freedom and equality simultaneously 1. Equity, for example, would be impossible to aim at without tyranny, and would thus cost too much freedom 2. Equality of opportunity on the other hand is in line with liberal values 1. However, this is in contradiction to the idea of parents having the freedom to prop their kids up 2. Although this could be solved by inheritance tax 3. Thus, you cannot have a perfectly free and equal society Classical liberals were still quite elitist For example, they tended to see voting as a privilege that could be earned if one had an education and owned property They were in favour of expanding education though They saw liberalism as a force for civilisation around the world Hence, they felt a need to spread it and give everyone civil rights However, they were in favour of doing this by means of imperialism John Stuart Mill - On Liberty Liberal democracy Core tenets of liberal democracy 1. A society that is liberal and democratic 2. Capitalistic (though often moderated) 3. Civil rights backed by law for all 4. Individualism 1. The idea we should look around and see the country as made up of atomised individuals and not collectives with competing interests 5. Tolerant and respectful are qualities we must have if we are to respect other’s freedom (controversial) If you’re a liberal democrat, you are generally for capitalism and a multi-party democracy and you’re for state-backed rights for all citizens -Most Americans -All American presidents -Karl Popper -Fracis Fukuyama After WW2, Germany was split into the liberal west and the communist east Modern liberalism Post-industrial There are 2 types of modern liberals 1. Rights-based liberal 1. Worked on extending equal rights to everyone in the country 1. Voting rights 2. Civil rights for minorities 2. Economy-based liberal 1. Focused on the economy 1. Quality of life concerns 2. Unemployment 3. Equality of opportunity 2. Imagine someone with no home nor education and they’re discriminated due to race 1. Limited options 2. They only have rights in theory, in practice they don’t 3. If economy crashes, they’re first to be him 3. These liberals saw the government as a solution to the previous scenario 4. As America industrialised, corporations became bigger and more industrial 1. Some liberals said that we need a bigger government as a results 2. Others said these problems will self-regulate 1. As corporations become bigger they become slow and unwieldy 2. Smaller corporations will overtake them over time 3. This was a minority opinion The second one shows how liberal attitudes to economic issues were changing over time Essentially, nobody was laissez-faire anymore Left vs Right economics 1. Liberal left 1. The government should intervene more 2. Take more of an active role in making quality of life improvements 3. Welfarist position 4. Rawls - philosopher 5. Keynes - economist 2. Liberal right 1. A rising tide lifts all boats 2. Less intervention means more freedom 1. More economic activity 2. More prosperity 3. Good for everyone in the long run INCLUDING the least well off 3. More particular in their support of social programs 1. Some forms of welfare are counterproductive 2. Made people dependent 4. They were more for some types of intervention 1. Equality of opportunity 1. Fighting discrimination 2. Keep an eye out for unfairness 2. Fix these as long as it doesn’t cost too much freedom for others 5. Hayek - philosopher 6. Friedman - economist Left vs Right culture 1. Intervention 1. Coercion with the power of a group behind it 1. Censorship 2. Academics establishing an orthodox and pressuring conformity 3. This is not grounded in liberal principles 1. Progressive? 2. Conservative? 3. Something else? 2. Laissez-faire 1. Let people think and speak and be themselves 21st Century liberalism Controversial Competing narratives Ryan Chapman: “If people looked back on where we are now, they would say we’re still in a period of modern liberalism and basic liberal ideas haven’t changed” Other people: “Liberalism in America is basically conservatism now” Ryan Chapman: “That’s an over-simplification to the point of just being wrong. Liberalism isn’t dead, it is just obscured by poor terminology.” Who are the liberals today then? If you are someone who believes in 1. Freedom 2. Equality 3. Individuality 4. Respecting the civil rights of others (including those you disagree with), 5. The right to free-speech, Then you are a liberal These are the basic principles of liberalism Conservatism and liberalism, and progressivism and liberalism, are not mutually exclusive You can have either combo without necessarily betraying the liberal value system You can also be a progressive and illiberal, or a conservative and illiberal Liberal right 1. Most laissez-faire 2. Probably libertarian Liberal moderate 1. Centrist and don’t identify either way Liberal left 1. More progressive 2. Should still be against censorship (as should others) All disagreement amongst the 3 bands of 21st century liberalism comes down to size of government and its role in the economy and welfare If we band liberal right with conservatives and progressives with liberal left, it is less simple but it creates confusion It’s just plain wrong Liberalism, progressivism, and conservatism are not interchangeable
REQUEST: could you make a video explaining Conservatism and a separate one delving into Progressivism? I consider myself a classical liberal yet I’m feeling more right-leaning in US politics. But I do not agree with the GOP platform so I am hesitant of the term Conservative. But I do feel that Conservatives (GOP) today seem more Liberal than Democrats today. So I agree that we need to recapture these terms as they are not being applied properly. I greatly enjoy how you explained these evolutions in this video but while I understand progressivism vs traditionalism as extremes of the right and left (culturally), this left me wondering what you meant with the term Conservative. I do not see modern conservatism (GOP) as interventionists of cultural/personal freedoms.
Ok here's the thing: In Europe, liberalism and capitalism are things we invented at one point in our histories. In the US, however, liberalism and capitalism are the foundational bedrock of your nation. When you are a "right-winger" in the US, you seek to preserve the liberal, capitalist values that your country was built on. The Jeffersonian ideals. The right-left dichotomy has its origins in Europe, a Europe that was built on Feudalism, not liberalism. Whereas the US was built on liberalism and not feudalism. So when you then try to apply this taxonomy of political inclinations on America, you will find that values that may not in and of themselves be "right-wing" in Europe, might be considered "right-wing" in the US. Know what I mean? Because your country was built on liberalism, and you seek to maintain liberal values, then your liberalism is in its nature "right-wing". That said, do not necessarily mistake "right-wing" with "conservative". Coservatism in the US refers to a specific movement born from the Old Right in the early post-WW2 period. It's just one example of broadly "right-wing" thought. Objectivism and libertarianism are others.
Very well done. As a practical matter, the best chance to avoid terminological confusion is to start using 'progressive' instead of 'liberal' every time that the former is apt. We want to avoid using 'liberal' to denote progressive because, as Ryan suggests, some progressives could be described as 'illiberal' and we're going to confuse ourselves using 'liberal' regardless of whether, each time we use it, we specify that we mean illiberal liberal, liberal liberal, or classical liberal.
I feel I would consider myself a liberal between right and left, and really dislike being considered a socially accepted term liberal, which you refer to as progressive here or conservative. I really like the way you present information here, in a way to make your viewers think about their beliefs, without forcing your opinions. It's very refreshing, thanks for the content you make.
As a "classical liberal," I think the key is equality of possibility. It's ok that a Swiss child has a better chance of being a great watch maker, and a kid from New Zealand has a much higher chance of being a rugby player. But there's no legal barrier stopping a kid in New Zealand from trying to be a great watch maker or a Swiss boy from being a rugby player.
I've never made the connection between liberals and libertarians, because of how different the ideas of people who call themself as such are, although given the spelling the relation should be obvious. It's amazing how much a word can change meaning colloquially in such a relatively short time period.
It's really quite simple. Libertarians are extremists. They believe pedophilia should be legal so long as the child consents to the adult. Liberals recognize that children are not mentally capable of making that consent because the human brains does not fully mature until around the age of 25. This is the distinction between libertarians and liberals. Libertarians take freedom to the point of stupidity and just keep going.
@@dennismitchell5276 isn't it amazing the whining and backtracking that libertarians will go to, to distance themselves from their own ideology. All of sudden, when you introduce some nuance/complexity into the picture, the more moderate libertarians will start walking back their position and advocating for regulation where it "makes sense". A key distinction is that they generally only care about their own personal/subjective notion of issues that directly affect themselves. They have no broader concept of community much less society at large. This is why they have tend to have minimal conformity. They're a bunch of immature children whining over who gets to hold the ball on the playground. And while not all libertarians are pedophiles, most pedophiles are libertarian.
@@jamarr81 You are obviously confused. It's like saying Biden is a communist. Libertarians can be communist, socialist, anarchist, christian, gay, haters of capitalism, especially when capitalism has control of the government. Not all democrats are Nazis, just because Hitler called himself a democratic socialist.
Third video of yours I have watched. As a historian I loss hair over some individuals broad definitions of stupidity. You are doing this world a great service. You earned a subscriber in me. Keep up the fantastic work and stay the course. I'd give you 5 stars if I could.
Thank you for your videos! They are highly informative and a real joy to watch. If I can offer you one suggestion is that there are times I need to rewind because the information is a bit esoteric. Some of the concepts need to be unpacked a little more than you are unpacking them. And, some of your unpacking is spot-on. I wasn't a poli-sci major in college but am interested in learning more. I have purchased books based on your recommendation. The two I am reading today have to do with your video on fascism.
Yes! Ryan explains in such a clear, concise and unbiased way. The things he is explaining is something I understood but could never explain in the same way.
Dude, you’re amazing. Before watching this video I often wondered why no one ever mentioned a liberal right. I felt, intuitively, that it might (and should) exist, but I never could identify who/how or why they existed. Now, I do. Thank you. I love your videos.
Another great video. Do you think you’ll make any videos on the progression of conservative thought ? I’d like to hear your take on it. Especially as it relates to the last 20-30 years of conservatism.
Conservatives have progressed to the left. I am a constitutionalist. I would be call a radical.😂😂😂 both a democrat party and the republican party are now left. The Democrat party has become so far left. They are on the verge of fascism if they don’t wake up.
Great content! But man, I wish "liberal right" wasn't on the LEFT side of the graph and "liberal left" wasn't on the RIGHT side. Seriously though, thanks for the content. I work in a university and there has been a strong current of anti-liberal progressivism lately. These videos have been extremely helpful.
When did you see that anti-liberalism roughly starting? And trust me I thought about putting liberal left and right on the actual left and right, but thought it would have been even weirder to have laissez-faire on the right and intervention on the left. I also think it feels more natural to have conservatives on the left side of the screen and progressives on the right because of the way we read and understand screen direction.
