JULY 2 / Charles Murray on the important distinction between . . .

. . . liberals and progressives.

A few weeks ago . . . I shared drinks and dinner with two men who have held high positions in Democratic administrations. Both men are lifelong liberals. There's nothing "moderate" about their liberalism. But as the pleasant evening wore on . . . I was struck by how little their politics have to do with other elements of the left.

Their liberalism has nothing in common with the political mind-set that wants right-of-center speakers kept off college campuses, rationalizes the forced resignation of a CEO who opposes gay marriage, or thinks George F. Will should be fired for writing a column disagreeable to that mind-set. It has nothing to do with executive orders unilaterally disregarding large chunks of legislation signed into law or with using the IRS as a political weapon. My companions are on a different political plane from those on the left with that outlook -- the progressive mind-set.

. . . .

[Philosophically,] the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy (Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration (Woodrow Wilson's open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives).

To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought . . . individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.

That's not a description . . . Woodrow Wilson or other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.

It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today -- a mind-set that produces the shotdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today's America.

Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. . . .

. . . . 

As a libertarian, I am reluctant to give up the word "liberal." It used to refer to laissez-faire economics and limited government. But since libertarians aren't ever going to be able to retrieve its original meaning, we should start using "liberal" to designate the good guys on the left, reserving "progressive" for those who are enthusiastic about an unrestrained regulatory state, who think it's just fine to subordinate the interests of individuals to large social projects, who cheer the president's abuse of executive power and who have no problem rationalizing the stiflingg of dissent.

(Charles Murray, "The Trouble Isn't Liberals. It's Progressives," wsj.com, June 30, 2014 (emphasis added, some reparagraphing))

Progressivism infects our local newspaper. Unca D has written often about the doleful consequences. 

Our progressive editors want more taxes, more spending, more regulations.

To our local progressives, equality means equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunity.

Henry Olsen postulates a fifty-year war between "moderate progressives" (Mr. Murray's liberals) and "liberal progressives" (Mr. Murray's progressives), the latter being ideological descendants of the infamous New Left.

Walter Russell Mead says progressives believe the world would be a better place if dummies like you and me stepped aside and accepted the rule of those with higher SATs. 

Yuval Levin shows how progressives are at war with competing sources of authority -- the family, civil society (churches, associations, etc.), and the private economy. 

George Will explains how the overturning in 1937 of one consequential Supreme Court case -- Lochner v. New York -- opened the door to the regulatory state.

Unca D mocks, deliciously, the Chronicle's use of "uplifting the masses" and other archaic leftist terminology. 

The tone of progressive discourse: ironic, snarky, insulting, glibness, knowing disbelief. 

The Chronicle, like all good progressives, believes the highest form of American patriotism is bitter mockery of America. 

A Chronicle columnist argues with the dictionary and declares that a flat tax is regressive. 

The Chronicle cannot understand the elementary distinction between limited government and no government at all. 

The Chronicle's progressives cannot understand, and will never understand, why Texas is doing better than California. And this: The goal of progressives at the Chronicle is to make Texas less like Texas nad more like California.

Progressivism is a long con. President Barack Hussein Obama is the grifter-in-chief.

The last time Democrats dominated Texas, it had members who wore suits and ran business and industry, it had ranchers, pharmacists, scout leaders, and auto dealers. Except for the trial lawyers and a handful of executives who were, for one reason or another, raised as red-diaper babies, the suits are all gone now, replaced by tee-shirts with hateful slogans.

And the all-time greatest proof of how progressivism blinds the Chronicle intellectually and morally : Its unqualified endorsement of the Occupy movement.