The Future of Liberalism -- Part three

Political liberalism is becoming a two-sided magnet in the middle of the political realm with each side attracting left and right, growing bigger and more powerful.

Alan Wolfe manipulates the middle, the amorphous combinations which defend against both left and right extremes in an embrace of contradictions. Perhaps it's a good strategy to dismiss both extremes as romantic ideolouges and grow the middle in a supra-ideological consensus. This can assure statism a majority to stay alive, to thrive, rather than depend on the risky radicalism of the left.

This catholic formation of state builds from the moderate and sensible virtues of both sides to soften  resistance to intervention as the state becomes an inevitable union of rational, consenting individuals whose reasonable procedures will institute justice and equality. Core beliefs, in Rawlsian style, are transcended by common political purpose, and this explains the basic similarities between the unifying moderates of both parties.

Every objection to the state is met with a nuanced rearrangement of the conflict, pragmatically revealing a more intelligent approach -- liberals don't want to plan the economy, just devise better ways to accomplish shared moral objectives -- liberals aren't attempting to create equality of outcomes, just making it possible for people to make better, freer choices -- liberals aren't romantic, militaristic crusaders using superpower advantage to instill democracy in backward countries, just international players working with other liberal countries to protect vital interests and stop or prevent genocide.

The contemporary liberal uses irony and Kantian dispassion to mend and transcend the ideological dichotomies created by Rousseauian zealots on the right, and even those on the left who value multi-culturalism above any form of national identity. The contemporary liberal is distanced by irony from the over-heated sensibilities, creating an open-ended approach to governance rather than a once-and-for-all pronouncement of the true way.

The evolving liberals are less partisan as divisive ideology is rejected as obstructionist and the "vital center" coalesces in a statist union of common purpose -- reflective, inclusive, suspicious of simple solutions in a complex world, but confident that human purpose and intelligence can achieve common goals and establish the correct procedures for the institution of equality and a government which delivers a fairer existence for those at risk in a world of unregulated capitalism -- it's here, in the embrace of state coercion to provide transformative positive rights, where the ironists fail to use irony to prevent delusion.

The liberal, Kantian dispassion warms with passionate resistance when faced by an offer of private alternatives whereby free people in a free market build the world they choose through voluntary agreements and transactions and solutions. The thoughtful openmindedness and distance from ideology provided by irony is turned to quick dismissal and a haughty wave of the hand when voluntarism and private players say we have a way that is openminded, thoughtful and distanced from political motivations -- and we believe it's efficient and morally sound since it's backed by voluntary action and not the barrel of a gun.

Wolfe writes: Liberalism must stand for something larger than the morally indifferent pursuit of self-interest.

This ignores capitalism's connection with co-operation and the history of private associations in America which have promoted free people helping free people, and it ignores the self-interest of statists who've proven time and again that benevolent government is more myth than reality.

Is anyone beginning to understand Obama through Wolfe and Rawls?

Who will take the lead?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275482810211725.html

The above link is to a very good article regarding the auto industry implosion and submission to government intervention and control. In a real sense you could say the auto industry is now being run by the government, which means government will create incentives for consumers to buy the products acceptable to the bureacrats influencing design.

This is a great opportunity for foreign auto makers to dominate the US market. I won't be surprised to see more plants popping up all across the south, unless the foreign auto-makers fear that US government intervention will penalize the profit out their business. This will turn out, no doubt, to be an egregious interference with competition. The US government will protect its investment, meaning that consumers will suffer -- from lack of appealing product, much higher prices and fewer jobs. This will most likely turn out to be yet another prime example of unintended consequences caused by government intervention.

The solution? Allow foreign auto-makers to freely compete for the US market. Get rid of all the strangling regulations placed on US auto makers. Let the best producers win. If foreign auto-makers and US automakers have to do more merging, then let it happen. Also end all regulations which make it impossible for small players to enter the market and stop propping up the unions. In other words, keep government hands off the auto industry and allow consumers to decide who wins and who loses.

The reason a libertarian solution is preferable is that if government wastes tax-payer money on bailing out the auto-industry and controls the product design, consumers will be forced to pay for the cost of producing vehicles they don't want to buy, plus taxes will be raised at some point to pay for the wasted spending -- and if government prevents foreign competition, there will be few options except to keep the vehicles we have and continue to fix them as long as possible. This scenario helps no one except the parts industry and used car companies, which will raise the costs of parts and used cars. I guess a statist could argue this would force consumers to buy the little electric toy-cars, but I think people will resist and hold on to what they have -- enough so, at least, to severely hurt new car sales.

