Modern Liberalism is dead -- the first step

And it's about time. For way too long modern liberals have perverted the liberal label and philosophy. About 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberal, and a good many of them are confused regarding what "liberal" really means in 2012.

Libertarians were robbed of the liberal label by statists who were influenced by socialistic ideas swamping the American intelligentsia in the early 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson set the stage for FDR and, later, LBJ, until, now, modern liberalism withers as it devolved from Clinton to Obama. It has taken almost a century for modern liberalism to reach its limits. Modern liberalism (the entire nation, actually) is now forced to face the consequences of its non-ideological ideology. For all the talk about pragmatism, modern liberalism put forth a set of failed ideas which has brought America to the brink of financial collapse, although modern liberals will tell you debt is not a problem and that now is the time to borrow money and stimulate the economy. It's too fantastic to be maddening anymore -- it's pathetically funny, but still dangerous. The only reason modern liberalism is dangerous is because underneath is an ideology which has changed names and faces for centuries and survives through obscurantism.

The only reason I believe in the true death of the underlying ideology is because of the Information Age -- more and more people are becoming educated on the destruction caused by the few reigning over the many -- coercive power in the hands of a few faux-elite. They are not authenic "elite" because they don't earn the status through excellence, achievement, reason and wisdom -- they manufacture their status through deceit, control and punishment for resistance.

The only way they can maintain control is through the consent of the populace who still believe in false narratives. Democrats, and, thus, modern liberalism, won in 2008, after 8 years of Big Government Republicanism, on the outside chance that Barack Obama was a new kind of President who could change the way business is done in the DC. Now, the American people are totally disillusioned with government, resulting in the Tea Party pushing for limits, frugality and economic freedom, and OWS pushing for a system which punishes capitalism and redistributes wealth according the demands of social justice. Big Government Republicanism cannot be distinguished from modern liberalism -- it's been a partner in the statist march to stagnation, crushing debt and reckless interventionism overseas.

It would be tragic if the death of modern liberalism leads to a truly anti-free market statism. a progressivism which punishes wealth creation and rewards egalitarian mediocrity and decline. Our best hope is that applying classical liberal principles to our 21st century challenges will win the day and the State will be transcended in a new burst of creativity, innovation and widespread prosperity, protected by a limited government which has clearly defined duties and nothing more. Economic freedom and non-intervention in the affairs of other countries constitute the best course out of the modern liberal bog in which we're currently sinking.

Liberal as an adjective will surely survive, as it should. Social liberalism is not to be feared but rather embraced as we once again use the free marketplace of ideas to debate our moral/spiritual quandaries. Free, grown individuals either have the freedom to live their lives or they're destined once more to live under the arbitrary rules of the few. We've advanced far enough, although the skills of liberty have been blunted, to live our lives as we see fit as long as basic rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are protected. This is where a limited government comes in, to protect individual rights from violation and settle disputes in courts of law -- plus, to defend the nation from attack. This has all been discussed a billion or so times throughout the history of America, but we've never put the principles into practice. Now, though, we have to do something, because we're on the brink of quick decline. Modern liberal, statist policies have been implemented over the course of a century until, now, like the USSR, we face an existential threat and must act boldly and decisively.

We have to end the games we've played between liberals and conservatives over control of a statist system and look at what major systemic changes are required to stop the slide into loss of liberty and financial collapse. As I wrote above, the current intellectual decay among modern liberals has rendered their flailing and reactionary zeal ludicrous, but they are practiced at deception, so Americans have to resist quick, simple solutions or the false image of hope and change, such as Obama's announcment today he's streamlining the executive branch -- this is illusion and deception, cynical piddling around the cusp in an election year.

Ron Paul has the only serious plan for systemic change and it's only a bare beginning. It will take a decade to turn statism around and move in a limited government/free market direction. The resistance will be incredible, but it can be done. The first step is admission of the problem -- in this case, it's the admission that modern liberalism is dead, and the time is right for the revival of authentic liberalism, the liberalism that contained actual liberty before statists perverted the philosophy.

Redstate Republicans

Redstate Republicans are a faction of the GOP which doesn't possess the knowledge to fully understand what they are against or for. The Republican Party will either transition to classical liberal principles, or it will become irrelevant. The type of "conservativism" represented at Redstate has no philosophical foundation, so its attacks on "liberals" lack historical perspective. The participants know they dislike Democrats, Obama and liberals, but they lack the intellectual capacity and knowledge of political philosophy to make a good case for true opposition to modern liberalism.

Because Ron Paul has ideas which don't conform with their simplistic version of "conservativism" they smear him as a kook, racist (that's rich), and traitor who defends terrorists. The Redstate Republicans are basically tools for the Republican establishment, although they pretend to be independent rebels who possess the true "conservative" spirit. Despite their grumbling, they will be led by the nose in 2012. The special type of ignorance possessd by the Redstate crowd has driven independents to the Democrat Party, although these Democrat leaning independents are just as misguided if they think Democrats will ever renounce their form of statism that's destroying our economy. Obama promised to be a new kind of Democrat, and the independents believed him -- now these independents would like to vote Republican, but they are finding problems with the Redstate type Republican.

