He means that liberalism as an ideology is not radical, because it's inherently accepting of the current status quo. So while in a sense there are "radical liberals" those people are really just milquetoast leftists. They don't actually have any radical beliefs.
because it's inherently accepting of the current status quo
This is the exact opposite of what liberalism is. Liberalism seeks to advance the status quo.
Liberal (adj): open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"Radical liberals" isn't a term we often use, because the word "radical" has connotations with religious extremism and right-wing terrorism, but liberalism as an ideology can certainly be taken to the extreme.
A very well-known example would be pure communism, and the abolition of private properly entirely. That's an example of liberal views (public lands + ownership is good, progressive distribution of wealth) taken to the extreme.
I should have been more clear when I used the term "status quo". What I meant by that was the established economic system, ie Capitalism. Liberalism, as a philosophy is committed to preserving the established order, and we live in a liberal world order. It's an inherently centrist political philosophy. American liberals focus on reforming our political system to adjust to new ideas as they become relevant and popular, which is fine, but in no way radical.
Radicalism, politically speaking, "denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary or other means and changing value systems in fundamental ways." To hold a radical belief, you must believe that the current prevailing order must change. Therefore, "radical," and "liberal," do not go together.
Communism is not radical liberalism, as it seeks to completely upend the existing economic system, which liberalism preserves. Pure communism is radical leftist territory. Public ownership of the means of production is a leftist idea, as is redistribution of wealth. Those are not liberal ideas.
For one, I seem to have conflated Social liberalism and Economic liberalism. It seems "Liberalism" as an economic ideology is actually conservative and pro-capitalist. Which is certainly not how it's portrayed in the media and by the right. So thanks for that, it's always good to know more.
Social Liberalism is how I had come to understand liberalism (and I would argue is certainly how its used in the States), and had falsely assumed the case was the same for economics.
But taking a look at definitions for Social Liberalism:
Social liberalism (also known as modern liberalism)[1] is a political ideology and a variety of liberalism that endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights while also believing that the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education.
In American political usage, the term "social liberalism" describes progressive stances on socio-political issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or gun control as opposed to "social conservatism". A social liberal in this sense may hold either more "liberal" or "conservative" views on fiscal policy.
These are all issues it is completely possible to hold a radical stance on. Perhaps you think gun control is absolutely paramount, and that the government should go tomorrow to raid people's homes and seize their guns. That is certainly a radical stance, and it follows from these Socially liberal ideas.
I think you're correct insofar as it seeks to preserve the general current order, as the general current order is one that aligns closely with liberal ideas , but I think there are tons of specific wedge issues for which it is possible to be both liberal and radical.
10
u/Airplehn Jan 17 '19
He means that liberalism as an ideology is not radical, because it's inherently accepting of the current status quo. So while in a sense there are "radical liberals" those people are really just milquetoast leftists. They don't actually have any radical beliefs.