It will also prevent the creation of hundreds of thousands of good-payng jobs. The auto industry will be destroyed, permanently, along with all the businesses depending on it, causing a further erosion of jobs. Government intervention sends ripples of negative effects throughout the markets, creating a need for more intervention, creating more negative consequences. This is what's meant by central planning vs spontaneous order. The interdependencies are too complex for central planning. Once more we'll be taught this libertarian lesson, but when will true learning take place?

Libertarian liberty, progressive liberty

From Theodore Roosevelt, on New Nationalism, 1910:

Combinations in industry are the result of an imperative economic law which cannot be repealed by political legislation. The effort at prohibiting all combinations has substantially failed. The way out lies, not in attempting to prevent such combinations, but in completely controlling them in the interest of the public welfare....We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far....

Modern liberals/progressives surely value liberty as much as libertarians; however, the two ideas of liberty are practically polar opposites -- they are at least vastly different. The best I can determine from the propositions of progressives, who defend their beliefs against charges of "statism", "collectivisim", "socialism" and other isms which seem to be anti-freedom, is that they either believe, pretend or delusionally uphold in spite of knowing better that we can be free of foundational premises which we'll say for now stand as "truth".

The progressive impulse to value human welfare above property rights and other foundational premises as a way to gain freedom from harsh realities is a critical difference in the type of freedom which says people should be free to pursue their own welfare as long as they violate no one's basic rights.

Anyone paying attention to the modern philosobabble will understand there is no objective truth, it's relative, and that consensus of reasonable opinion substitutes for "truth. There seems to be a desire by progressives to gain freedom from reality, to establish what's "right" then legislate "rightness" into reality, even if it's at odds with reality. Democracy gathers enough force to make things "right". The democratic consensus of opinion establishes a correctness we should all adhere to and this correctness is insisted upon, by law if necessary.

We should be free from poverty, failure, inequality, genetic differences, insult, discrimination, natural advantages, and to a certain extent, property rights - this is not an exhaustive list of things from which the progressives want to be free, and it's somewhat generalized and therefore unfair to certain individual progressives, I'm sure, but it makes my point. The point is the different ideas of freedom.

More people than ever appear to be falling for the illusion that society can free itself from negative reality if enough people desire change. If lack of jobs is the problem, then government creates jobs -- if banks are having problems, then make them flush -- if auto makers can no longer sell cars, then prop them up -- if poverty exists, then create more programs -- if discrimination is a problem, then outlaw discrimination and demand the right mix of employment.

The idea we can engineer ourselves past economic downturns, major natural shifts in industry from unproductive endeavors to productive productive, inequalities in abilities and results and other realities considered negative by a progressive society is not only egotistical and futile, but it ignores the violation of rights of those the system uses to establish its ends. When government protects one industry, it violates the rights of others -- when government attempts to establish equality for some, it violates the rights of others. In reality there are certain foundational premises and economic laws which can't be violated without major consequences, regardless of how much wishful thinking and compassion are applied to the violation. 

In 2009, the foundation is laid for progressives to institute major changes not seen since the 30s. The progressive desire to be free of the negative realities we face is a misdirected sense of freedom, and is more conservative than progressive. We should be free to go through the adjustments and changes without coercive engineering from government attempting to protect the status quo -- change and spontaneous order are truly progressive -- fighting reality through protectionism is reactionary and conservative. Progress demands natural order through free association and cooperation between free citizens, all adjusting to change based on supply and demand, needs and wants. People shift employment from dying industries to thriving industries, they innovate to deal with problems and they create the future.

No central, "progessive" planning committee will have the ability or the imagination to engineer a complex society -- all they can do is fiddle and obstruct. We cannot be free from reality, even in an altered state of mind that's merely illusion -- but we can meet and adjust to reality as free men and women in the spirit of creativity, competition and cooperation. The "progressive" idea of freedom will be judged by its results, but be warned -- the results will be at the expense of others -- stealing from Peter and Jane to create the illusion of properous Paula and Ralph. Government plans don't create generative growth, they only shift and manipulate.

Libertarian Hope: Our world is too big for this foolishness

It's time to speak in plain fashion about statism and free enterprise. In various places where I post comments to discuss such issues, invariably a snarky comment will be made by someone whom I assume holds a liberal view of politics stating that "statism" and such labels are an overeaction, as to give the impression that to suggest our government is a statist government, or leaning towards socialism, is a silly, fringe position.