@@realryanchapman Good point about intervention on the left and laissez-faire on the right. I hadn't considered that. I'd say it started about 2-3 years ago when we brought in a couple of new people with much more interventionist leanings. However, things really gained steam after the death of George Floyd. I'm in a psychology department in an engineering oriented university and have been for 19 years. Until now, there has been a lot of respect for data-driven policies, academic freedom, etc. and have been generally free from the postmodernism you see more in the humanities. Starting last summer, the newer interventionist faculty started making more headway however as all of us try to embrace antiracism. At that time I saw more colleagues willing to set aside reliance on data and further embrace ideologically driven policies (e.g., the push to do away with GRE testing for our doctoral programs, segregation of students by race during orientation, "decolonizing" syllabi, etc.). I think most of us tend to want to do the right thing and trust the experts when they tell us these things are useful, but do not understand the philosophies underlying the critical race theory these proposals are built upon.
Ah sorry to hear that. That sounds frustrating. I've seen some other staff come forward with similar concerns over the last few months. Have you been tracking that happening on more of a national scale? It seems like there's been a push for anti-racism programs in K-12 and in colleges and it's happening pretty quietly without much research backing it.
@@realryanchapman I haven't tracked it in any formal way, but it does seem to be on the rise doesn't it? Several republican lead legislatures have recently introduced anti-CRT bills which points to a trend as well. In some ways, I'm glad to see some action but I also worry this will become a partisan issue that Democrats reflexively oppose. As a psychologist, I find it interesting that unlike previous Marxist movements in the US, this version appeals largely to the emotions of guilt and sympathy while using shaming (quick labels of "fragility" and calling of racists) to silence critics. These aspects seem a bit different than what you described in your video on the 60s radicals which make it interesting and potentially more effective.
Not to push my own videos but check out the one I did on memetics if you haven't. It's about how ideas naturally evolve over time into their most potent form, if you measure potency by their attractiveness to the human mind and the rate that they spread from one person to another (like a virus). I think we're seeing that with Marxism in America and how it over time attached to the subjects that Americans feel most guilty about.
Also you don't need to be progressive/leftist to believe that certain groups (mainly African Americans and Native Americans) have not been given a fair opportunity in American society and as Ryan pointed out in his video parents are inevitably going to help their descendants get ahead.
Did you watch the video? Because that’s wrong - it seems the great traversty is that people lop the liberal right with conservatives which is incorrect, but the liberal left and progressives go pretty well together.
@@veronicamaine3813 did *you* watch it? He specified how progressivism, like conservatism, is typically not a liberal position since it seeks to change people's opinions through authority instead of being culturally laissez faire, and while it's possible to be both progressive and liberal, just like it is to be conservative and liberal, it's not an automatic thing. He even made that chart at the end where the four positions are separated.
For currently obvious reasons we turn against far-right totalitarianism if we believe in equality, at least in opportunity, for all. As we defend our egalitarian beliefs, we need this video to think about where we stand. I think this video opens all the doors. Thank you, Ryan Chapman!
I think so too. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to wrap our heads around there being two major types of people within each party though, if it were part of standard political education.
@@realryanchapman Even two would be lumping different people into the same category, but that would be a discussion with no end. It would also be dangerous for these parties, as a division of the party could damage it's election result, or worse, split the party. And even then, I'm not sure those division would be real or important enough, or even the right division.
@14:58 "windowed down" is part of the argot of digital photography/videography referring to something analogous to digital zoom. Perhaps Ryan is after either "winnowed down" or "whittled down." If so, the latter best captures his sense.
I consider myself a liberal. I used to be registered as a Democrat. I left the party last year. I personally do not believe in imperialism, profit wars, lobbying, fascism and censorship and I'm pro small government. I think the democratic party is moving away from my values which yes, at the core is freedom and liberty. I think that we can successfully live in an environment where different cultures are respected, shared and embraced among these values.
I considered myself an old type liberal, libertarian perhaps, I leaned republican until 2018. I wanted small government, low regulation and taxation. Having taken a sabbatical to Europe and seen how they do things I feel the party of my slant is shifting towards oligarchical opening the doors to autocrats. I now ask myself whether the socialist tradition is a better move and in Europe it has worked out very well.
It seems the problem is that neither of those are exclusively to the left or right anymore. Even though they argue otherwise. Let's say for the sake of argument, Abortion rights. Conservatives and Liberals alike think the Government should be involved in this matter. The problem is they don't see eye to eye on what an individual is. Either way, conservatives using the power of the government to restrict someone's rights, who actively have them. Conservatives will claim a moral dialog but in practice, they are speaking for a potential persons rights, yet, for obvious reasons, the only actual person who has rights is restricted. The same goes for the argument over border security, something this nation adopted, and doesn't fit the conservation of Lincoln's party. On the left, they generally want to afford those freedoms to people, but the issues stem as to what freedoms they should be allowed if they aren't a citizen. Once again coming to a head, one with solutions that neither are willing to approach, but are still evident. How, when, and to whom, do you let someone become a citizen. They are both advocated for, barring the extremes. Yet, the arguments stem from that simple solution. Can you be a refugee or an illegal, if everyone was granted citizenship? Clearly, this issue is where the stem issues arise, not how we deport, capture, or prevent illegals or if we should accommodate them, and give them the same rights as citizens, when they aren't actually citizens. To be a country, you need citizenship, as to vote. So what process do you need to fix this? Instant citizenship with a probationary period? Probationary periods that aren't guaranteed that cost potential citizens monies just to be denied? Or a waiting list of applicants in which the Government vets, once again, creating a stronger centralized government, not only though enforcement, but though administrative costs. Today's world is much more complicated in terms of actual core political beliefs. They are sacrificed much more on both sides, mostly on an attempt to gain power through votes. Once corporations practically took over the US Government though legal donations, the scope in which you're allowed to view gets much, much, more directed to where they want you to look, and feel.
Interesting video! I’ve never been very read on social economics. I’m learning a lot. One minor criticism is that your right and left graphics need to be flipped. You have the right on the left side and it pointing left and you have the left on the right side and pointing right. As for the term liberal, I was born in the 60’s, and in the 60’s and 70’s as a young person had a simplistic definition of liberal and conservative. Conservatives wanted to conserve the status quo and liberals wanted to change it. Being very liberal meant wanting a lot of change, both socially and economically. Some people, however, would say they are socially liberal, but economically conservative, meaning they were for social change but they favored conservative republican fiscal policies. That’s what I thought, rightly or wrongly. I still think most people from my generation thought that way. When Bernie Sanders came around is when I started hearing the term progressive. It is also when I started hearing some of the younger generation criticizing liberals which kind of disappointed me because I felt I, who considered myself to be a liberal, was philosophically on the same side as them. They were not just criticizing neoliberals, which you did not touch on incidentally, but all liberals. So I have been a bit confused with what has been going on with the term liberal. Your video has started to shed some light.
It's my understanding that the two biggest (relevant) differences between liberalism and neoliberalism come down to markets, where liberals think they're generally good and happen naturally, and neoliberals think they're good but must be *maintained by the state* and that markets select the true ruling elites while weeding out the unproductive from the populace. Liberalism is better than neoliberalism, but it isn't enough to have a coherent and progressive world view imo. The "mental harm" thing that he brushes over is one example. Trauma is a serious problem. Manipulation is a form of mental harm we need to take very seriously. I think the underlying belief that markets produce good outcomes is also misguided. Individual freedom that is *equitably* distributed is a good thing, but I don't think liberalism originally called for equity. What's your understanding of liberalism and how that aligns with the younger folks criticizing liberalism?
So, the first thing you have to understand is that “liberalism” involves a specific state of freedom. Laws are the antithesis of freedom. Secondly, “conservatism” is a relative modifier. It requires a term to explicitly define what is to be conserved. You mentioned a couple, but a Constitutional Conservative seek to conserve the founding principles. Those founding principles were the progressive ideas in their time while the Tories were the conservatives because they wanted to conserve the supremacy of the Crown. Now, if it was PROGRESS to move away from a tyrannical centralized government, how is it progress to go BACK to one? A Constitutional Conservative seeks to conserve the Progress the Founders made by resisting the regression back to a centralized government. Centralization in a socioeconomic contexts is equivalent to tyranny. Everywhere else, it leads to instability, susceptibility to corruption, and exponentially increasing inefficiency. Centralization is regressive.
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Another great video. This journey about definitions has caused me to go from independent to Republican to basically Libertarian. Other than one topic which I won't mention here, I am pretty liberal in the classical sense of the value of the individual and in economics. Both clearly there are "real" liberals on both sides of the aisle and I like how you separate them from conservatives and progressives which is a good distinction.
What American conservatives conserve is old-fashioned American liberalism in its constantly evolving form. Any progressive program that lasts more than a decade gets folded into the conservative framework as if it had always been there. (Even my father, a staunch conservative Republican born in 1925, praised the innovative government programs of FDR's administration.) I'm sure to some it looks as if conservatives are just trying to stop progress, and dream about trying to turn things back. That's all conservatives ever seem to do, given that they always give in and accept every new thing eventually. But they're not so one-dimensional as that. They simply have weak principles and no plans.
Ryan, Thankyou: I’m English and always having to transpose English politicolinguistics into American and visa verse. So this helped to calibrate for me. How I would classify my politics is often difficult when I’m communicating because, as you said here, a liberal attempts to accommodate some liberal right thoughts and can also stretch into progressive liberal territory. It often makes things difficult for those who are more ideologically constrained and often leaves me trying to figure where I am on the political spectrum. Maybe that is what makes me, overall, a liberal !! I hope your down to earth approach is rewarded with a growing channel. My best wishes for you going forward
This channel is so dope! I don't know what inspired or compelled you to create this content but what Americans need more than anything right now is education and a better understanding of history and how we arrived to this moment we are in.
Growing up I always thought "liberal" was opposite to "conservative". As in, liberal: for a heavy application and conservative: for a sparing application. The application being, government control. After learning about politics I realized bolth of these terms where historically used in completely different ways, but it made sense at the time.
