Liberal transformation

We need a new understanding of what "liberal" means in the 21st century. Media-influenced social pressures combined with a misdirected reliance on government to establish justice and equality have left the meaning of liberal unclear, and have left liberals philosophically conflicted. It's obvious by now that statism isn't working and that too much liberty is being sacrificed in the name of theoretical justice based on an anti-capitalist prejudice promoted by progressive ideology.

There's a large portion of society who've followed the lead of philosophical statists who are a mixture of ideology and plain old power-hunger. These statists represent two camps which we've learned to identify as left and right, with progressives on the left and a form of conservatism on the right. Liberals have aligned themselves with progressive statism, while conservatives have aligned themselves, until lately, with moderate right-of-center statism. For awhile social conservatives depended on the moderate, right-of-center, establishment Republicans as the route to government power and establishment of laws protecting traditional moral objectives, protecting a way of life social conservatives saw threatened by liberal values related to homosexuality, pornography, feminism, atheism, drug use, and all sorts of alternative life-styles. This push from the right pushed liberals further left, as liberals wanted to avoid government intervention in life-style choices, minority advancements and civil liberty.

Before the conservative right's push to protect traditional values, liberals had already moved toward reliance on government intervention, beginning with the New Deal, to establish social justice, but in the late 20th century, the division was deepened and battle lines were clearly drawn -- two forms of statism were battling one another, and still are, as liberty and the free market suffered. What we have today is a slowly forming realization that this battle has damaged America and empowered the statists who've encouraged the battle all along in order to establish State power and control.

The principles of classical liberalism were lost in the battle over social issues. The social issues have been resolved for the most part, but the division created by left/right mindsets is still deep. Most people accept the gay reality, encourage women to compete and succeed in all endeavors, show tolerance for both secular and spiritual beliefs, question the Drug War, especially with marijuana, and accept alternative lifestyles as the way things are. You hardly hear anything mentioned about the "Moral Majority" -- there are no more Falwells with political power. This should be a relief to the moderate, right-of-center, establishment Republicans, who barely tolerated the soial conservatives but needed them -- and the moderates would be relieved if they had won in the change, but something unexpected happened -- an anti-statist movement developed which threatens the moderates' control of the Republican Party. What does this have to do with liberals? Well, it creates a new dynamic and it puts pressure on liberals, and moderates for that matter, to make some very important choices.

The moderate, right-of-center, establishment Republicans foresaw the problem with social conservativism years ago and moved toward modern liberalism as a way to garner the support of independents -- independents being people who are a mixture of tolerance and common sense. Independents are mostly people who've been busy working and concerning themselves with family and community, never becoming politically active to fight for any particular causes -- most independents think politics is a game, but they've been tolerant of certain government interventions because they thought the interventions were probably necessary, but never really paid much attention, until lately.

Now that independents are paying more attention, several things have happened -- they realize that government has gained too much power and that government spending is killing the economy. When independents listen to the political class discuss our problems, it doesn't make sense. Independents haven't invested themselves in partisan battles, so they can be more objective. When independents hear the left talk about the anti-statist movement as racist, ignorant and out-of-touch with reality, they see this as hyperbole. The independents have witnessed all the social changes of the past few decades, and they don't see anything threatening coming from the right, especially as portrayed by the left. Yes, there are still fundamentalists who rant and rave against the immorality of our society, but they don't see these people as having political power to force this brand of morality on society.

What the independents do witness are progressive attempts to force their brand of morality on society, and they see liberals as supporters of the progressive agenda. It appears to me that conservatives had to make adjustments to their worldview and become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles in the name of liberty, but liberals haven't made that same adjustment by rejecting progressivism in the name of liberty. In many ways, limited-government conservatives, independents and true liberals should have a lot in common. When you get past the extremes, which on the right are becoming more and more marginalized and politically dis-empowered, the great majority of Americans should, generally, want the same things -- a consitutionally limited government, a vibrant economy with low unemployment, conservative government spending, a State that doesn't interfere in our private lives, a strong national defense, peace, charity, unrestricted competition (no corporate welfare) in a free market and a strong court system which punishes all forms of fraud and rights violations. These are not right or left values, they are traditional, American, liberal values.

Liberals must re-evaluate their beliefs, and if they agree with the progressive agenda, then go for it, but if they uphold classical liberal values, then they need to get past the progressive pressure to demonize  anti-statists as rightwing extremists. Liberals should embrace anti-statism. As independents become more involved in political matters, liberal resistance to an anti-statist movement will be seen as a complete acceptance of progressivism and an American-style socialism patterned after European socialism -- liberals will be on the wrong side of history. "Liberal" will no longer have any meaning, and the majority of the American people, transcending right/left, will move forward, concerned less wih labels than with outcomes. This also applies to moderates, Republican-establish types, waiting to see who gains power -- moderates need to committ soon or be seen as base opportunists.

