Definitions Matter

When you hear the words ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ today, they mean something very different from their original, honest meanings. In the multicolored discourse of today’s Democratic Party, few words are as potent. Few are also as fraught with paradox as ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive.’ These terms are not merely labels. They are claims to a specific moral and intellectual standing. This signifies a commitment to principles that their etymological roots once held in high regard.

Yet, a closer examination of their Latin origins reveals a profound irony. The modern performance of these virtues often stands in direct opposition to the very meanings from which they sprang. Many who self-recognize with these convictions face a gap between their label and their actions. This suggests their proclaimed virtue is often performative. It serves as a public show of self-righteousness that undermines the authenticity of their beliefs.

The word liberal traces its lineage to the Latin liberalis, meaning “of or relating to a free person.” This root is steeped in the ancient Roman concept of liberty and the responsibilities that came with it. A liberalis was a free citizen. Their education was not vocational but broad and intellectual. It was a “liberal arts” education designed to cultivate a mind capable of independent thought. This education encouraged reasoned debate and generous-minded engagement with opposing ideas. This was the education of a person liberated from the constraints of necessity, free to pursue truth and civic duty. The core of this concept involves an inherent openness to new information. It includes a willingness to consider perspectives different from one’s own. There is also a fundamental respect for dialogue. It is a posture of intellectual humility, intellectual curiosity, and a search for the truth.

Similarly, the word progressive comes from Latin progredi. It is a compound of the prefix pro, meaning “forward,” and the verb gradi, meaning “to step.” To be progressive, thus, is to step forward, to move toward an improved state or a better future. This implies a dynamic, action-oriented philosophy, but one grounded in a clear direction. A true progressive, in this original sense, is not simply someone who advocates for change.

A true progressive critically assesses that change. They make sure it genuinely leads to a better societal outcome. It should not massage radical social agendas or foist minority beliefs and values on an entire community. It requires a forward-looking vision informed by an understanding of the past. It needs a step-by-step commitment to genuine societal improvement. This is necessary instead of a frantic sprint through a fog of specious moralism toward the unfamiliar.

The paradox of modern political identity becomes starkly evident when these etymologies are held against the backdrop of contemporary behavior. In the current political climate, many who are recognized as liberal rigidly adhere to a prescribed set of beliefs. This adherence is dogmatic. Many individuals now use “liberalism” as a shield to act dismissively. They oppose contrary viewpoints, rather than engaging in the generous, open-minded dialogue their label implies. Disagreement is not met with reasoned debate. Instead, it is met with accusations of intolerance or ignorance.

This reaction effectively shuts down the very discourse a free and liberal society depends upon. The controversy of the Milford Fire Horn is a salient example of this illiberalism in practice. It shows how the advancement of a minority interest replaces a commitment to open inquiry.

This results in a demand for ideological conformity and ignorant faux moralism. The virtue of open-mindedness is replaced. It becomes a performance of ideological purity and anti-factual emotional hemorrhaging. Reason and rationality are snuffed out like a cigarette stomped and twisted out under its shoe.

A similar disconnect plagues the modern use of the term “progressive.” For some, the label has become a performative signal of moral superiority. It serves as a simple declaration that one is “on the right side of history.” This performative progressivism often prioritizes expressing a desired outcome, like social justice or environmental reform. It usually lacks a critical examination of the means to achieve it. Change is pursued for the sake of change, and any skepticism or hesitation is cast as a regressive act. This is a profound misreading of the root word, which suggests a deliberate, reasoned step ahead, not a blind leap. The act of “stepping ahead” has lost its directional integrity.

Intended and unintended consequences become a circular dance of virtue signaling and political opportunism.

The most damning aspect of this divergence is the inauthenticity it breeds. When a person adopts a label not as a reflection of deeply held principles, the virtues they express become hollow. They use it as a tool for public identity. This performative identity is built on a foundation of social approval rather than genuine conviction. A person expresses outrage at a perceived injustice to signal their empathy.

Still, this public show is quickly nullified. This happens if they refuse to engage with the complex realities behind the issue. It is also nullified if their actions in their private life contradict their public pronouncements. Virtue is not in the inherent belief. Instead, it’s in the performance of it. People try to attach honors and enhanced reputations. This is done by design or just for show.

In this context, the virtue expressed by the performative liberal or progressive is indeed canceled. This occurs due to the inauthenticity of their beliefs. True conviction is an internal state. It is a quiet commitment to principles.

This commitment guides one’s actions, whether anyone is watching or not. Performative virtue, in contrast, is a public spectacle. It is a virtue for others, not for oneself. The paradox is that in the desperate effort to be perceived as virtuous, these individuals forsake intellectual integrity. This integrity gives virtue its meaning. They claim the mantle of liberty while suppressing free thought. They demand progress without a clear, reasoned vision for the future. Ultimately, the words become empty signifiers. Their power to unite or inspire is lost to a hollow echo of their original, profound meanings. The path to authentic virtue lies not in adopting a label. It is found in the quiet, diligent, and intellectually honest pursuit of its foundational truths.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

About The Author

Scott Kimball Blog

See author's posts