Yes He's essentially a 90s Democrat. (He was registered as one most of his life) most of his actions fall in line with this. Being "anti woke", regardless of if its genuine or strategic, just changed the base he needed to appeal to.(which worked i guess? Somehow..) He's also a businessman so he acts in personal interest in that regard.
@@bestestAIsongs Absolutely, if you have the more historical view of the term liberal. In that sense I'm a liberal. I'm not arguing for changing the definition. I've switched my usage of the word after studying politics and learning better.(as I said originally) I was just bringing up how a layman that would for example, use liberal as an insult towards people that want allot of government programs makes sense if you understand their using the word differently.
it's important not to overstate the importance of defining terms. definitions are only useful insofar as they create organisation and bring coherency to politics in service of political change. liberalism is defined not by some essentialist principle all liberals adhere to, it is defined by it's relationship to ideologies, movements, classes, and political concepts external to liberalism. this video is a good introduction, but to further political understanding in a meaningful way, the goal should not be to find a one-size-fits-all rulebook, but to seek exposure to many varying perspectives.
Just a big thank you for your work and willingness to express your findings and views. Democracy is now at stake all around the globe. Keep up the good work.
Cracking video with a spellbinding, intelligent delivery with fine prose and cadence. These all make listening to a complex subject so much easier and more rewarding. I am very pleased that your subscribers and listeners are getting on board and that you can better monetise your channel. Listening to your videos is close to meditation. Thank you.
Nice job Ryan. I agree with your terminology and have a hard time explaining it to others, especially with the mass media uses of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative". I teach high school world history and try to help my students understand the political spectrum. I know it goes against what you said (and I think you are correct) but to help them grasp things I teach my students that "Classic Liberals" of the 1700-1800s hold pretty much the same values as "Modern Conservatives". Individual rights were a "new" then, but the passage of 245+ years have made our ideas of independence "traditional". Conservatives tend to like tradition, but we never had a tradition of Monarchy, so American tradition is based on our founding classic liberal principles are now modern conservative ideas here in our young nation. I know this goes against your definitions that I agree with, but I just can't find another way to get 15 and 16 year olds to wrap their heads around this stuff. I really enjoy your posts, I enjoy seeing someone much younger than me actually reading and thinking. Thanks for your time making these great videos!
Modern conservatives very often think religion should be mixed with politics and are for example for the state limiting individuals rights on say sexuality based on religious morals. Classical liberals would have certainly been against that, for example it is completely oppsite to the harm principle of Mill that would most certainly state that the state should have no say in a persons sexuality or a say based on sexuality of who he/she wants to marry. So there definitely is a quite sharp difference.
You’re probably a good teacher. The word liberal has totally lost its meaning over time. What people now call liberals are totally the opposite of the word’s meaning. I never understood how typical Californians who want to overregulate everything, want high taxes, love government intervention etc could be called liberal when they are more socialist than anything.
@@Mario.H You are right, but as I pointed out also conservatives are very different from "Modern conservatives" unlike the original message center wrote, if he teaches this is factually wrong and he is not very good teacher. Modern conservatives biblical moralistic views as a base and argument of changing the legislation to limit the rights of sexual minorities is totally against what John Stuart Mill stated as the main principe of liberalism, "the harm principle" (individuals should be as free as possible to do what they ie. not limited by the state, if that does not limit other individual freedom. You can probably see why legislation limiting the rights of sexual minorities (f.ex. the yearn from the modern conservatives to limit marriage rights of same sexual couple, something Bentham, an avid atheist, would never agree with). If the original poster is not willing to understand this blatant set of facts, then he is probably not a very good teacher, because what he teaches about liberalism is factually incorrect.
There are different forms of equality... this was even explained in the video. In fact, he was explicitly stated that "liberals are against equality of outcome", but they are in favor of laws/programs that maximize "equality of opportunity". You can absolutely have varying degrees of liberty and equality at the same time. Maybe pay attention next time before commenting.
@@jamarr81 Maybe take your inflated ego and stop commenting on subjects you don't understand. It is not well understood among liberals that equality, is not fundamentally compatible with liberty. And this episode is so short that he's not even scratching the surface of the subject.
@@CO8848_2 how are you this stupid? I just explained how equality and liberty are compatible. It was explained in the video as well. Do you believe that just repeating a stupid statement over and over again makes it true?
Informative. Thanks for the historical context. I also appreciate your opinions and I further appreciate that you strive to be honest about what is your opinion versus what you are presenting as fact.
Laissez-Faire has proven to be incompatible human interest. We have economies that are too big to fail, people that are too beautiful or too important to go to jail for crimes they may have committed, etc. Human interest tends to be the corrupter of any and every classical ideology. The notion that basic human rights have been historically denied people in a country that calls herself the land of the free is a hoot. Currently LGBTQ people are fighting to live their lives; some people say ”they are trying to shove it down our throats”. I say no, they are trying to live their lives freely. They said the same of Black people on the heels of the Civil Rights days. We can’t have the ideology we want, it seems, because we are humans, and any ideology is filtered through our humanity, but our humanity is compromised by our interests. Economic, social, racial and whatnot.
@@manisthemeasure2205 the defund the police movement as well as wokeism as a whole paints law enforcement as the soldiers of systemic racism. Law enforcement in the city is completely useless so now it’s pure chaos 24/7 on par with Somalia. They threw the baby out with the bath water and now all of us have to suffer.
Excellent explanation of how I have understood my own political thought without ever having parsed it out. Growing up hearing "Liberal and Conservative" used as diametrical opposites confused me. Well done, and thank you.
This Guy is the Smart Ultra Ego of me who is too addicted to RUclips to do the hard work of studying, reading these books and writing deep thoughts about those books :-). ...keep up the good work
What im hearing so far is what i would clearly describe as a progressive. There is a large dose of social justice ideology in what he's calling "liberalism". Progressivism broke away from liberalism in 1900, and in around the 60s overtook it to redefine popularly what was called liberalism. The liberals of the 50s and before, had to stop calling themselves liberals because leftists who believed in an entirely different notion of the role of government (that it should proactively push for social change, rather than applying laws universally and treating nobody with privilege) started calling themselves liberals. Liberalism was always fundamentally the belief in the purpose of government being to prevent people from violating the rights of others. It was not supposed to proactively or retroactively seek group-based policies. The notion of taxing a more wealthy family or person to give money to a less wealthy family or person, is on its face illiberal.
This is really great! I feel like not a lot of people really articulate my thoughts on the matter as well as you did here. Especially the difference between the liberal left/ liberal right and conservatives/progressives
G'Day from Australia, I really do like and appreciate your work; it is so important in these time to have a direct non-bias factual analysis of the political spectrum
This reminds me of the time Marge Simpson said"I don't know what to be liberal about anymore?". From that episode about itchy and scratchy were rebooting as girls.
I used to be political active and you remind me of my professor when I studied political philosophy in uni. Even though we didn't share views he gave both my "camp" and the others a good representation. Keep up the good work, I really enjoy it! Nice transition music btw!
John Bezpiaty writing--Thank you for this clear description of liberalism's history. This materially fulfills my request, made elsewhere, for a piece on both liberalism and libertarianism.
Its shocking how most political yt channels spew outright propaganda instead of nuanced educational thought, keep on doing the research Chapman if I could I’d make folks like you more common in the algorithm
Individualism Equal application of rules Opposition to dogma Freedom of speech and conscience To my way of thinking those are the foundational points of liberalism. I'm two years late to the party but appreciate the video and your neutral assessment. Cheers.
“We can’t let terms degenerate into meaninglessness and incoherency.”
So well put! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who thinks this.
progressives and post-modernists will fight tooth and nail on that, LOL! This was an excellent video.
He says, while demonstrating that the word "liberal" has numerous meanings, some of which are inconsistent.
There are many of us, we just are not shouting about it cos it is not rebellious or controvercial.
RIGHT-LIBERTARIAN IS THE WAY...
THOMAS SOWELL, MILTON FRIEDMAN
Tony Timpa
@ahogammer6895 exactly
I am glad the algorithm sent your channel my way.
Great content.
Wow. I had forgotten what politically neutral content looks like!
Centrist does not mean politically neutral; those who say they do not have an ideology are just unable to see it. Being politically neutral still means working within the current overarching ideologies. I'm not saying this is bad, as everyone has a bias, but we shouldn't fool ourselves. This is still his perspective and morphed by his beliefs/ideology. Do your own additional research as well.
@@peanuttasty247 where did you say anything about centrist? He just siad he likes how neutral the video is when comes to informing people about political philosophy? Which for informational content is pretty much required to not be seen as a propagandistic.
@@peanuttasty247 off topic.
@@peanuttasty247 best party in the states 🥳. Unfortunately undermined by red and blue.
Centrist is in the context a synonym for neutral- don’t argue stupidity
Conservatives like to call everyone a liberal, and use it as a slur. They make it hard for me to understand what a liberal actually is. So thank you for this video!
I’m a conservative that also feels this way of other conservatives. I always knew there was a difference, it was just hard to use a separate term for what are “modern liberals” like this video describes. So i say classical liberals for people who uphold traditional liberal values. (And usually leftist for todays pro-big government liberals)
@@mbdg6810 If big-government is your definition of "Leftism" then you are surely mistaken.
Wait a minute today’s Democrat party uses name-calling propaganda all the time. You literally just did it.. heading for Fascism that’s a fact.
Liberals love big government. Obama said liberals need big government to tell them what to do. Because big government is smarter than them. Big government can supply the masses with everything they need to live.
Long live the liberal empire?
It’s their propaganda, it works
Shout out to this guy for bringing left, right, center, independent, etc here to get a non bias explanation on terms so we can get a better understanding of terms being thrown around. This guy does his research and is fair and balanced which is like a cold drink of water in these hot times.
Which guy?
@@elspoocho4637 I don't see many. Are you having a stroke?
American Conservatives are true liberals, American Liberals are wacko Marxists.
@@bestestAIsongs Not really, clarify your point of view, because it makes 0 sense.
@@elspoocho4637 Clarify yours first. What were you asking for and why.
So basically "liberalism in canada is not even close to classical liberals
"How to delete someone else's comment"
@@MinusTechTips ?