This patronizing dismissal is a cute enough way to avoid the issue, but it's obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship that our government has abandoned free market principles in favor of statist principles. I don't even use "statism" as a pejorative term, but simply as a descriptive term. If any progressive/liberal partisan reacts as if the term is a smear, then that's their confusion, not mine. They will rest better accepting that "statism" is an accurate term to describe our government and it will make debate a lot easier and more fruitful.

If there are citizens of this country who believe that the state should control our economy and begin the process of nationalizing industries such as banking, auto manufacturing, energy and healthcare, then these are statist views and should be embraced by the holders if intellectual honesty is at all important. If these same people think that the rest of the country is gullible enough to think such government actions are just extreme temporary measures to save free enterprise from itself 9no doubt, some are), then I suggest getting over it, because no one with an ounce of political understanding will buy it.

So moving past semantics, denials, rationalizations, obfuscation and phony political ploys, let the narrative clarify concepts and positions so that we all know where we stand and where we're going. This political reality is for adults and these are adult issues, not issues for sophomore debate teams. The statism of the New Deal broke down any barrier erected by the Founders and except for brief periods of free enterprise resurgence since then, statists have been slowly chipping away at free market/capitalist principles and Constitutional restraints. The intellectual direction of the left has bred activists who've won the hearts and minds of a generous nation which have become the power base for politicians bent on the type of control that comes naturally to government freed of limitiations -- in spite of warnings echoing through history from the likes of Thomas Paine and Alexis de Tocqueville, and economists such as Mises, Freidman and Hayek.

The disheartening aspect of all this is the public's dim awareness of the seismic shift going on under the illusion of hope and change. Today I watched a news conference and listened to the empty words of Obama spoken as if his will alone is going to correct all the systemic flaws as he shifts workers from one concern to another and leads our complex economy to a predesigned result he somehow has laid out in his futuristic plans. This is the talk of a statist soaked in theory with no language of experience. The government can afford to experiment with this imagistic shot in the dark because it's our money funding the experiment, but we can't afford the loss in productivity and the damage done to liberty. Now is time for serious reflection and mature choices, not emotional delusion based on an inexperienced neophyte being led by power mongers in congress and some pompous dream of Grand Design.

Gravitas has been a causualty in the modern day battle for popular approval -- our superficial values have generated a society of pop culture and personality worship devoid of principles and great ideas. Everyone is so concerned with having the correct values-of-the-moment its like a selection of stylish causes to be hung around the neck like so much jewelry. The pundits and commenters on news programs don't bother to mask the gamemanship of one-upping and bickering over small differences as if politics is a friendly competition among friends like Fantasy Football. Sincerity and depth of intellect are not to be found among the cacophony of "experts" and wannabe insiders who pronounce their emptiness as if it matters. It doesn't -- and this is the crux of the matter -- the economy and the social life of the US are a complex and dynamic combination of transactions and diversed interests which require freedom and free market principles in order to function, and hardly anyone is fighting for these principles -- all the talking around it doesn't matter.

This country was never designed for central planning and history has shown us that no country ever successfully implements central control, and even the smallest of countries can only exist through central planning by feeding off the relative freedom and calculations of markets around them. If the whole world is going toward statism then we're in for global disaster -- if America gives up the lead and universal crises cause all countries who were beginning to loosen up to tighten up again, then it could be decades before there is any real growth and improvement in standard of living, causing much more chaos and suffering in developing nations. Some ivory tower intellectuals may have dreamed of global control through One Order, but that nightmare is no solution. We desperately need peace, free trade, continued technological advancement and an entrenched Great Idea that freedom is the powering source of future prosperity, not central control through a collection of short-sighted statists who have no idea how to control even the smallest of concerns much less the whole magnificent world of cooperative efforts.

As for the enlightened ideas of equality and fairness, well, dear statists, these concepts are much too important to leave to politicians, kings and bureaucrats.

Libertarianism, re-evaluation and spontaneous order

As I wrote recently, the real divison in our society is not between Republicans and Democrats. The number of true believers in either party is relatively small compared to the total number of citiizens in the US.

A large part of our society is mostly unconscious of the part they play in the great economic movement in which products are manufactured, distributed and sold or services are offered and used. They understand mostly their contribution and perhaps some surrounding connections, but few stop to think of the complex co-operation entailed in the daily economic movement in the markets with connections going around the world and communications taking place at lightning speed. If any one person stopped to think about the complexity of actions required for the economic movement to take place, which gets products where they're needed in the time in which they're needed, and all the different actions needed for services to provide all they provide to meet so many wants and needs, this person would quickly reach the limit of their comprehension and become ovewhelmed by all the connections.

