That article perfectly illustrates the common beliefs of left liberals and classical liberals. Indeed, the main point made by the author, that executive power must be restrained by abstract preexisting rules, is the wholi point of F. A. Hayek's "Road to serfdom" and "The Constitution of Liberty".

@aaronrosspowell.com, I would clarify that I am not saying that classical liberalism/libertarianism is the true kind and only type of liberalism that exists. My point was that, liberalism being a broad category, libertarianism is one kind or "species", which the piece, implicitly at least, denies.

However, that's my (possibly flawed, biased and mistaken) interpretation. I think that, by reading the piece, you can realize that he equates liberalism with left-liberalism only.

A kind of variation of Bush's "you are either with us or with the terrorist". You are not with us and, therefore, you are with the terrorists.

His characterization goes as far as saying not only that there is one kind of true liberalism and one only (progressive liberalism), but he also asserts that there is only anti-fascism and pr-fascism, and only by being a left-liberal you can be an anti fascist. Therefore, other liberals are fascists

That is good. And I will listen to that episode. Nevertheless, as I explained, in that particular piece that I criticized, he uses the word liberal in an extremely narrow way, equating it to left-liberalism only. Therefore leaving classical liberalism/libertarianism out of the liberal tradition.

@sjshancoxli.liberalcurrents.com there is one proven way in which health care can delivered, and not through state provision, which is a savings system. Sir Roger Douglas (former minister fo finance in 🇳🇿explains it in one paper: www.iza.org/publications...

In that first paragraph, he pretty much equates liberalism with being left. They are, he thinks, one and the same. Therefore, in his view, anyone who is not left is not a liberal. He, pretty intentionally, leaves classical liberals out of the category of liberalism.

Which person who expresses a classical liberalism sensibility would not read that and think that the outlet is indeed hostile towards classical liberalism?

It’s perfectly reasonable criticize classical liberal thinkers like Friedman. It’s quite another to falsely link him to the apartheid.

I partially changed my view that @liberalcurrents.com is hostile to classical liberalism.

But I would point to an unfortunate piece that made me think that: www.liberalcurrents.com/american-con... The author, with no evidence, portraits Milton Friedman as an advocates of South African apartheid.

Nevertheless, it’s still the case that most times the word liberalism is used, it is rather used in the narrow sense of being equated to left-liberalism, leaving classical liberalism out. And @polphilpod.bsky.social's article is one example of that.

My larger point was in @liberalcurrents.com, the word liberalism was always equated to left-liberalism/progressivism. @paulcrider.liberalcurrents.com showed me that my assessment of mine was narrow and that some articles do acknowledge classical liberalism as part of the liberal tradition.

Now, I would like to put an example of the absurdity that he reaches: libertarian public interest law firms suing the Trump administration, which are a real notorious effort to fight authoritarianism, would not be part of a liberal coalition, but Mayor Mamdani does.

In @polphilpod.bsky.social's view, Mamdani is equated to liberalism. Classical liberalism, on the other hand, equates to fascism. That seems to be the opposite of a broad liberal coalition.

That doesn’t seem to me to having in mind broad liberal coalition based on common principles (constitutional order, rule of law, limitation of executive power, market based economy). Rather, it seems more to be a rationalization and justification of partisan politics.