Yeah. Liberals in Canada aren’t very liberal. As a party, especially in this past decade, seem to be actively destroying the freedom of individuals.
This channel is basically how I've stayed sane for the past year
Great he is unbelievable awesome
By listening to non factual western centered superficial political science commentary?
fr
@@kallashnykov If you believe that any book isn't just a sustained argument for an idea, rather than a recipe for how you should live, you don't understand what books and ideas are. If his video inspired others to dig deeper or not rely on pat answers for everything, he was wildly successful. In this regard, your comment is like criticizing a tomato for not being onion-enough.
@@TuckFrump-r9h I wish this channel inspired people to dig deeper and not spread misleading, misinformed and colonial centered propaganda information about politics.
I have this book from 1961 entitled "Europe Since 1815" by Gordon A. Craig; in the introduction to Part Three, covering 1871 to 1914, pages 260 and 261:
"Back in the 1850s, and even in the 1870s, it was possible for an intelligent man to subscribe to all the creeds of liberalism - individualism, competition, laissez faire, suspicion of big government, and the like - without feeling any inconsistency. By the 1880s this was no longer easy. The prevailing economic tendencies seemed to favor, not individualism and competition, but combination, for this was the age of trusts, monopolies and cartels. Industrialists who, in an earlier age, would have insisted that the government stay out of business now argued that it was the duty of government to support it by tariffs, subventions, convenient corporation laws, the acquisition of new markets in colonial areas, and the like. They not infrequently sought political support for their new ideas from parties of the Right which, because they had traditionally believed in a strong active government, were more open to these ideas than the Liberal parties; and this explains both the transformation of the Conservative parties into parties of big business (or, as in Germany, into allies of heavy industry) and the waning strength of Liberal Parties.
"Simultaneously, men whose liberalism centered around a sincere belief in the necessity of protecting the individual from arbitrary power and who, for that very reason, believed in laissez faire and opposed the growth of government functions began to suspect that the real threat to the individual was the tendency toward combination in business and that only the government could protect the individual, by regulating the operations of the great economic combines. These men, when their new belief proved unpopular with their former political associates, were apt to turn to the new labor parties which did believe in government regulation, with another resultant loss to the Liberal center. This latter tendency is shown clearly in the career of John Stuart Mill; in his classic Essay on Liberty (1859) he still regarded strong government as a threat to the free individual, but by the end of his life he was drifting rapidly in the direction of socialism.
"The economic tendencies of the time, then, by forcing men to revise their views on the role of government, inevitably weakened the persuasiveness of the creeds of liberalism and the strength of the Liberal parties. This in turn encouraged two things: on the one hand, a polarization of politics, a division into extremes, which was the inevitable result of the decline of the moderate parties of the middle, and was to reach its most dangerous form in the twentieth century; and, on the other, a growing acceptance of big government, the welfare state, and collectivism in general."
Honestly, it's exciting to experience reading a comment that compelled someone to remember such a passage and go through whatever process you did in not only recalling where you read it, but sharing it as well. Really does justice to this here channel content and to the author of the book you took the time to share.
Sincere respect
@@JH-ji6cj exactly!
Thank you so much for taking the time into posting this little excerpt from the book you read. I appreciate your efforts. This is a truly beautiful addition to the video.
Thank you for posting this! It was very interesting to read.
Pretty sure this book was from the early 70's....
In all of RUclips I’ve never been this grateful to find a channel
Thoughtful. Fair. Nuanced. Unpretentious. Undramatic. Very helpful. We need more of these type of videos among the popular political RUclips sphere.
Ryan Chapman has lots and lots of these videos. They mostly fit your criteria. Unfortunately, he is the only one doing this that I know of.
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
If you think youtube is bad, rumble is much worse in that regard
hear us out…
they don’t exist
there’s a 1 party system and the democrats just lie
would explain a bit…
🤔
also why Putin would buy Trump
god that man has made life entertaining 🍿
a spy most majestic legit just promotes Russia and creates instability
🙏🏻
#2Spirit #indigenous #philosophy
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can, and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman.
Notes:
I know I put 'liberal right' on the left side of the screen and 'liberal left' on the right. If I flipped it, then 'laissez-faire' would have been on the right of the screen and 'intervention' on the left. I thought the rule of screen direction (reading from left to right) meant having conservative opinions on the left of the screen and progressive opinions on the right felt more natural, so I decided that what I did was the least awkward of my options.
There is some subtle poetry to it as well, you should own it.
I came here to complain about just this. :) Luckily, you addressed it for me. :)
How about the term "Libtard", where does that fall in the definitions?
Hi Ryan, I'm wondering in which sense Keynes should be considered a Liberal, it always seem to me more like he was a Socialist, in the sense that he supported the idea of Gov overspending as a means to achieve prosperity, and of course such spending only would be achieved through expropriating private property from individuals (aka taxes).
Pretty good video. Liberalism... the "it's complicated" of political philosophy ;)
At the end, I really wish you would have recommended "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper
Would have also been nice if you mentioned the importance to liberalism of having power vested in multiple systems, aka "checks and balances".
Oh, and I realize I'm a year late, but I would love to see a similar video on progressivism.
From my POV, liberalism embodies individual centered freedom and the Enlightenment concept of systems which improve/adapt over time (that marketplace of ideas thing, well-functioning economic markets, and how science science works). That's literally progressive, but I'm pretty sure that isn't quite what progressive means in political philosophy terms.
Ryan has been coming across my feed for the last couple of days. I’m ashamed to say I judged a book by its cover. I’m glad I gave him a chance. Honest and objective content has been missing from this country for some time. Thank you Ryan for putting “it is what it is“ back into content.
The guy evaded, glossed over the fundamentals. I think he knows them but you can see the fear of backlash/canceling in his eyes when he gets near truths. He didn’t even mention Marxism, the central tenet of modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is fascist, uses unlimited, centralized government to force its will on the economy & culture, via regulation, DOJ/FBI police state selective persecution, censorship by collusion with media.. anything libs don’t like is ‘hate speech’, ‘terrorist’, etc.
Classic liberals, libertarians & conservatives are now the same & against the modern libs/progressives/Marxists cult who use government, media, big tech, academia as tools to oppress. Wokeness is a cancer.
What you on about and who made you the judge of book covers?
It’s frustrating how few people acknowledge that both major political factions in America are liberal, they only differ on how they interpret equality and freedom and how to best maximize them.
At what point does it become a new ideology? You can only twist interpretation so far.
@@zacharytuttle5618 It’s like different denominations of a religion. They agree on the major stuff but can differ significantly on the minor stuff. Both parties agree on the general principles of classical liberalism. Equality under the law, separation of powers, republicanism (the government type, not the party), liberty and freedom. The differences appear when each side states what they believe freedom and equality to mean.
The American right will interpret freedom to mean freedom from over reaching government, whereas the American left will interpret freedom to mean freedom from poverty and want.
The American right will interpret equality as meaning everyone is treated equally under the law and should be left to succeed or fail on their own merits. The American left will interpret equality as meaning everyone being guaranteed a certain standard of living and laws being made to address past injustices in certain communities.
Actual conservatism and actual leftism doesn’t really exist in America. The founders wouldn’t have considered themselves conservative because in their time conservatism meant monarchism and support for aristocracy.
That sounds a little generous.
@@TheNightWatcher1385 yeah those values are so vague and commonly held its like the difference between Islam and Christianity and saying they're the same cause they both believe in a deity. I think most Europeans would also say they hold those values but they have blatantly different political thought and systems.
If you're point is that the meaning of words and political parties drift then yeah of course.
@@zacharytuttle5618 I disagree. The modern political parties of America are descended from the same intellectual tradition. Islam and Christianity are not. Despite sharing a deity, their perception of that deity’s nature and their day to day values are too different to be considered simply an offshoot of a main shared spiritual strain.
Your videos on CRT, identity politics and 60s radicals have helped me truly understand why so many people seem so unfiltered and unapologetically angry while touting themselves as saviors.
Congrats on your monetization! Great video & topic, as usual.
Thanks! And glad to see you're still around. I feel like you've been here since day one.
@@realryanchapman Yes I have! Top 300, if I recall.
@@realryanchapman Great work and well deserved. I just found you yesterday from a link by James Lindsay on your CRT video and you sound like a brilliant man with an amazing ability to lay things out in layman terms, which is really needed. Keep at it and I hope you reach a million subs very soon.
@@realryanchapman Actually, it was your IdPol video. Getting confused now that I'm going through your back catalogue :)
@@zo1dberg I’m an African-American conservative and he just gives me peace after listening to him
Ryan is super easy to understand and relate to, he vocalizes a lot of the things I've never been able to relate to simply. I love his coherent tone and almost visibly unbiased and scholarly approach to these subjects!!
This is pretty much one of the channels I do respect from the Western media nowadays. Hope I would find more people in youtube like Mr. Chapman here. Thank you.
I'm from China & thank you for this amazing introduction. The political debate in quality liberal democracies (i.e. the west) is distracted with polarized differences domestically and is eroded by oversimplified slogans & geopolitical zero-sum game externally. Maximizing personal liberty under the condition of preserving basic social cohesion & functions & with a balance for equity should be a political philosophy that appeals to the overwhelming majority of Chinese. Yet unfortunately, it is now sold as a cheap political religion (one has to comply without question or scrutiny or risking being punished) & abused as an ideological weapon for geopolitical gains. A huge shame and a big loss for both sides...
Just curious, is it safe for you to be commenting this?
well written
@@alexandercarroll9707 As far as I know, using a VPN to 'climb over the wall' is fairly tolerated
So, your first problem was putting conflicting ideas into the same phrase:
Liberal = freedom
Democracy = tyranny
@Smoovie119 All of the Chines people I know seem casual about using VPNs back home
Holy cow - this and your other videos are super helpful and informative. There's a serious dearth of concise, distilled, information available that isn't filtered or slanted with biased agenda these days. Even less that provides quotation, citation and attribution. Thanks for your work, Ryan!
As an Italian citizen I recently struggled a lot to understand how American are now looking at liberalism vs Europeans but your video clarified a lot of concepts. I’m just wondering why you didn’t talked about who’s considered to be the father of classical liberalism (John Locke ).
