The end of the Cold War and the rise of Donald Trump have left classical liberals without a political home. When I lived in New York City, it was pretty common to hear somebody say, "I could never date a Republican." The speaker wasn't necessarily. I do not reply. I've heard "I would never date a Republican" from several friends , and if I'm being honest, I've heard it from Liberal antipathy isn't much better: 38 percent of Democrats share that disgust, up from 16 percent.
And having left-wing government never stopped USSR from invading Afghanistan or being an aggressive military superpower. Marxist theory calls for revolutionary terror as a "necessity". Some people simply take a more pragmatic view that defense of the country is the proper only one of 2 proper jobs of federal government, even if they are libertarian.
Therefore they may object to specific foreign policy steps but don't have any inclinations to vote DNC just because they are "less militarily inclined". Remember that Eisenhower was a Republican.
Libertarianism - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Some simply take the long view. ANY large and powerful government is more liable to be more militaristic, that's just how history shows the world works. Therefore, going back to the beginning of this answer, to them stopping Democrats from growing the power and size of government is actually synonymous with long term having less militaristic government.
To view it another way, look at the stated ideal end goal leaving aside that in reality the end state would differ from that end goal. DNC wants the country to be the way France is now. There was also a close involvement with the early versions of psychoanalysis Jenkins,the belief that childhood innocence can be maintained only by total surveillance. From this then came the child guidance movement as well as specific pedagogies, and also the importance of working with whole families, in particular with mothers as allegedly the best-placed person to observe the development of the child.
Emerging from that was the sense of elementary teachers as surrogate mothers. This scientific aspiration accounts in part for the popularity of the New Education in the democracies in the s and s: We will return to some of that impact under right-wing regimes shortly, but we should note more generally that the ideas have been picked up almost regardless of the ideological context.
The greatest impact has been in the UK, the USA and northern European countries apart from Germany, although there has also been significant impact on early years education in France, Italy and Spain: In these countries, it has become the dominant ideology in the faculties of education of the universities, and hence has deeply shaped the theories and practices of school teachers. Nearly all the writers mentioned earlier have been liberals, at least in a vague and romantic sense — Neill, Dewey, Mann, Mannheim, Tawney, Shaw, Wells, Tolstoy, Rousseau himself.
In particular, this ideology was usually not just of the left but of the anarchist left, becoming a standard part of s liberationist ideology. The Right and Student-centredness 12Normally, precisely because of this association with the left, student-centredness has been subjected to stringent critique from the right.
The right also objects to the de-intellectualisation inherent in an approach that gives such respect to experience: Peters, for example, argues that education is an initiation into activities or modes of thought that are intrinsically worthwhile, and so cannot be thought of merely as experience, and cannot be rediscovered by each learner spontaneously Peters, The first point to note is that there has always been a strand of support for student-centredness that is located in a quite different ideology from left-anarchism.
The most obvious is in a concern of the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with moral regeneration, and a belief that traditional schooling was not adequate to this task Darling, For example, Cecil Reddie, founder of Abbotsholme, far from being an anarchist, believed firmly in a natural social hierarchy: The regime which he instituted there was aimed at cleansing young men, in stark contrast, for example, to the sexual liberation of A.
The new education seemed to them a welcome counter to what they alleged was the excessively theoretical curriculum of the secondary schooling that was emerging properly in most European countries at that time, and a counter also to the rote-learning that had characterised elementary education in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The Scouting philosophy placed a great deal of emphasis on experiential learning — for example, nature study and woodcraft. It had a heavy emphasis on spiritual development. It was in fact firmly opposed to militarism, and Baden-Powell refused to allow the Scouts in Britain to be used for military training during the War; that anti-militarism was part of its support for self-reliance etc. But it was equally strongly opposed to socialism in any form.
Liberals, Libertarians and Educational Theory
It was, in short, a non-socialist form of collectivism, anti-individualist, not even potentially or theoretically about freedom. The reform was managed by the director-general of elementary education, Lombardo-Radice, a former socialist.
The purpose was to liberate the schools from the teaching of facts. Religious instruction became compulsory, in the interests of promoting the spiritual development of the child. And the whole was rigorously meritocratic: The education reforms, in particular, helped to reinforce the sense in Italy that fascism was a liberation movement. But the next step in the argument is that, in important respects, the right-wing veneration of experiential learning has now come to dominate educational policy.
We can label this vocational progressivism because it has its origins in the belief that the main purpose of education is to prepare people to be efficient workers. And guys like him never get a second date.
Never mind that Paul Ryan makes a lousy stand-in for a libertarianwith an awful record on civil liberties, peace and restraining government spending that puts him, in real terms, well inside the inch-and-a-half of the ideological spectrum considered to represent respectable opinion by the threadbare editorial boards of the East Coast.
He's at the smaller-government end of that spectrum, and he occasionally quotes Ayn Rand when he's not fleeing from her. That makes him a "libertarian" and therefore off-limits to true-blue tribalists. By the way, among the perfectly acceptable dating options in the social circles in which I moved during my New York days were several obnoxious socialists, a snotty Trotskyite and a self-described nihilist who is now doing time for a high-profile violent crime.
Yes, these are stand-out memories from a large group of otherwise perfectly decent human beings with a wide range of viewpoints. But, by contrast, even if it connects me with Paul Ryan, I think I kind of like Friedman's take on libertarians as incarnations of sinister, alternate-universe Bruce Waynes.