Freeing liberalism from partisanship and progressivism

This is from Matthew Price's review of Alan Wolfe's book -- The Future of Liberalism:

“A conservative who opposes liberalism’s commitment to the welfare state,” Wolfe argues, “but who gives generously to charity is acting liberally.” His aim is to reassert the tenets of what he calls a “pre-political” liberalism, one that harks back to the buzzing ferment of the Enlightenment. “Liberalism,” Wolfe writes, “tells us not so much what to think but more about how to think,” and he sets out a series of “dispositions” by which we might understand its direction: a sympathy for equality, and an appreciation for openness, debate, pragmatism, reasoned negotiation, tolerance and the art of governance.

For all of these reasons, Wolfe argues, liberalism is the most suitable political doctrine for our times — indeed, he says, liberalism is the political doctrine that most suits modernity itself. (He makes many such sweeping claims.) “It is liberalism’s underlying philosophy,” Wolfe writes, “its understanding of human nature, its respect for both individualism and equality, its discovery of the social, its passion for justice, its preference for experience over theory, its intellectual openness, its commitment to fairness — that offers us the surest path toward individual freedom and a collective sense of purpose.”

While Wolfe goes a long way toward freeing liberalism from enslavement to a political party, he represents the serious liberals I see as conflicted regarding the progressive statist movement. Wolfe embraces the historical liberal principles, but still falls short of denouncing progressives. He does reprimand the far left for its radicalism, but I'm not sure he considers the present administration and much of congress as being connected to that radical movement. Wolfe appears to be content with finding a half-way house between liberalism and progressive statism, but I'm not sure one can be found. At least Wolfe realizes the danger of blindly following the progressive lead, and he realizes the imporatnce of liberalism as a way of thinking, of viewing the world, rather than a political movement.

It appears to me that many more people fall under the true liberal label than are now associated with liberalism. Many of the base conservative thinkers are closer to classical liberal principles than they are conservativism -- the same is true of many moderate conservatives. It seems to me that an easy, loose alliance could be made between conservatives and libertarians and moderate Democrat liberals -- all of whom have been mislabled in one way or another. The commonalities of true liberal thought are wide and deep enough to include the majority of Americans -- we are actually a liberal nation -- we've just had a lot of confusion surrounding the ideas of conservativism and liberalism -- with the former getting mixed up with religion and morality, and the other getting mixed up with central planning and social engineering. I believe the religionist factions and the statist factions are more about power and control than they are reflections of American society.

Outside the battle for government control and power, the majority of Americans are liberal with some conservative elements, in that conservative means not making any major changes that will violate freedoms, shackle the economy and bankrupt the government, or attempts to transform society into something inconsistent with our common values spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, liberty and justice for all, and all that jazz -- but liberality is the defining characteristic. Our culture is a liberal culture, but progressive statism has nothing to do with our liberal culture -- as a matter of fact it is antithetical to our liberal culture, with it's nannyism, illiberality, violation of individual rights, central planning and social engineering. America was founded on liberal values and it's not built for progressive statism or conservative moral control. 

Perhaps this is what the growing independent movement is telling us.

More about liberals

From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia 

Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government. Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century (see Thirty Years' War). Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right (see divine kingship). In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance. In the U.S. the New Deal program undertaken by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of governmental activities and its increased regulation of business. After World War II a further expansion of social welfare programs occurred in Britain, Scandinavia, and the U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S. Contemporary liberalism remains committed to social reform, including reducing inequality and expanding individual rights. See also conservatism; individualism.

The revival of classical liberalism was a conservative movement, although it was quickly compromised, so those who call themselves liberals have remained fairly consistent in the their move toward what is now called progressivism -- the progressivism of the late 19th and early 20th century infected liberalism with statism, and liberalism has yet to recover from this illness. However the liberalism of JFK was actually, in many ways, more conservative than the moderate conservatives today.

As many liberals become more progressive, moving more toward a statist approach regarding governance, it appears to me a category of "progressive statism" ought to be established, and the liberal mantle returned to classical liberals.

Jonathan Dohenty writes:

Classical Liberals, like myself, stress such ideas as voluntary association, incentives, and self-interest. We believe that people are bound by their own decisions, agreements, contracts, and so on. Therefore, people may do unpleasant jobs, for instance, because they pay. They may, of course, do things as well for non-financial reasons. It is important to note that we stress that our way of doing things combines a way to get things done with a high degree of individual freedom. We assume that people recognize the rights of others and some uncontracted obligations toward others, as well. Classical Liberalism can be contrasted with Welfare or Modern Liberalism which has an opposing view and is currently the dominant political philosophy in the United States.

Welfare Liberals think that citizens should have far more welfare guarantees; indeed, some have suggested that everyone should have a guaranteed income. For example, two Yale Law School professors, Bruce Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her twenty-first birthday.

Welfare Liberals tend to favor paternalistic actions by government to protect people, and they are less worried about the ethics and practicalities of social engineering by government. They give more weight to social obligations, instead of basic rights, and when they talk about rights and obligations, they have in mind the idea that those who are fortunate have an obligation to serve the community as a whole.

