The title I take from Kierkegaard; but's it's a pun, rather than the original sense of the term. Why is it a pun? Because I will be talking about definitions. Definitions are half of argument; for knowing what a thing is is the precondition for acting rationally upon it. (I may make this a continuing series; if you think it good to do so, please say so. Advice and criticism is not appreciated, but ought to be, so please write that as well. Seriously, do I have comments turned off? No one is bringing any argument onto this blog.)
The thing which I wish to define is this: the idea of liberalism, or the left, or progressives - that is, what is this thing which we call by these names, and what better term may be found to describe that thing which we refer to by them.
First, what does the term "left" mean? Nothing intelligible, except perhaps a connotation of wildness, as in "way out in left field," or as left-handed men are characterized.
Second, what does the term liberal mean? In before times it meant a free man; and the liberal arts meant the pursuits of a free man; art and science and philosophy, things which men free of pressing need could attend to. The liberal arts appealed to that in man which is not appetite, but passion and reason. However, in the modern world, it means something about being free of some particular philosophy or philosophies; and to be free of certain traditions. It has the connotation of become free from some tyranny, real or imagined, which is customary or normal. Hence, it is anathema to tell a child to be normal; there is a strong urge to be an exception from the rule; or in practice, for men to be exempt from rules.
Third, what does progressive mean? Rationally speaking, it merely demotes the furthering of some condition or quality, to go further in some direction and towards some end. When "progressivists" call a thing progressive, it appears they mean something vague about the progress made in the physical sciences, and then about various moral and social trends advanced or not advanced since the close of the middle ages; any time something considered a taboo or improper is allowed, it is considered a "liberation" or "progressive."
In other words, the "left" advocates the removal of some thing or things from culture, and the dissolution of certain structures; and the negation of the philosophies the undergird them.
In order to give this thing we call the "left" a truly befitting name, and thus (like some druidic enchanter of popular imagination) gain understanding and power over it, rather than wallow in the glamorous of this zeitgeist, we must first discover what exactly are the ideas which the "left" reject, or think they reject. Then, we may see what positive premises they hold. Once this is done, the true form of their philosophy is known.
What are the things the left rejects?
Firstly, it is something in the western world, and particularly, Christendom, which they most strongly despise and call tyrannical. They despise certain types of structures: they do not like structure in morality (a consistent or objective ethics), in religion, and in academic discipline. Their theory holds that man is best served by "the liquidation of anachronisms."
If I were to form a generalization of all these behaviors and more, I would say that the thing the left hates most is the idea of an immutable human nature. They believe that humanity is utterly plastic; not a form, but matter or substance; a thing of chained or indefinitely wandering will, defined only by social custom or accident.
The history of this idea is in social Darwinism; but it predates him. It also runs through Nietzsche and the hippie culture of the 60s. It runs through utopias of Morlocks and Eloi. What is this idea?
I think it is the idea that man is simply another beast of the field, a philosophical precept I will henceforth term brutism. It specifically is the denial of the rational nature of man.
The old and proper definition of man is "the rational animal." Rational means not only capable of logical thinking or mathematics, but also that man recognizes the good, true, and beautiful in his soul; art and morality are part of the rational nature of man.
A theory of infinite human plasticity is the enemy of this definition of man, because it IS a definition of man; not to mention that if man is shaped entirely by the accidental, and has no end or form, then man needn't be and couldn't be rational.
When man is a mere animal that does not know good from evil, but merely pleasurable and painful, then man cannot be reasoned with. Man must be molded using societal pressure, not pardoned or punished. Why do you think the panopticon was invented by Bentham?
The modern Left is the enemy of beauty (in the arts); of marriage (when it is a permanent vow of man and woman); of reason (for all it does is shame its critics). What we call the Left, we can more accurately call the brutists; they think man is another beast of the field, who never ate of the tree of knowledge, and never fell - only progressed by natural forces.
To close, here's a relevant quote from GKC:
Nebuchadnezzar the King of the Jews
Suffered from new and original views,
He crawled on his hands and knees, it's said,
With grass in his mouth and a crown on his head.
With a wowtyiddly, etc.
Those in traditional paths that trod
Thought the thing was a curse from God,
But a Pioneer men always abuse
Like Nebuchadnezzar the King of the Jews.
(Pioneers, O Pioneers)