Actually the term "liberal" has changed its meaning many times in history, and I'm not sure the way Americans understand "liberal" is the same as elsewhere in the world (where I'm from it's more similar to what Americans think of as "libertarian" for example).
It isn't liberalism that's changed, but the circumstances. Libertarianism/European liberalism is an example of the kind of left-wing conservatism
RJDiogenes referred to--rooted in the past, pursuing a strategy designed for the preindustrial age and long since obsolete.
What they've lost sight of is that the small government advocated by 17th and 18th century liberalism was a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The end goal, to quote Locke, was always to protect the "life, liberty, and property of the individual" from "political, economic, and religious tyranny". In Locke's day--and Thomas Jefferson's--a small, weak government was an effective means to that end, because governments themselves were the principle source of all three.
But that isn't true any more. Democracy has hobbled government's ability to tyrannize, while at the same time empowering individuals enough that they can, in organized groups, tyrannize their fellow citizens all on their own. For more than 100 years now, since the
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad non-decision at the very least, corporations have been the source of economic tyranny in the US. For religious tyranny you have the religious right, and for the political there are the KKK, the Know Nothings and their modern descendants, the militia movement. Among others.
American liberals and European social democrats have recognized that things have changed and have successfully enlisted democratic government as a weapon against the real threats. Europe today, along with the New Deal and the Civil Rights eras in the US, show how well it works.
All of this is something of a simplification. Libertarianism is a broader umbrella than this implies, for one thing. But as a
raison d'être for modern liberalism, I think it's a good start. And to bring it back to the main topic of the thread, the current US health care system is exactly the kind of economic tyranny that good (liberal) government can and should prevent.
I'm sorry to say, though, that it looks like the current bill has been too watered down to make a real difference. It still has some good parts--like no more "pre-existing condition" crap--but it won't actually reduce costs.
1,
2.
Marian