If you could query any of these people sufficiently you would no doubt be able to get an agreement that this type of activity can't be controlled by a central planning group. Once they consider manufacturing and all the ancillary needs of a manufacturer, all the workers and co-ordination of their efforts, all the machinery and the parts and maintenance, all the energy required, all the finances which have to kept in order, all the research and development, then the transportation of the goods, the logistics, the receiving, on and on -- then think of all the manufacturers of all the products we use, then of the services we use, from medical, to legal, to educational, to eating, to entertainment, on and on and on -- it quickly becomes evident that there is a force underlying all this activity that has to do with our desire to live and have the things by which living is made better and easier.

We need or want cars, food, housing, clothing, entertainment, energy, furniture and appliances, toys, computers, supplies, tools and all sorts of stuff to live the lives to which we've become accustomed. It seems as if all this has been planned and guided by someone, but when we think about it, we see all the co-operation required and realize that it happens without knowing all the sources or all the connections -- we realize it's impossible for central planners to know all the sources and connections, and impossilbe to plan and guide all of it. Only the different parts can plan and guide their participation in the overall economic co-operation and maybe a few connections removed.

Then we ask this person to consider government planners trying to regulate all this movement and to intervene in the process to guide it to a desired end. There will likely be varied responses -- some saying that government should try to manage this activity to make sure it doesn't get out of control for the sake of fairness and efficiency. But what will these people say when asked how government can manage such complexity? We would probably go round and round then come to an agreement that government should create laws to prevent abuse and corruption. This is fair enough, if the laws are rational and prevent the violation of rights, but we'd probably agree that government can not go further to direct the economic movement to predesigned ends because the complexity is too great and the connections are too broad and too many to effectively guide the process without creating negative results.

I believe most people would see the common sense in allowing a spontaneous order such as the free market to operate through co-operation limited by rational laws which prevent corruption and abuse, to prevent the violation of the rights to life, liberty and property. I say "most people" and this is an assumption based on experience and common sense reasoning, but I don't know how many people this would entail -- I suspect up to 80%.

Then there are people, let's say the remaining 20%, who firmly believe that central planning is possible and they don't mind if the free market doesn't work properly, or as efficiently as it could, as long as it's controlled and guided to predesigned ends and as long as the profits are redistributed for social justice purposes.

It's my belief that the 20% have won the battle of ideas because they've muddied the issue and the 80% haven't thought the issue through. A large part of the 80% have capitulated to the fairness and equality argument without really knowing what it means in terms of economic results and consequences -- the other part just haven't thought much about it at all and take what's given. I don't know what mix of the 20% is misguided compassion or ideological resistance to capitalsim and free markets, but they are presently in control. If, as I suspect, there is wide spread economic turmoil and failure that goes on for a long while, we'll all be forced to reconsider the ideas and the premises by which we are now being influenced. If there is wide spread education of free market principles and how spontaneous order works, the 80% will gain control of the influence and we can avoid a statist/corporate slide into ruin -- we can preserve the libertarianism on which the country was founded. But this shift back to free market and limited government principles won't happen until the 80% can understand how privatization can handle social issues more efficiently and compassionately than central planners in government can manage the problems. As long as the 20% have the moral advantage, no matter how bogus it is, the 80% will be misled. 

Plus, the 80% have to have a better understanding of equality and fairness. When it comes to despising the arrogant rich who succeed (and this is clear with the present bailouts) through government influence, connections and favoritism, we can all agree that modern plutocracy is as despicable now as it ever was; however, taking nickels and dimes, relatively speaking, from the rich and pretending to help the poor is not the answer, it's a diversion, a game played by politicians to mask the fundamental problem. The answer is to end the government influence, connections and favoritism, and this comes about through limiting what government can do to provide their rich partners and backers with protection from competition.

In the spirit of Jefferson and Jackson, we a need a coalition of Anti-Central Planners to combat unscrupulous politicians who are enmeshed with wealthy plutoctats in an attempt to guide economic movement, not to the benefit of the people, which is impossible, but to the benefit of their own power and the wealthy's advantage. Free markets and spontaneous order will take care of the unscrupulous wealthy by cutting off the power connection, by restoring real fairness and equalizing opportunity -- which is all we can fairly ask.