Keep it up with the good works , your content is pure perfection.
He mentioned Locke once. I don't think he wanted to get bogged down discussing the background too much or this would not have been a concise presentation. he focused on the crystallization of liberalism in its nineteenth century heyday. That is why he mentioned the highly influential John Stuart Mill. The only thing is that he could have mentioned that Mill was British, not American. Not wanting to get bogged down can be taken too far.
Here in the United States, John Locke was never considered a liberalism today in the United States. He is considered a far right fascist no joke. Our constitution was very influenced by John Locke, which I am a constitutional is so although I’m being considered a fascist I believe we should stick to the constitution. That’s where our rights are.. but what do I know I’m a fascist 🙄🙄🙄
I've been saying Liberalism is Conservativism for years now. Eyeing opening to see that my perception simply did not have the right terminology being applied to what I am observing.
Love your channel. Excited that you can now monotize.
Same. And I would actually still maintain that stance because the majority of people who identify as conservative think more like the liberal right, even if they hold some conservative values. Or at least that's my perception.
@@dustinb1275 I think within my social circles the conservatives are hard to mistake for progressives. Mainly due to their religious beliefs and/or their desire to conserve the "old way."
But I can think of a few examples where the progressives in my life fall more inline with the conservative capitalist.
The again what do I know? It's all so confusing to fully understand to where you don't feel like a complete idiot.
I think the Republican party needs to drift a little to more a Social Conservatism, where we embrace the liberal ideology of "gay marriage and a compromise on abortion" and get rid of the communist/socialist left that have infected the DNC. However the GOP are so inept and put self interest first that it lets the DNC walk all over it. So yeah I miss the times where the biggest debate was how much the budget was and what we were putting our tax dollars towards.
No. Liberals are all for abortion rights, drug rights, homosexual and trans rights. Conservatives are not. Period
It's easier to understand the political divide if you assume there are liberals and conservatives, libertarians and big government activists, and then assume a separate class of professional seditionists who are professional liars and hypocrites, who have a meaningless nonsensical ideology, and who are solely concerned with seizing power and making themselves rich. This is what we think of today as the progressive Left and what I would call Left fascists.
this video is helping me so much with my essay in liberal theory! I really appreciate all the sources clearly cited in your video. you clearly put a lot of effort into this video so thank you!
Liberal theory.... What a joke lol
I appreciate your encyclopedic presentation of these terms and ideologies. Problem is, in the real world, politics, parties and business interests often pervert them or use their terminology to achieve their goals which can often be different or downright antithetical to it
manipulation of language is core to all politics. Since the beginning, politics has taken advantage of language, the emotional weight of certain words, and their associated meanings.
That's right and that's how politicians and parties should define themselves before they speak and get a paycheck, truth matters
The normal US citizen, regardless of party affiliation, is a liberal conservative, however, the word "liberal" has been hijacked to mean a crazed commie leftist BUT the word "conservative" has also been hijacked to mean a crazed gun-nut, religious uneducated person so people end up having to choose which false stereotype they want to ID with and neglect their real feelings in favor of not embarrassing themselves in front of their work and/or social circle.
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Excellent video!!! Love learning the history of political ideologies, and refining my understanding of my own beliefs
Happy to support! Keep up the good work!
Thank you for the insightful videos. Its nice to see the breakdown of some of these things without a hard opinion weaved into it. I've found my own opinion lines more with a liberal right (libertarian viewpoint), but I remember as an 22 year old watching a republican debate with my father in 2008 and seeing Ron Paul I asked what was up with him since he was challenging so many things on the debate state, and I agreed with him mostly and my father just blurting out "oh he's just a liberal pretending to be a republican". It was funny because at the time I thought "he doesn't really sound liberal" because of what I had always heard. As I grew I began to understand where he stood (as well as I did) really on the spectrum and I have said for a while, I find myself with far more in common with the liberal left (or I've said the libertarian left) than I have anything to do with the primary republican or democratic values. This kind of stuff is utterly fascinating to me.
A video comparing and contrasting American liberalism and conservatism would be very helpful, too.
This may be one of your best video essays.
Very well done and keep up the good work!
An excellent, scholarly and lucid presentation. In Australia we confuse 'liberal' further by having a Liberal Party, which is essentially conservative/liberal, centre right. When we speak about liberalism in the modern American sense of quasi-progressive, we sometimes use the term "small L liberal" to distinguish it. The Liberal Party in Australia are also better connected with and cognisant of their classical roots. To confuse it further we have the world's first Labor Party, which is essentially progressive-ish centre left. In turn they would also be much more in touch with Fabian roots (indeed Australia still has a Fabian Society). Neither of the major parties are quite as ideological as in the USA, and to some extent are a bit more focussed on management policies that remedy issues.
This occasionally produces some results which would surprise Americans, such as 1996 gun control being introduced by the centre right Liberal party (who are more like Republicans), while the centre left Labor party (more like Democrats) floated the dollar, deregulated banks and promoted industry productivity in the 1980s. The Labor Prime Minister who presided over the latter was formerly the head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). In the late seventies as the 'oil shock' subsided, the retail cost of fuel remained stubbornly high. So he had the ACTU combine with a modest independent chain of discount gas stations (becoming ACTU-Solo) and out-grew and out-competed other suppliers until they brought prices down to reasonable levels - not the usual sort of 'industrial action' you expect from unions.
Good summary of Australian situation.
Man,you are doing such a good content!
I love this! Getting a neutral perspective on what these terms mean can help heal the division in our country. People throw around these words, especially in politics, without understanding their meaning and oftentimes purposely use them as trigger words to divide people or get a reaction from people. You are providing a great service to America and I hope more people listen to what you have to say. You have done remarkable research.
Wow, its almost like most people aren't out to get you and just want everyone to get along and prosper but have different ideas of how to go about it.
sounds about right, but there sure are a lot of nasty characters out there
I like your level, unbiased approach.
Excellent work Ryan! Bumped into your channel. Looking forward to more.
He is amazing
Love the bumper music, has a Pulp Fiction vibe. I would argue that modern conservatives are the new classical liberals. Bill Maher represents the aging form of Liberal as we've come to understand it and that progressives have nothing to do with Liberalism. As somebody on the hard right, I wish our opposition was 2008 Obama, 1990's Clinton, etc., but I think our opposition is much darker, much more nefarious than that.
Anyway, I love you videos and have been spreading the word as much as possible. Thoughtful, balanced, easy to understand videos about complex topics - well done.
I've been doing a deep dive into your videos, Ryan, and I continue to be so impressed with your work. This channel is an excellent educational resource. I'd be curious to hear from you down the road in some kind of "The Feedback I've Heard" video that summarizes the main criticisms of your more popular video essays (especially those that you feel may have some merit, in retrospect, as well as those voices that annoyingly misrepresented your analyses). I don't know if such a video would be helpful for you or other viewers, but I think it would add tremendously to your credibility. (Not that I think you have much to worry about. Generally, your channel is one of the few on RUclips doing political, historical and cultural analysis that strives to be as fair-minded and balanced as possible. For that reason especially, as I've mentioned in a previous comment, I feel comfortable sharing your videos with our MS ? HS Philosophy Club.) Bravo.
Hi, thanks again and that's an interesting idea for a video. Whenever I release these videos I picture getting a mountain of criticism, but so far I've seen surprisingly little, so I've been able to respond directly in the comments section to any halfway decent criticism that I see. There was one case where after sitting on a comment for a while I decided to take a video down entirely, not because I had anything necessarily wrong, but because it made me realize I had missed an area of research, making my argument conceptually misshapen. But so far comments like that have been rare.
The channel is still in its early stages, so I imagine if it finds a bigger audience I'll get more robust criticism and I could see making a feedback video at that point. We'll see!
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Thanks for the video! I feel thoroughly educated.
Here are my typed up notes for anyone interested:
Liberalism
Classical liberalism
Core tenets of classical liberalism (1800s)
1. FREEDOM -
1. Not freedom for a community or a country, but specifically on an individual level.
2. How much? As much as possible.
1. Some constraints of freedom paradoxically maximise freedom
2. A railing atop a skyscraper limits your capacity to jump, but maximises your capacity to stand on the edge
3. It must be illegal to physically hurt others and to limit other’s freedoms
1. This doesn’t include mental harm as it is too hard to define
4. The right to think, speak, and pursue your own aims
5. They believe that, if a state is given too much control over an economy, that control will eventually limit people’s freedom
1. Thus, they had a hands of “laissez-faire” attitude to the economy (government should not regulate beyond necessary requirements)
2. Equality
1. Any freedom that is going to be backed by law needs to be equally distributed to all members of society
1. Rich and poor cannot have different sets of rights
2. You cannot infinitely support freedom and equality simultaneously
1. Equity, for example, would be impossible to aim at without tyranny, and would thus cost too much freedom
2. Equality of opportunity on the other hand is in line with liberal values
1. However, this is in contradiction to the idea of parents having the freedom to prop their kids up
2. Although this could be solved by inheritance tax
3. Thus, you cannot have a perfectly free and equal society
Classical liberals were still quite elitist
For example, they tended to see voting as a privilege that could be earned if one had an education and owned property
They were in favour of expanding education though
They saw liberalism as a force for civilisation around the world
Hence, they felt a need to spread it and give everyone civil rights
However, they were in favour of doing this by means of imperialism
John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
Liberal democracy
Core tenets of liberal democracy
1. A society that is liberal and democratic
2. Capitalistic (though often moderated)
3. Civil rights backed by law for all
4. Individualism
1. The idea we should look around and see the country as made up of atomised individuals and not collectives with competing interests
5. Tolerant and respectful are qualities we must have if we are to respect other’s freedom (controversial)
If you’re a liberal democrat, you are generally for capitalism and a multi-party democracy and you’re for state-backed rights for all citizens
-Most Americans
-All American presidents
-Karl Popper
-Fracis Fukuyama
After WW2, Germany was split into the liberal west and the communist east
Modern liberalism
Post-industrial
There are 2 types of modern liberals
1. Rights-based liberal
1. Worked on extending equal rights to everyone in the country
1. Voting rights
2. Civil rights for minorities
2. Economy-based liberal
1. Focused on the economy
1. Quality of life concerns
2. Unemployment
3. Equality of opportunity
2. Imagine someone with no home nor education and they’re discriminated due to race
1. Limited options
2. They only have rights in theory, in practice they don’t
3. If economy crashes, they’re first to be him
3. These liberals saw the government as a solution to the previous scenario
4. As America industrialised, corporations became bigger and more industrial
1. Some liberals said that we need a bigger government as a results
2. Others said these problems will self-regulate
1. As corporations become bigger they become slow and unwieldy
2. Smaller corporations will overtake them over time
3. This was a minority opinion
The second one shows how liberal attitudes to economic issues were changing over time