To accomplish their aims, Welfare Liberals are strong proponents of public or state education. They use this as a means of shaping people for the so-called responsibilities and duties of citizenship, much of which could be rightly called "state propaganda." Classical Liberals, by the way, tend to see something sinister in governments shaping character through education. We are very suspicious about that.

So we can say in a general way that one approach, Classical Liberalism, favors incentives, the shaping of the individual through family upbringing, and participation in the ordinary institutions of a commercial society. The other side, Welfare or Modern Liberals, puts greater weight on socialization to predispose people to specific views and perspectives which favor their agenda.

Welfare Liberalism, by the way, does have a real problem with how to get individuals to do things since there is little incentive to do constructive things if you are given what you need by the government rather than having to work for it yourself. One might note that welfare recipients have little incentive to take really unpleasant jobs.

Classical Liberals emphasize the importance of individual freedoms of various kinds. We see these as moral rights. There is, however, a great deal of room for disputes about the scope and character of these rights, as in government by consent. We do argue about these rights, which can enliven any gathering of Classical Liberals. We do agree, however, that any government that does exist exists to safeguard or protect the individual rights of its citizens, that is, that is the proper role of government even though we realize that some actual governments don't do that. So we might say that this ought or should be the role of any "legitimate" government.

We also expect that if people's rights are safeguarded and protected, human interaction will generate well-being or happiness for each individual. This is achieved through voluntary market transactions, voluntary mutual aid and charity and, in very limited ways, possibly through government action. We believe that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that government should be limited in scope and function by what citizens will consent to and by individual rights. So we tend to favor a self-limiting Democratic Republic with a written constitution that guarantees protection of individual rights against a simple majority rule.

There is such a sharp division between modern liberalism and classical liberalism that the word "liberal" needs to be reassessed. It's true that most classical liberals now call themselves libertarians, but libertarianism has been so marginalized by both the right and left, many classical liberals are reluctant to take on that label, leaving many thinkers without a true identity. And, not just thinkers, it leaves a large part of the public who act as classical liberals without a home in the political sphere. The base conservatives are now talking about classical liberal ideas, but many of their social ideas, influenced by the religious right, are too limitiing for many people who are either not that religious, or agnostic, or atheistic.

Those in society who would fall under the label of classical liberals are not represented. For the most part they are not interested in political power -- they would rather be left alone. However, they may have to become politically active in order to be left alone. In my mind the classical liberals are simply liberals, so, I will drop the "classical" since this is how they've been marginalized, by making them odd creatures of the past -- not progressive.

Maybe we'd be better off, and it would make it much simpler, if we had three main categories -- conservative, liberal, and progressive. However, to avoid the impression that "progressive" is the modern cutting edge movement, progressive should include "statism" -- Progressive Statism. Earlier, I proposed State Marketism, but either would work, so that the progressive movement is correctly connected with the state.

Getting back to liberals -- liberalism should be shorn of its modern association with statism, and it should be reunited with a free market, individualism and limited government. True liberals appear to be the only group which have no motivation to create a powerful, interventionist state. Conservatives are motivated by social/religious concerns for interventionist state action, and the progressives are motivated by economic/social engineering concerns to promote grand schemes of transformation more in line with the European Social Democrats. I would be glad to trade the "libertarian" designation for "liberal" -- if nothing else, it would save energy typing.

More on this later.

Listen up liberals

http://www.newmajority.com/german-social-democrats-mulling-grand-deal-with-former-communists

John Rosenthal's report on the political intrigue in Germany is a red flag for American liberals. Moving to the left pretty much disqualifies one from carrying their bonafide liberal card. Here is a definition of "liberal" from Answers.com:

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

I think this is a good definition, but how close is it to the beliefs of modern liberals? Not very, and this is a problem for liberals. Liberals should be shoulder to shoulder with the gray-hair mobsters at town hall meetings defending us against arbitrary authority -- however, they are, instead, ridiculing the protesters and even suggesting they might be armed, right-wing terrorists on the verge of violent acts.

My God, look at how far we've slipped into the weird world of statism. If the liberals ally with the left, the progressives, the statists, then they are turning their backs on the autonomy of the individual, working against civil and political liberties. What kind of liberalism is that?

The Sarah Palin decision

I'm sure part of Sarah Palin's decision is as she said, because the attacks are beginning to destroy her family. But she knows the attacks won't stop just because she is not governor of Alaska, they will just make it impossible to lead the state and defend herself and her family. Is there some big scandal behind all this? I don't think so.