Why the Republican establishment has failed

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/16/the-nerp-manifesto-modulating-and-moderating-the-conservative-message/

Above is a link to a very sincere article in which the author tries his compromising, nuanced best to make his point that the conservative base is simplistic, and the moderate, broad-thinking Republican establishment, northeastern in direction, is simply trying to broaden the base's understanding to help them make sense of a complex world.

It's nice of the author to offer such compassionate understanding. He acknowledges many of the base's issues, but he also offers a more complete picture of the issues and provides context. Well, yes, Obama is a socialist, but then we're all socialists in our modern, statist American government, so, really, theres little difference between Obama and Rubio.

Mr. Shaw realizes these kinds of truths hurt the conservatives, but someone must point to the higher realizations. Since we're all socialists now, the best the Republicans can do is attempt to gain power in order to make socialism less harmful, to somehow make socialism work. You can't just end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, because the welfare state is here to stay -- there are obviously no alternatives to statism, only controls to make statism effective.

Mr. Shaw doesn't propose how we go about controlling statism and making the welfare state helpful but not too comfortable. By implication, Mr. Shaw states that we need to make welfare less comfortable, but where is the political will. I hate to say it, because Mr. Shaw has been so nice in his attempt to educate the base conservatives, but, to be honest, he fails. When has the Republican establishment fought to make welfare uncomfortable, and what does this even mean?

Does Mr. Shaw propose we cut benefits so that people are struggling under welfare benefits -- if so, I'd be glad to hear his proposals, and it would be good to explain how we can form the political coalition to make this happen. Obviously, Mr. Shaw believes that Republicans can work with Democrats to make welfare less attractive. One of Mr. Shaw's biggest complaints is that base conservatives are inflexible and lack nuance. But who is calling for the end of all safety nets? Mr. Shaw says he's seen this call at conservative rallies, but I wonder if he checked further to determine if there was nuance behind the call, or whether he simply took note of a rally sign?

Mr. Shaw doesn't ask about private solutions -- such solutions don't seem to cross his radar screen. The 1918 influnenza crisis? Without government we could all die from the flu. Government safety nets? Without the government, we could go into a depression and wind up living in shacks and standing in soup lines. Mr. Shaw appears to lack knowledge of government causes related to the Great Depression, and how government actions prolonged the depression -- he mentions nothing of the previous depression which was short-lived and handled much more smoothly by a free market. Government actually started the boom-bust of such proportions they became "Great".

I have to say, despite Mr. Shaw's earnest effort to educate the conservative base, he's still off-mark when it comes to nuance and a more comprehensive explanation of statism/socialism.

The Uncommitted

I write about politics, but it's not politics that interest me, although I am concerned about the relationship between the State and the private sector, and this might be the best way to explain why I started this blog. For years I wrote poetry, flash fiction and short stories, although I've never tried to publish or make writing a profession. The bottom line is I love to write about ideas and what I see going on around me in society. I believe the relationship between the State and the private sector is one of the most important subjects to tackle going into the 21st century.

I never make political beliefs personal -- in other words, I usually judge people by their character rather than their political ideas, unless the political ideas are such they speak to a person's character. I can debate people over political ideas and still be fond of them and respect them. Most people I meet are not that committed to their political beliefs -- they've usually developed a mongrel political philosophy which hasn't been analyzed with reason to uproot contradictions. Most people are too busy with other things to put a lot of time and energy into learning the in and outs of political philosophy, or to commit themselves to a concerted effort regarding politics. 

I read a lot of books, blogs and articles regarding political thought, and it appears there are basically three positions -- those who believe the State plays an important, all-encompassing role in regulating and managing the private sector, those who believe the State should play a partial, but important, role in regulating and managing the private sector, and those who believe the State should play no roles except the roles of police, military/foreign relations and courts. The majority appears to fall into the middle category. Yes, there are anarchists, but even most of them have to admit that some agency would be needed for protection and dispute resolution.

The reason, I think, the middle category is largest is that most people can't imagine the State not playing at least some role in creating safety nets and regulating businesses -- I mean, we've seen all the movies about the evil, big businesses that control the world and step on the little people. What would happen if they had free reign? What would happen to the blue beings?

Many people are influenced by their peers, and in the political sphere it's commonly accepted that the State has a role to play in regulating and managing society, it's just a matter of how far the government goes and which regulations are implemented. The common sense, pragmatic approach, coupled with politically correct regulations and social engineering efforts, is the main approach, and this places most people in the political sphere in the moderate category -- they want to avoid extremes in either direction, not too much government and not too many limitations placed on government. This is the safe area, because a person can say -- "Well, yes, I believe the government should regulate businesses and create a safety net, but, it all depends on how smartly and efficiently this is done."