Essentially, nobody was laissez-faire anymore
Left vs Right economics
1. Liberal left
1. The government should intervene more
2. Take more of an active role in making quality of life improvements
3. Welfarist position
4. Rawls - philosopher
5. Keynes - economist
2. Liberal right
1. A rising tide lifts all boats
2. Less intervention means more freedom
1. More economic activity
2. More prosperity
3. Good for everyone in the long run INCLUDING the least well off
3. More particular in their support of social programs
1. Some forms of welfare are counterproductive
2. Made people dependent
4. They were more for some types of intervention
1. Equality of opportunity
1. Fighting discrimination
2. Keep an eye out for unfairness
2. Fix these as long as it doesn’t cost too much freedom for others
5. Hayek - philosopher
6. Friedman - economist
Left vs Right culture
1. Intervention
1. Coercion with the power of a group behind it
1. Censorship
2. Academics establishing an orthodox and pressuring conformity
3. This is not grounded in liberal principles
1. Progressive?
2. Conservative?
3. Something else?
2. Laissez-faire
1. Let people think and speak and be themselves
21st Century liberalism
Controversial
Competing narratives
Ryan Chapman: “If people looked back on where we are now, they would say we’re still in a period of modern liberalism and basic liberal ideas haven’t changed”
Other people: “Liberalism in America is basically conservatism now”
Ryan Chapman: “That’s an over-simplification to the point of just being wrong. Liberalism isn’t dead, it is just obscured by poor terminology.”
Who are the liberals today then?
If you are someone who believes in
1. Freedom
2. Equality
3. Individuality
4. Respecting the civil rights of others (including those you disagree with),
5. The right to free-speech,
Then you are a liberal
These are the basic principles of liberalism
Conservatism and liberalism, and progressivism and liberalism, are not mutually exclusive
You can have either combo without necessarily betraying the liberal value system
You can also be a progressive and illiberal, or a conservative and illiberal
Liberal right
1. Most laissez-faire
2. Probably libertarian
Liberal moderate
1. Centrist and don’t identify either way
Liberal left
1. More progressive
2. Should still be against censorship (as should others)
All disagreement amongst the 3 bands of 21st century liberalism comes down to size of government and its role in the economy and welfare
If we band liberal right with conservatives and progressives with liberal left, it is less simple but it creates confusion
It’s just plain wrong
Liberalism, progressivism, and conservatism are not interchangeable
I've accidentally found gold. This is amazing content.
What you said about mental oppression being a way to control people is an amazing quote, I love the video!
REQUEST: could you make a video explaining Conservatism and a separate one delving into Progressivism?
I consider myself a classical liberal yet I’m feeling more right-leaning in US politics. But I do not agree with the GOP platform so I am hesitant of the term Conservative. But I do feel that Conservatives (GOP) today seem more Liberal than Democrats today. So I agree that we need to recapture these terms as they are not being applied properly.
I greatly enjoy how you explained these evolutions in this video but while I understand progressivism vs traditionalism as extremes of the right and left (culturally), this left me wondering what you meant with the term Conservative. I do not see modern conservatism (GOP) as interventionists of cultural/personal freedoms.
Everybody who discovers him is amazed watched 2 or 3 of his videos and you’ll be hooked
@@michaelreynolds8204 true
I agree that a video explaining Conservatism and Progressivism would be a great way to round out this topic.
Ok here's the thing:
In Europe, liberalism and capitalism are things we invented at one point in our histories. In the US, however, liberalism and capitalism are the foundational bedrock of your nation. When you are a "right-winger" in the US, you seek to preserve the liberal, capitalist values that your country was built on. The Jeffersonian ideals.
The right-left dichotomy has its origins in Europe, a Europe that was built on Feudalism, not liberalism. Whereas the US was built on liberalism and not feudalism. So when you then try to apply this taxonomy of political inclinations on America, you will find that values that may not in and of themselves be "right-wing" in Europe, might be considered "right-wing" in the US. Know what I mean? Because your country was built on liberalism, and you seek to maintain liberal values, then your liberalism is in its nature "right-wing".
That said, do not necessarily mistake "right-wing" with "conservative". Coservatism in the US refers to a specific movement born from the Old Right in the early post-WW2 period. It's just one example of broadly "right-wing" thought. Objectivism and libertarianism are others.
@@seaofseeof is it related to the concept of healthcare considered a human right instead of a privilege? And vice versa for gun rights?
Very well done. As a practical matter, the best chance to avoid terminological confusion is to start using 'progressive' instead of 'liberal' every time that the former is apt. We want to avoid using 'liberal' to denote progressive because, as Ryan suggests, some progressives could be described as 'illiberal' and we're going to confuse ourselves using 'liberal' regardless of whether, each time we use it, we specify that we mean illiberal liberal, liberal liberal, or classical liberal.
I feel I would consider myself a liberal between right and left, and really dislike being considered a socially accepted term liberal, which you refer to as progressive here or conservative. I really like the way you present information here, in a way to make your viewers think about their beliefs, without forcing your opinions. It's very refreshing, thanks for the content you make.
As a "classical liberal," I think the key is equality of possibility. It's ok that a Swiss child has a better chance of being a great watch maker, and a kid from New Zealand has a much higher chance of being a rugby player. But there's no legal barrier stopping a kid in New Zealand from trying to be a great watch maker or a Swiss boy from being a rugby player.
I've never made the connection between liberals and libertarians, because of how different the ideas of people who call themself as such are, although given the spelling the relation should be obvious. It's amazing how much a word can change meaning colloquially in such a relatively short time period.
It's really quite simple. Libertarians are extremists. They believe pedophilia should be legal so long as the child consents to the adult. Liberals recognize that children are not mentally capable of making that consent because the human brains does not fully mature until around the age of 25. This is the distinction between libertarians and liberals. Libertarians take freedom to the point of stupidity and just keep going.
@@jamarr81 Not all libertarians. Many believe in a small state to impose basic laws.
@@jamarr81 that's not even a generalization, just an ignorant rant.
@@dennismitchell5276 isn't it amazing the whining and backtracking that libertarians will go to, to distance themselves from their own ideology.
All of sudden, when you introduce some nuance/complexity into the picture, the more moderate libertarians will start walking back their position and advocating for regulation where it "makes sense". A key distinction is that they generally only care about their own personal/subjective notion of issues that directly affect themselves. They have no broader concept of community much less society at large.
This is why they have tend to have minimal conformity. They're a bunch of immature children whining over who gets to hold the ball on the playground. And while not all libertarians are pedophiles, most pedophiles are libertarian.
@@jamarr81 You are obviously confused. It's like saying Biden is a communist. Libertarians can be communist, socialist, anarchist, christian, gay, haters of capitalism, especially when capitalism has control of the government. Not all democrats are Nazis, just because Hitler called himself a democratic socialist.
Third video of yours I have watched. As a historian I loss hair over some individuals broad definitions of stupidity. You are doing this world a great service. You earned a subscriber in me. Keep up the fantastic work and stay the course. I'd give you 5 stars if I could.
Great work as usual. I love your approach and style.
Your channel is so refreshing after seeing nothing but polarising and increasingly radical content
Thank you for your videos! They are highly informative and a real joy to watch. If I can offer you one suggestion is that there are times I need to rewind because the information is a bit esoteric. Some of the concepts need to be unpacked a little more than you are unpacking them. And, some of your unpacking is spot-on. I wasn't a poli-sci major in college but am interested in learning more. I have purchased books based on your recommendation. The two I am reading today have to do with your video on fascism.
I like this guy. He's nuanced and even handed and doesn't appear to be pushing any particular ideology.
I've been seeking a channel that explains CRT and other ideology clearly. Thanks
Yes! Ryan explains in such a clear, concise and unbiased way. The things he is explaining is something I understood but could never explain in the same way.
@@yoshyusmc wow! I'll have to check that out and see how much it differs from my own understanding.
I enjoy the videos and love the intro/outro music. Thank you.
Dude, you’re amazing.
Before watching this video I often wondered why no one ever mentioned a liberal right.
I felt, intuitively, that it might (and should) exist, but I never could identify who/how or why they existed.
Now, I do. Thank you. I love your videos.
Another great video. Do you think you’ll make any videos on the progression of conservative thought ? I’d like to hear your take on it. Especially as it relates to the last 20-30 years of conservatism.
Conservatives have progressed to the left. I am a constitutionalist. I would be call a radical.😂😂😂 both a democrat party and the republican party are now left. The Democrat party has become so far left. They are on the verge of fascism if they don’t wake up.
The best four-quadrant categorization of major political streams I have seen in a long time. Keep up the great work!
Great content! But man, I wish "liberal right" wasn't on the LEFT side of the graph and "liberal left" wasn't on the RIGHT side. Seriously though, thanks for the content. I work in a university and there has been a strong current of anti-liberal progressivism lately. These videos have been extremely helpful.
When did you see that anti-liberalism roughly starting? And trust me I thought about putting liberal left and right on the actual left and right, but thought it would have been even weirder to have laissez-faire on the right and intervention on the left. I also think it feels more natural to have conservatives on the left side of the screen and progressives on the right because of the way we read and understand screen direction.
