Haven't listened to any Peterson, but I would assume he is referring to maximized individual freedom both political and economically, as well as very limited government. Classical liberalism would refer to the philosophy America was founded on, which wanted to grant a larger voice politically to aristocrats and white property owners, therefore greatly limiting the scope of a centralized government system like the British monarchy, them instead resorting to a greater emphasis on States' rights, serving as the foundation for the creation of Federalism, which is the shared power between a national government and multiple state governments. I would assume he's pro-states' rights in this regard.
In theory it means someone who subscribes to Liberalism as an ideology who aren't necessarily liberal as it's colloquially used in contemporary political discussion. It plays out much differently in practice.
You're just talking about economics here, right?
If you want to define liberal in terms of liberalism then I can see this argument, but considering the colloquial usage of liberal at least in American politics, it does refer to the general left side of the spectrum, often held opposite to conservative, i.e. general right.
That liberalism rules today does not mean that they are content with all conditions that are in place. You can be captain of the team but still have things not going your way yet. In this case it is the left-overs of conservative ethics (feudal era) colliding with liberal capitalism (post-feudal).
Globally, a liberal considered to be more to the right of the center of the political spectrum. Usually we say that are to the center until they say or do something and move them accordingly.
Yup.
it's not just NA and leftist is used as a more all-encompassing term to include ideologies like left libertarians, communists, and anarchists as well as socialists
it only seems that way because leftists in other countries have their own parliamentary parties. in america the only electoral vehicle for non-reactionary politics is the democratic party, which is why you see leftists sometimes trying to work through a liberal organization to try and improve things.
If you hear someone say it today as a label they're applying to themselves, it means they're a fascist sympathizer who wants good PR.
A global usage throws the American perspective right out the window, I'm just going off what I see after being subject to American politics for my life and education. But even terms like "left" hold different meanings when comparing US politics to other countries.
I would say that a lot of social goals line up, however leftists also recognize how economics can affect people socially. There's a popular saying among leftists: you can't have economic justice without social justice and you can't have social justice without economic justice.
This is completely incorrect. Neoliberalism is the Reagan/Thatcher/Greenspan lassez-faire shit from the '80s that got utterly discredited with the '08 crash. The Lassez-Faire stuff is not part of the economic or liberal mainstream.
It's libertarian coded language for "I'm both a libertarian and a douchebag."
Anecdotal but I met plenty of self described liberals who are pro social justice but don't really see it for the economic part of delivering on that. For example a lot of those same peopl would agree that black lives matter, police brutality is bad and will list off reforms to that institution but they would completely fall apart when you start talking about reparations.
Thank you for reminding me about this, I meant to post it up eventually.
I don't think liberals are really devoted to economic justice though. As you said, liberals are for incrementalism which will not lead to justice.