In the middle, a person can claim to be a little left and a little right, so they're never committed too far one way or the other, always safely within the "smart government" approach. The "smart government" approach is mostly a cop-out. Many "intellectuals" who represent a smart pragmatism criticize extreme political elements for spewing empty rhetoric charged with emotion, built on platitudes and slogans, but "smart government" is no less empty and platitudinous -- it's simply a wishful stance that the right people in government can somehow make the right decisions in a pragmatic way that produces the best results. Any political thinker in America who doesn't propose strict limitations on government is shirking their responsibility to uphold the very principles which prevent America from incrementally moving to authoritarianism or totalitarianism. The strict limits may be liberal or conservative, more "control-space" for some and less "control-space" for others, but just claiming that the U.S. is limited by the Constitution ignores the violations which have been happening for decades.

The Consititution had flaws regarding interpretation which have given flexibility to statists to expand the State's power. As we become accustomed to the expansion of power, the next expansion becomes more acceptable. So, the need for committment to established and strict limits on the power of the State is vital. Many in the middle in politics have fallen victim to unexamined value-judgements, and presently these value-judgements relate to what's commonly called the rightwing in politics. Because the national narrative, through media and education, has framed the right in negative terms associated with ignorance, racism, militarism, extreme patriotism, evil capitalism, homophobia, sexism, violation of civil liberties and general bigotry, there's social pressure in the political sphere to avoid association with the right. Center-right is a respectable position as long as the conditions are appropriate -- fiscally responsible, but socially liberal, whatever this means. Limited government proponents are, unfortunately, associated, consciously or unconsciously, with rightwing zealots -- which is ludicrous, since most rightwing zealots would gladly use the State to control the degenerates.

Social concerns and perceptions appear to be more important than the issue of government's "control-space" and the private sector's "free-space". Politics should be worked out within a limited control-space -- however, the reluctance of the middle to commit to a limited government assures that the control-space will expand, as the State attempts to regulate and manage more and more of the private sector, thus reducing the private sector's free-space. The extremes on the right and left are committed -- they're committed to expanding the control-space of the State, through government and all the institutions which make up the State. The middle is, inadvertently, deciding the direction of the expansion, right or left.

Above, I gave three categories -- the statists, the moderates and the libertarians/limited government conservatives. In reality there's over-lapping, such as center-left, center-right, liberaltarians, etc., but here I'm mainly concerned with the difference between statists and limited government proponents. Statists can be either politically right, left or a mixture of the two. Statists believe the government should have control over the economy. In order to avoid confusion over the meaning of "statism", let's use the Dictionary.com definition:

stat·ism

   /ˈsteɪtɪzəm/ Show Spelled[stey-tiz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

 

So, the question is - what limits are placed o the State? It's obvious that once you're willing to sacrifice individual liberty, you've moved past a certain line, so where does it stop? Once the State begins controlling the economy, it demands more controls when the private sector reacts to the controls to avoid negative consequences to individual liberty. Unless all individuals in the private sector agree to dutifully obey the State, there'll always be reactions to get around regulations and controls, thus calling for more State control, until complete, or as close as possible, control is accomplished. 

 

There are two ideas at stake -- the statist principle of placing economic, political, and related controls in the state, and the free market principle of placing control in the private sector with the State being responsible to protect individual liberties according to the spirit of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Since the Constitution had flaws regarding limits associated with interstate commerce and public welfare, it makes it necessary to define the limits, but still the question becomes -- will the State be limited or will we allow the steady expansion of the State's control-space? The middle can no longer cop-out by claiming a little of both done smartly -- it must be decided what limits to State power are required.

 

Only the middle can decide this question. The extremes, as I wrote above, are committed to expanding the State's control-space to achieve political and economic agendas. The odd thing about our present political situation is that the middle seems to think those calling for limits are the extreme faction -- the middle needs to be less concerned with social/political correctness pressure and perceptions, and more concerned with the relationship between the State and private sector, with the expansion of State control-space and the reduction of private sector free-space.

Why the middle is baffled -- or scared

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23brooks.html

I'm sure David Brooks is a nice fella -- I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he sincerely thinks some mixture of statism and free market principles is the answer to modern complexity.

In his article, Brooks laments the return of a government war between big government Democrats and small government conservatives, still insisting that some combination of the two is the correct balance. Brooks is not alone, other centrists believe the same proposition, yet I don't know why. Brooks has been around for awhile, studying politics, watching government grow in power.