@@realryanchapman Good point about intervention on the left and laissez-faire on the right. I hadn't considered that. I'd say it started about 2-3 years ago when we brought in a couple of new people with much more interventionist leanings. However, things really gained steam after the death of George Floyd. I'm in a psychology department in an engineering oriented university and have been for 19 years. Until now, there has been a lot of respect for data-driven policies, academic freedom, etc. and have been generally free from the postmodernism you see more in the humanities. Starting last summer, the newer interventionist faculty started making more headway however as all of us try to embrace antiracism. At that time I saw more colleagues willing to set aside reliance on data and further embrace ideologically driven policies (e.g., the push to do away with GRE testing for our doctoral programs, segregation of students by race during orientation, "decolonizing" syllabi, etc.). I think most of us tend to want to do the right thing and trust the experts when they tell us these things are useful, but do not understand the philosophies underlying the critical race theory these proposals are built upon.
Ah sorry to hear that. That sounds frustrating. I've seen some other staff come forward with similar concerns over the last few months. Have you been tracking that happening on more of a national scale? It seems like there's been a push for anti-racism programs in K-12 and in colleges and it's happening pretty quietly without much research backing it.
@@realryanchapman I haven't tracked it in any formal way, but it does seem to be on the rise doesn't it? Several republican lead legislatures have recently introduced anti-CRT bills which points to a trend as well. In some ways, I'm glad to see some action but I also worry this will become a partisan issue that Democrats reflexively oppose. As a psychologist, I find it interesting that unlike previous Marxist movements in the US, this version appeals largely to the emotions of guilt and sympathy while using shaming (quick labels of "fragility" and calling of racists) to silence critics. These aspects seem a bit different than what you described in your video on the 60s radicals which make it interesting and potentially more effective.
Not to push my own videos but check out the one I did on memetics if you haven't. It's about how ideas naturally evolve over time into their most potent form, if you measure potency by their attractiveness to the human mind and the rate that they spread from one person to another (like a virus). I think we're seeing that with Marxism in America and how it over time attached to the subjects that Americans feel most guilty about.
By equivocating liberalism and progressive/leftism (both actively anti-liberalism) the democrats avoid splitting their vote and party.
Also you don't need to be progressive/leftist to believe that certain groups (mainly African Americans and Native Americans) have not been given a fair opportunity in American society and as Ryan pointed out in his video parents are inevitably going to help their descendants get ahead.
Did you watch the video? Because that’s wrong - it seems the great traversty is that people lop the liberal right with conservatives which is incorrect, but the liberal left and progressives go pretty well together.
@@veronicamaine3813 did *you* watch it? He specified how progressivism, like conservatism, is typically not a liberal position since it seeks to change people's opinions through authority instead of being culturally laissez faire, and while it's possible to be both progressive and liberal, just like it is to be conservative and liberal, it's not an automatic thing. He even made that chart at the end where the four positions are separated.
@@veronicamaine3813 its accurate that dems lump these groups intentionally.
For currently obvious reasons we turn against far-right totalitarianism if we believe in equality, at least in opportunity, for all. As we defend our egalitarian beliefs, we need this video to think about where we stand. I think this video opens all the doors. Thank you, Ryan Chapman!
What about the Far - Left totalitarianism.... Is that your cup of tea...🤣😅😆😁
@@douglasgreen437
No such thing
@@douglasgreen437if you think far-left is totalitarian, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about
I think this is a side effect of the two party system in the US. Europe with more political parties has this problem a little less.
I think so too. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to wrap our heads around there being two major types of people within each party though, if it were part of standard political education.
@@realryanchapman Even two would be lumping different people into the same category, but that would be a discussion with no end. It would also be dangerous for these parties, as a division of the party could damage it's election result, or worse, split the party. And even then, I'm not sure those division would be real or important enough, or even the right division.
you're not wrong, but Europe has other problems, they just count them in a different way, if I may say so (I am French°
@14:58 "windowed down" is part of the argot of digital photography/videography referring to something analogous to digital zoom. Perhaps Ryan is after either "winnowed down" or "whittled down." If so, the latter best captures his sense.
I consider myself a liberal. I used to be registered as a Democrat. I left the party last year. I personally do not believe in imperialism, profit wars, lobbying, fascism and censorship and I'm pro small government. I think the democratic party is moving away from my values which yes, at the core is freedom and liberty. I think that we can successfully live in an environment where different cultures are respected, shared and embraced among these values.
I considered myself an old type liberal, libertarian perhaps, I leaned republican until 2018. I wanted small government, low regulation and taxation. Having taken a sabbatical to Europe and seen how they do things I feel the party of my slant is shifting towards oligarchical opening the doors to autocrats. I now ask myself whether the socialist tradition is a better move and in Europe it has worked out very well.
It seems the problem is that neither of those are exclusively to the left or right anymore. Even though they argue otherwise. Let's say for the sake of argument, Abortion rights. Conservatives and Liberals alike think the Government should be involved in this matter. The problem is they don't see eye to eye on what an individual is. Either way, conservatives using the power of the government to restrict someone's rights, who actively have them. Conservatives will claim a moral dialog but in practice, they are speaking for a potential persons rights, yet, for obvious reasons, the only actual person who has rights is restricted. The same goes for the argument over border security, something this nation adopted, and doesn't fit the conservation of Lincoln's party. On the left, they generally want to afford those freedoms to people, but the issues stem as to what freedoms they should be allowed if they aren't a citizen. Once again coming to a head, one with solutions that neither are willing to approach, but are still evident. How, when, and to whom, do you let someone become a citizen. They are both advocated for, barring the extremes. Yet, the arguments stem from that simple solution. Can you be a refugee or an illegal, if everyone was granted citizenship? Clearly, this issue is where the stem issues arise, not how we deport, capture, or prevent illegals or if we should accommodate them, and give them the same rights as citizens, when they aren't actually citizens. To be a country, you need citizenship, as to vote. So what process do you need to fix this? Instant citizenship with a probationary period? Probationary periods that aren't guaranteed that cost potential citizens monies just to be denied? Or a waiting list of applicants in which the Government vets, once again, creating a stronger centralized government, not only though enforcement, but though administrative costs. Today's world is much more complicated in terms of actual core political beliefs. They are sacrificed much more on both sides, mostly on an attempt to gain power through votes. Once corporations practically took over the US Government though legal donations, the scope in which you're allowed to view gets much, much, more directed to where they want you to look, and feel.
Dude, can't stop watching your channel.
Interesting video! I’ve never been very read on social economics. I’m learning a lot. One minor criticism is that your right and left graphics need to be flipped. You have the right on the left side and it pointing left and you have the left on the right side and pointing right. As for the term liberal, I was born in the 60’s, and in the 60’s and 70’s as a young person had a simplistic definition of liberal and conservative. Conservatives wanted to conserve the status quo and liberals wanted to change it. Being very liberal meant wanting a lot of change, both socially and economically. Some people, however, would say they are socially liberal, but economically conservative, meaning they were for social change but they favored conservative republican fiscal policies. That’s what I thought, rightly or wrongly. I still think most people from my generation thought that way. When Bernie Sanders came around is when I started hearing the term progressive. It is also when I started hearing some of the younger generation criticizing liberals which kind of disappointed me because I felt I, who considered myself to be a liberal, was philosophically on the same side as them. They were not just criticizing neoliberals, which you did not touch on incidentally, but all liberals. So I have been a bit confused with what has been going on with the term liberal. Your video has started to shed some light.
Keep on searching friend I love this guy go through the Internet find many sites and tell your friends America needs to heal with knowledge
It's my understanding that the two biggest (relevant) differences between liberalism and neoliberalism come down to markets, where liberals think they're generally good and happen naturally, and neoliberals think they're good but must be *maintained by the state* and that markets select the true ruling elites while weeding out the unproductive from the populace.
Liberalism is better than neoliberalism, but it isn't enough to have a coherent and progressive world view imo. The "mental harm" thing that he brushes over is one example. Trauma is a serious problem. Manipulation is a form of mental harm we need to take very seriously. I think the underlying belief that markets produce good outcomes is also misguided. Individual freedom that is *equitably* distributed is a good thing, but I don't think liberalism originally called for equity.
What's your understanding of liberalism and how that aligns with the younger folks criticizing liberalism?
@@Pensnmusic Why is the understanding of "liberals" vs "neo-liberals" so messed up? They have different meanings in different countries.
So, the first thing you have to understand is that “liberalism” involves a specific state of freedom. Laws are the antithesis of freedom.
Secondly, “conservatism” is a relative modifier. It requires a term to explicitly define what is to be conserved. You mentioned a couple, but a Constitutional Conservative seek to conserve the founding principles. Those founding principles were the progressive ideas in their time while the Tories were the conservatives because they wanted to conserve the supremacy of the Crown.
Now, if it was PROGRESS to move away from a tyrannical centralized government, how is it progress to go BACK to one? A Constitutional Conservative seeks to conserve the Progress the Founders made by resisting the regression back to a centralized government.
Centralization in a socioeconomic contexts is equivalent to tyranny. Everywhere else, it leads to instability, susceptibility to corruption, and exponentially increasing inefficiency.
Centralization is regressive.
@@SandfordSmythe which countries?
So, I'm a classical liberal, the more you know. Thanks a lot for your videos.
Great quality content, as usual. Hope you'll get the number of subscribers you deserve.
Great is an understatement I love this guy I’m a straight married conservative male but his knowledge is sexy
@@michaelreynolds8204 that's gay
@@michaelreynolds8204 are you liberal too?
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Another great video. This journey about definitions has caused me to go from independent to Republican to basically Libertarian. Other than one topic which I won't mention here, I am pretty liberal in the classical sense of the value of the individual and in economics. Both clearly there are "real" liberals on both sides of the aisle and I like how you separate them from conservatives and progressives which is a good distinction.
What American conservatives conserve is old-fashioned American liberalism in its constantly evolving form. Any progressive program that lasts more than a decade gets folded into the conservative framework as if it had always been there. (Even my father, a staunch conservative Republican born in 1925, praised the innovative government programs of FDR's administration.) I'm sure to some it looks as if conservatives are just trying to stop progress, and dream about trying to turn things back. That's all conservatives ever seem to do, given that they always give in and accept every new thing eventually. But they're not so one-dimensional as that. They simply have weak principles and no plans.