I think Sarah Palin and her advisers realize that something is changing in this country. The state has become a powerful machine which controls the major media, and in many ways is influencing much of new media. But, before I go into that, which will be another post, I'd like to say that Sarah Palin has a long way to go to develop a well-rounded political understanding to stand against her opponents, both Republican and Democrat attackers. I say "attackers" because that's what this constant barrage of insults, charges, rumors and snarky condescension has become, an all-out attack to destroy her. Objective critics who aren't afraid of her and what she stands for merely criticize her lack of experience, or her tendency to rely on platitudes, then let it go. But her attackers have to obliterate what she stands for. What does she stand for? Like it or not, she stands for the simple ideas of America that most people in this country hold -- freedom, national pride, pursuit of happiness, etc. Most people don't have a deep understanding of political philosophy. This is unfortunate.

But that's not only true of the patriotic right, it's true of the left, for the most part, although the left is more politically active in the form of special interest groups. Most people who consider themselves on the left seem to be as simplistic as the right when it comes to expressing their ideas regarding government intervention, equality, justice, etc. Very few people I encounter in real life or on the internet are very well rounded in their understanding of political philosophy. The populist, patriotic crowd is pretentious and limited and so is the crowd of emotional earth-savers and intellectual poseurs on the left. Each side is under the illusion that our two-party system offers them a route to vindicate their myopic world-views.

I believe Palin and her handlers are making a move outside politcs, the two-party system, to start their movement in an effort to directly appeal to the patriotic right/conservatives (independents?) who are dissatisfied with government. For this to not be an embarrassing disaster for Palin, she will have to broaden her understanding of history, politics, government and the many facets of the private sector as it stands in relationship to a statist government. There's a great opportunity for a charismatic figure to take power directly, outside the political status quo. Although they will have to step outside conservative or liberal roles as they are currently being expressed through government. Roughly half the voting age population is even active enough to vote. Who are the other half and what do they think about politics and government? I'm sure there's a diversity of thought among the non-voters, but many may be people who've simply decided that government is not worth spending much time on -- but, now, things might be different with so many changes coming directly from the government, and with the economy swirling in the crapper.

I might be off base, but even if Palin is not thinking about this strategy, someone ought to -- or some many ought to. We need a major private sector effort to redefine what type of government we want in America. It's time for the American people to wake up and pay attention -- this phony dichotomy between "elites" and "common folk", dancing left and right as if there's a nickel worth of difference between the two parties has run its course.

Let's reuse the old foundation to renovate America after years of neglect

We are witnessing in the Chrysler bankruptcy the most egregious use of presidential power I've seen in a long time. The way Obama is bullying the Chrysler investors, who are acting rationally representing their business concerns, is beyond the pale -- it's an abuse of power and if it continues, it's grounds for impeachment. I don't want to over-react, but it's time to stand up to this would-be king and proclaim that America has no kings, queens or princes. This officious use of the bully pulpit in abominable for an American president and it represents the new mindset in government which thinks just because many in the country, like the weak-kneed hacks in the media, have bowed all should bow when His Majesty speaks.

This is characteristic of an unlimited government -- human beings misuse power and the natural tendency of government is to continue growing in power and control until it controls everything. This country was founded on the foundation that governments must be limited and that free people can handle their own affairs. This principle of limited government is the foundation on which we need to renovate the nation, nothing short will do. The new liberal, progressive idea of an activist government engineering society to a future of equality and fairness needs to be squashed -- it's an old idea which has failed, and the persistence of the notion that sooner or later we will get it right has to be revealed as delusional.

The truth is that without government intervention discombobulating the whole economy, producers, entrepreneurs, workers and consumers will re-order the misdirected capital and the economy will realign to go forward. Our greatest deficit right now is an educational deficit. The more people learn about the bigger picture, the better prepared they are to be independent, responsible players in the society of free men and women. Human beings are capable of purposeful action, co-operation, compassion, environmental sanity and moral action, but if we mis-educate people from the time they go to kindergarten until they leave school and enter the world of work, we restrict their vision and their capabilities and create dependency. One of our greatest needs is to completely dismantle government run education and allow the private sector to meet the educational needs of the country.

It's vitally important for all Americans to receive a broad education which prepares them for reality. The technological demands and the need to understand political and economic realities call for the best education possible, not dependence factories and madhouses where over-wrought teachers become baby-sitters, police and targets of abuse, and where kids kids run riot because the system has failed. The systemic problems in public education affect our whole society, and now they've created a division of poorly educated kids leaving public shools unprepared, then thrown into competition with kids who've received excellent private education or education from superior foreign schools. The government is taking these ill-prepared kids and expanding the welfare state which continues to weigh down the country with non-productivity and burdens on the productive who were fortunate enough, or worked hard enough, to escape the government's reach. The taxes required to support this broken system are onerous when we consider how that money could be used to promote human flourishing and a real equality of pursuit.

No, this New Foundation is nothing more than old ideas dishonestly presented as fresh -- we have a foundation -- now, lets tear down the poorly contructed, progressive structure and re-build America on private initiative and the spirit of excellence. We don't want anyone left behind because it will take all of us to accomplish excellence, each pursuing a path in their own unique way.

Stick that in your hip-irony and cynicism and suck on it -- the rest of us will grow up and throw away useless pacifiers (don't ask me what this means -- I got carried away).