A man who is not a socialist at 20, as the saying goes, has no heart, but a man who is not a conservative at 30 has not head. For that reason, as I embark on a curmudgeonly old age, I am inclined to describe all political positions that are foolish, naive, socially destructive, treasonous or criminally insane as liberal or leftist, just as any liberal leftist would consider my sane and humane political views to be, at best, conservative, and otherwise far-right wing fascist extremism.
It is a a mistake, however, to suppose that because the Western nations have some variant of the lib-left versus con-right division of political parties there is a contest of ideologies driving the struggle for power within a democratic state. Far from it. Moreover it needs to be understood that a real ideological division between left and right within a democratic nation can have catastrophic consequences, as proved to be the case in Britain with the election of a democratic socialist government in 1945, which as a matter of principle, set out to appropriate the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
The results for the British economy and British society in general were severely negative. Major industries were subjected to the control of socialist and Commie hacks and drones with two major consequences.
First, while Germany rebuilt her industrial base from the ground up under a regime of state-aided competitive capitalism, Britain underwent a state-aided conversion of key industries to incompetent bureaucratic control that enabled Germany to rapidly overtake Britain in total economic output and output per capita. As a result, Britain, which was one of the four great powers at the end of WWII, became a semi-derelict industrial power with failing state-subsidized, steel, ship-building, coal-mining and transportation industries, a vast public housing sector, crippling taxation, and a generally demoralized society. Second, the Conservative Party, which lays claim to being Britain's true ruling party, adopted many leftist policies in order to remain competitive in the electoral arena.
Thus, it was only with the emergence of New Labor, under the Machievellian leadership of Tony Blair, that Britain regained its status as a normal democratic nation, which is to say a country with two principal political factions pursuing the same objectives, namely post-election payoffs for the leading political actors from the Money Power — the Money Power comprising primarily the financial services industry and the global corporations.
The political agenda to which such a unified approach to political power leads conforms essentially to my definition of liberal-leftism, which is to say a set of policies that are foolish, naive, socially destructive, treasonous or criminally insane, but viewed by the elite to be advantageous to themselves, at least until folks get organized and bring out the guillotine again. Thus it is that we are all liberals now.
But the possibility of real political division within a Western democracy is a constant danger, i.e., danger to the political establishment, as the emergence of Donald Trump in the US confirms. We are led, so Mr. Trump tells the majority of Americans struggling to cope with diminishing real incomes due to globalization in accordance with the demands of the Money Power, by really stupid people. Further, Mr. Trump reveals, we are led by people who do whatever the Money Power pays them to do.
Trump's position is clearly not liberal and it has so panicked the liberal cucks and clowns in the Republican Party establishment that they have resorted to desperate measures, going so far, even, to saying that Trump is not a Conservative, as if any in the GOP establishment are.