They should develop different characteristics from one point then
Ryan, Thankyou: I’m English and always having to transpose English politicolinguistics into American and visa verse. So this helped to calibrate for me. How I would classify my politics is often difficult when I’m communicating because, as you said here, a liberal attempts to accommodate some liberal right thoughts and can also stretch into progressive liberal territory. It often makes things difficult for those who are more ideologically constrained and often leaves me trying to figure where I am on the political spectrum. Maybe that is what makes me, overall, a liberal !! I hope your down to earth approach is rewarded with a growing channel. My best wishes for you going forward
This channel is so dope! I don't know what inspired or compelled you to create this content but what Americans need more than anything right now is education and a better understanding of history and how we arrived to this moment we are in.
Thanks a lot. I've been bandying the word liberal about forever without really understanding it. Now I'll be able to use it more meaningfully.
Growing up I always thought "liberal" was opposite to "conservative".
As in,
liberal: for a heavy application
and
conservative: for a sparing application.
The application being, government control.
After learning about politics I realized bolth of these terms where historically used in completely different ways, but it made sense at the time.
trump advocated for a heavy application: was he a liberal?
Yes
He's essentially a 90s Democrat.
(He was registered as one most of his life) most of his actions fall in line with this.
Being "anti woke", regardless of if its genuine or strategic, just changed the base he needed to appeal to.(which worked i guess? Somehow..)
He's also a businessman so he acts in personal interest in that regard.
@@humunculy7c then hitler is a liberal too 😂 seems a bit preposterous to me
@@bestestAIsongs
Absolutely, if you have the more historical view of the term liberal.
In that sense I'm a liberal.
I'm not arguing for changing the definition. I've switched my usage of the word after studying politics and learning better.(as I said originally)
I was just bringing up how a layman that would for example, use liberal as an insult towards people that want allot of government programs makes sense if you understand their using the word differently.
@@humunculy7c hitler was historically a liberal? Are you serious? Get sane please, this is actually bullshit.
it's important not to overstate the importance of defining terms. definitions are only useful insofar as they create organisation and bring coherency to politics in service of political change.
liberalism is defined not by some essentialist principle all liberals adhere to, it is defined by it's relationship to ideologies, movements, classes, and political concepts external to liberalism.
this video is a good introduction, but to further political understanding in a meaningful way, the goal should not be to find a one-size-fits-all rulebook, but to seek exposure to many varying perspectives.
That was so neutral…it’s almost like a forgotten language or a repressed memory.
Just a big thank you for your work and willingness to express your findings and views. Democracy is now at stake all around the globe. Keep up the good work.
I love this man. He’s a computer with emotion and nearly no bias. These videos are all information. Keep them coming!
Thank you for reclaiming the word liberal.
This is an excellent video, very well organized. Do you have content planned for the evolution of conservatism and progressivism?
Cracking video with a spellbinding, intelligent delivery with fine prose and cadence. These all make listening to a complex subject so much easier and more rewarding. I am very pleased that your subscribers and listeners are getting on board and that you can better monetise your channel. Listening to your videos is close to meditation. Thank you.
Nice job Ryan. I agree with your terminology and have a hard time explaining it to others, especially with the mass media uses of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative". I teach high school world history and try to help my students understand the political spectrum. I know it goes against what you said (and I think you are correct) but to help them grasp things I teach my students that "Classic Liberals" of the 1700-1800s hold pretty much the same values as "Modern Conservatives". Individual rights were a "new" then, but the passage of 245+ years have made our ideas of independence "traditional". Conservatives tend to like tradition, but we never had a tradition of Monarchy, so American tradition is based on our founding classic liberal principles are now modern conservative ideas here in our young nation. I know this goes against your definitions that I agree with, but I just can't find another way to get 15 and 16 year olds to wrap their heads around this stuff. I really enjoy your posts, I enjoy seeing someone much younger than me actually reading and thinking. Thanks for your time making these great videos!
Modern conservatives very often think religion should be mixed with politics and are for example for the state limiting individuals rights on say sexuality based on religious morals. Classical liberals would have certainly been against that, for example it is completely oppsite to the harm principle of Mill that would most certainly state that the state should have no say in a persons sexuality or a say based on sexuality of who he/she wants to marry. So there definitely is a quite sharp difference.
You’re probably a good teacher. The word liberal has totally lost its meaning over time. What people now call liberals are totally the opposite of the word’s meaning. I never understood how typical Californians who want to overregulate everything, want high taxes, love government intervention etc could be called liberal when they are more socialist than anything.
@@Mario.H You are right, but as I pointed out also conservatives are very different from "Modern conservatives" unlike the original message center wrote, if he teaches this is factually wrong and he is not very good teacher. Modern conservatives biblical moralistic views as a base and argument of changing the legislation to limit the rights of sexual minorities is totally against what John Stuart Mill stated as the main principe of liberalism, "the harm principle" (individuals should be as free as possible to do what they ie. not limited by the state, if that does not limit other individual freedom. You can probably see why legislation limiting the rights of sexual minorities (f.ex. the yearn from the modern conservatives to limit marriage rights of same sexual couple, something Bentham, an avid atheist, would never agree with). If the original poster is not willing to understand this blatant set of facts, then he is probably not a very good teacher, because what he teaches about liberalism is factually incorrect.
Ryan, thank you so much for taking time to create and share these videos!
Equality of outcome requires removal of individual liberty. So this notion of liberty and equality at the same time is simple lack of logic.
There are different forms of equality... this was even explained in the video. In fact, he was explicitly stated that "liberals are against equality of outcome", but they are in favor of laws/programs that maximize "equality of opportunity". You can absolutely have varying degrees of liberty and equality at the same time. Maybe pay attention next time before commenting.
@@jamarr81 Maybe take your inflated ego and stop commenting on subjects you don't understand. It is not well understood among liberals that equality, is not fundamentally compatible with liberty. And this episode is so short that he's not even scratching the surface of the subject.
@@CO8848_2 how are you this stupid? I just explained how equality and liberty are compatible. It was explained in the video as well.
Do you believe that just repeating a stupid statement over and over again makes it true?
@@meansend2657 This video consist of college 101, it's you who literally don't understand much.
Informative. Thanks for the historical context. I also appreciate your opinions and I further appreciate that you strive to be honest about what is your opinion versus what you are presenting as fact.
Laissez-Faire has proven to be incompatible human interest. We have economies that are too big to fail, people that are too beautiful or too important to go to jail for crimes they may have committed, etc. Human interest tends to be the corrupter of any and every classical ideology. The notion that basic human rights have been historically denied people in a country that calls herself the land of the free is a hoot. Currently LGBTQ people are fighting to live their lives; some people say ”they are trying to shove it down our throats”. I say no, they are trying to live their lives freely. They said the same of Black people on the heels of the Civil Rights days. We can’t have the ideology we want, it seems, because we are humans, and any ideology is filtered through our humanity, but our humanity is compromised by our interests. Economic, social, racial and whatnot.
Like this guy said we need to balance freedom against equality.
How can you lump black people with lgbtq?
Black people were discriminated against because they looked different.
I’m from Chicago and hardcore liberalism is what destroyed the city. Especially the criminal justice reform stuff.
@@pitbossea explain how.
@@manisthemeasure2205 the defund the police movement as well as wokeism as a whole paints law enforcement as the soldiers of systemic racism. Law enforcement in the city is completely useless so now it’s pure chaos 24/7 on par with Somalia. They threw the baby out with the bath water and now all of us have to suffer.
Very fair analysis Ryan. Keep up the good work
i'll now call myself liberal, then have people get confused when i'm not a lefty, marxist, communist, woke
Perfect bro! You are so good at explaining these things, and I wish everyone in the country could see this video...
hell yeah
Excellent explanation of how I have understood my own political thought without ever having parsed it out. Growing up hearing "Liberal and Conservative" used as diametrical opposites confused me. Well done, and thank you.
In Australia "liberal" and "conservative" are interchangeable. The Liberal Party are also called The Tories.
This Guy is the Smart Ultra Ego of me who is too addicted to RUclips to do the hard work of studying, reading these books and writing deep thoughts about those books :-). ...keep up the good work
What im hearing so far is what i would clearly describe as a progressive. There is a large dose of social justice ideology in what he's calling "liberalism". Progressivism broke away from liberalism in 1900, and in around the 60s overtook it to redefine popularly what was called liberalism. The liberals of the 50s and before, had to stop calling themselves liberals because leftists who believed in an entirely different notion of the role of government (that it should proactively push for social change, rather than applying laws universally and treating nobody with privilege) started calling themselves liberals.
Liberalism was always fundamentally the belief in the purpose of government being to prevent people from violating the rights of others. It was not supposed to proactively or retroactively seek group-based policies. The notion of taxing a more wealthy family or person to give money to a less wealthy family or person, is on its face illiberal.
This is really great! I feel like not a lot of people really articulate my thoughts on the matter as well as you did here. Especially the difference between the liberal left/ liberal right and conservatives/progressives
I've found your channel to be very fair when describing and explaining political theories. It's a nice thing to witness.
G'Day from Australia, I really do like and appreciate your work; it is so important in these time to have a direct non-bias factual analysis of the political spectrum
This reminds me of the time Marge Simpson said"I don't know what to be liberal about anymore?". From that episode about itchy and scratchy were rebooting as girls.
Adding this channel to my Favourites List.
I used to be political active and you remind me of my professor when I studied political philosophy in uni. Even though we didn't share views he gave both my "camp" and the others a good representation. Keep up the good work, I really enjoy it!
Nice transition music btw!
John Bezpiaty writing--Thank you for this clear description of liberalism's history. This materially fulfills my request, made elsewhere, for a piece on both liberalism and libertarianism.
Its shocking how most political yt channels spew outright propaganda instead of nuanced educational thought, keep on doing the research Chapman if I could I’d make folks like you more common in the algorithm
Individualism
Equal application of rules
Opposition to dogma
Freedom of speech and conscience
To my way of thinking those are the foundational points of liberalism. I'm two years late to the party but appreciate the video and your neutral assessment. Cheers.
Ryan, your content is top notch! Thank you!
love your videos. we need more channels like you. thanks for doing the lord’s work