It's obvious that once constitutional limits are violated the State grows and controls more of the private sector. Brooks seems to be disappointed that the State is acting like the State -- it's like being disappointed when a tiger attacks a human being after watching Tony the Tiger all those years on corn flake commericals. Brooks can't be this naive and survive in Washington, D.C. I believe Brooks simply wants Democrats to apply statist policies more slowly, so that they don't cause a reaction from the "raw" "yeomen enterprisers" -- if the Democrats were more disciplined when in power, they could more moderately lead the nation to the correct level of government control. If conservatives weren't so reactionary, they would see that a centrist-controlled Republican Party can accomplish what the Democrats fail to achieve. If a balance could be found, we could save the status quo and the parties could peacefully share power in the middle, and centrists like Brooks would be more valuable -- his position more stable.

Just the fact that Brooks still uses the term "small goverment" shows he doesn't understand the true distinction between statists and free marketers -- size isn't the issue, it's the amount of power possessed by government. Even if he thinks it's the conservatives who are promoting "small government", Brooks ought to clarify the problem in terms of power rather than size -- he has to understand this is the problem. Brooks seems more concerned about the stability of the Washington D.C. political class than what's best for "raw" American citizens outside the Beltway.

Laying a trap

The debate loosely described as between Republican moderates and the conservative base has made it to the NYT. The debate is healthy in many ways, yet some underlying assumptions need less "epistemic closure" and more objective light -- I'll be glad when the term "epistemic closure" returns to its ancient source.

The underlying assumptions are mostly on the moderate side. But first let me say that "moderate" does not describe the political philosophy of some in the argument who are self-described as politically eclectic. It's also worth mentioning that many moderates voted for Obama, so a grain of salt is required.

I certainly don't want to unfairly label those who contain multitudes.

But if we take some assumptions at face value, by making our own assumption that Republican moderates are concerned with rebuilding the Republican Party as an alternative to Democrat control, then we need clarification. What is the alternative to Democrat policies? If conservative intellectuals are on the wrong side of the issues, what's the right side? There's been some talk from moderates that it's political suicide to be the Party of No, therefore, this suggests compromise -- it also suggests that moderates believe there's another more politically savvy approach.

Are we talking about political strategy or political ideas? The suggestion that conservative intellectuals are closed means that there are ideas outside the current conservative realm of ideas which need to be considered. The liberal ideas being proposed right now have mainly to do with more State regulation of the market, so it begs the question -- "Which liberal ideas regarding State regulation of the market should conservatives help implement into policy?" -- should conservatives work to help deal with the problems of the healthcare reform bill just passed? Should conservatives work to help shape cap and trade legislation? Should conservatives help shape financial regulation? Should conservatives compromise on immigration and help illegals become legal without going through the lawful process?

If so, then the moderates should lay out a plan to address each one of these concerns. But if we're going to give the moderates the benefit of the doubt, that they are serious about rebuilding a strong Republican alternative to Democrat control, then moderates have to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt when they say they've tried to influence current legislation, but the Democrats would rather resist the conservative suggestions and frame the Rs as the Party of No -- how do the moderates answer this claim? So far, they've agreed with the Democrats in saying that Republican suggestions have been cynical obstacles to true reform and not meant to be serious compromises.

Moderates shouldn't ask to be taken seriously, if they refuse to take conservatives seriously. There are disagreements on how best to govern, and the differences between the moderates' approach and the conservatives' approach is very real. The moderates are willing to accept some degree of statism, and they're sympathetic toward some liberal ideas, while conservatives are now calling for limited government and opposing progressive policies which they think will hurt small businesses, damage a fragile economy and increase the power of the State. The conservatives have decided that compromise on the Democrat's terms will lead to ruin, so it's up to moderates to show how compromise will achieve Republican goals and how compromise will be better for the American people.

There's a good chance that moderates are not thinking clearly -- for all their claims to political savvy, much of their strategy appears naive and superfical. There's more at stake than just winning elections and gaining the appearance of openness and compromise. There's also a battle over big ideas which can't be dismissed as "epistemic closure". Our country has a crisis of direction -- are we going to continue down the path of statism and powerful governmen regulation of the market and our private choices, or are we going to limit government power and empower the private sector?

It's true that if conservative Republicans have changed and there's a serious desire to limit government power, it's critical to win elections, but I'm afraid that simply winning a few elections and attempting to add conservative influence to the Democrat's statist plans will not have much of an effect on direction -- we'll simply slow the march to statism and weaken oppostion as those in the public serious about limitiing government give up on the Republican Party as a viable alternative to Democrat control. I believe the moderates are underestimatig the public opposition to Democrat control and intervention in the economy.

Dealing with an informed and politcally active public will require a new approach -- political manipulation and image-making won't work. Patronizing the public will only anger and alienate the public. The people own their government and the owners are speaking up, we no longer have absentee ownership where managers are left to do as they like. I want to give the moderates the benefit of the doubt, but it's beginning to appear they're more concerned with preserving the status quo of the political elite than they are with being an opposition to statist growth.

If the Republicans don't find a way to come together and develope an honest approach to represent an informed, active public, the Democrats will divide and conquer, only creating more public dissatifaction with both parties.