Wednesday, April 27, 2005


Over at 401Blog, CharLeBois discusses the methodology of the aforementioned blog rankings. As I suspected, the methodology was a little off.

In his post Charles also refers to me as a 'Liberal,' and mentions me in the same sentences as CalgaryGrit, who is in fact a Liberal. Let me clarify. I may espouse 'liberal' or 'left-leaning' principles, however, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Given the current corrupt state of the Liberal Party I would hope Charles would be careful about who he calls a Liberal.

Posted by Matthew @ 12:55 a.m.

Read or Post a Comment

Heh, at first I was going to deny, but then I went and re-read my post. I stated that CalGrit and FreeThought both have had active connections to the Liberal Party - which is true. I just had to scroll down a bit on FT to find a post where he mentioned working for the Libs.

As for you, I said "Liberal-minded". The capital L was a milisecond afterthought. You see, I consider myself a "liberal", and I still hold the term exclusively to its classical definition. I think of conservatives as old-school realists/nationalists.

Because your political philosophy is more closely in tune with that of the Liberals and because you probably have strong enough beliefs in the social-welfare state to disqualify you as a classical liberal, I made that reference. Easer than saying "social-welfareist" after all.

Posted by Blogger CharLeBois @ April 27, 2005 11:48 a.m. #

All right, I will accept the 'Liberal-minded' explanation even though in your original post you did not put the phrase in quotations or use the hyphen as you do in your comment above.

As for the argument that 'liberal' means "classical liberalism" (whatever that means to you) I'm less convinced. 'liberal' has had multiple meanings and definitions over several hundred years. You can try and monopolize it to your own definition, but its not going to work.

Posted by Blogger Matthew @ April 27, 2005 4:04 p.m. #
<< Home