The Redstate faction is loud, so they appear to be representative. They'll eventually follow the establishment choice for the Presidential race, and then justify their capitulation by saying winning counts, and anything is better than Obama, but they won't be able to explain why. Anything is not better than Obama. True classical liberal opposition to Obama is better than Obama. The Redstate crowd will follow anyone who promises to cut spending, keep marriage sacred, fight abortion, loves Jesus, is repulsed by certain unapproved behavior,  kick some union ass, fight illegal immigration and keep the war machine alive. These are the issues important to the Redstate Republicans, right or wrong, and it doesn't matter how powerful a rightwing government becomes as long as it represents these concerns. They never have well-reasoned explanations why they support what they support, they just do, by God. Higher principles of individual rights, equal opportunity, non-interventionism in private behavior and foreign, sovereign countries are not important. Obviously, these higher principles are too complex for the Redstate Republican to bother with.

The Redstate Republicans have no idea how their unexamined value-judgements affect the evolution of State power -- they just want their little worlds protected from what they don't understand. Perhaps if they would put a little effort into learning the history of domination and freedom and what the Constitution actually represents, they wouldn't be so bitter when someone like Paul, who does understand, supports things that don't fit their stunted worldview. Then, if they disagee, they'll have the tools to intelligently explain why, rather than call names and dreg up old newsletters from 1990 -- and even if Paul turns out to be morally unfit to be President, they'll realize that the ideas were what was really important all along. The Republican Party needs a philosophical foundation based on classical liberal principles, not delusional, pseudo-conservative, social warriors striking out blindly in fear, unable to indentify the enemy.

No labels -- no vision

http://nolabels.org/thinking-no-labels/no-labels-approach/

The above link is to the No Labels site and speaks to their approach. Below is quote from their Declaration.

We believe that together we can make the future better and brighter — and give us what we all deserve — a government and a political system that works — one driven by shared purpose and common sense

If you read what's on the site, you'll realize that this is a modern, centrist liberal movement -- I haven't taken the pledge, so I can label it as such. It combines partial free market rhetoric with statist rhetoric.  

These are excerpts from around the site:

We are united by our shared purpose and our common interests – and our longstanding values.

Americans deserve a government that makes the necessary choices to rein in runaway deficits, secure Social Security and Medicare, and put our country on a viable, sound path going forward.Americans support a government that works to spur employment and economic opportunity by encouraging free and open markets, tempered by sensible regulation.

Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success – from a world-class education to affordable healthcare – provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way.

No Labels intends to unite Republicans, Democrats and Independents with a simple, single idea -- our leaders need to work together to do what government was intended to do: solve problems.  No Labels is not a political party nor aspires to be one, our focus is on building a broad citizen movement, not running any one individual for office.

Only until our leaders put the labels aside can we have confidence in them to make the right decisions for our nation.

No Labels claims to be a new voice, but it's an old voice. From the beginning of politics centrists have tried to join opposing ideas into the perfect mixture. Statism is in a broad sense the rule of the few over the many. You can put labels aside, but it doesn't change our system of government which has broken free of limitations. This is something which I didn't read on No Labels -- a call to strictly limit government and to separate government from the economy. They talk about empowering people, but by working through government to solve problems -- they want a government which will, putting labels aside, find solutions to our problems. This tells you all you need to know, and despite their prohibition of labels, anyone who calls for a separation of government and economy will be labled an "ideologue".

Look at this quote again:

"No Labels intends to unite Republicans, Democrats and Independents with a simple, single idea -- our leaders need to work together to do what government was intended to do: solve problems."

Our government wasn't intended to solve problems, unless those problems relate to it's limited functions of defending our borders, protecting our rights and settling disputes in courts of law -- government wasn't intended to provide education and healthcare or solve all our social and economic problems .

The people supporting this movement, if they believe what's stated on the site, represent a proposed statist solution to the extremes of left and right, but not a new proposal -- this mixture of classical liberalism and statism is what killed classical liberalism starting at the end of the 19th century -- it was a conservative reaction to the growing energy of the free-est market we had known. In an act of perversion, this conservatism, protecting/conserving a Merchant-State, morphed into modern liberalism -- No Labels is the current conservative reaction to a faction of the public and their call for a limited government and a free market. I call it "conservative" because it's conservative in the sense it wants to maintain the status quo of statism, dressed up in a proposal for non-partisan, practical, government solutions and economic nationalism.

I'm glad we now have No Labels speaking for our shared values and common purpose. The beauty of America is that we have diverse values and interests and many purposes -- all we need from government is to protect our freedom to live our values according to our individual purpose and interests, as long as we are not preventing anyone from doing the same.

Trying to understand the modern liberal positions

It's easy to dismiss modern liberals as bleeding hearts indoctrinated by socialist intellectuals. But, given the history of socialism in practice, how can educated people possibly grant any credence to such a futile and harsh political philosophy? Because socialism in America morphed into a mongrel philosophy which allows  liberals and progressives and all forms of statists to deny the most egregious aspects of socialism while retaining the populist aspects which are emotionally seductive. In a country where there is astounding wealth, a large middle class, and poverty, redistributution of wealth, managed by representatives of the people who combine socialism with enough freedom to justify the violation of property rights, is seen as just, especially when the idea of exploitation is accepted.

It appears to be a morally valid position to take wealth from individuals who've amassed wealth through a privileged advantage and then distribute this money according to the needs of the powerless and disadvantaged. This is a compassionate position when we isolate the propositions that a relative few individuals have an excess of wealth, and a lot of people don't have nearly enough. Two reasons the Republican reaction to redistribution of wealth rings hollow are that Republicans have supported the ideas which led to redistribution, and Republicans have been complicit in establishing a State which does indeed offer a relative few in society privileged advantages. The fact that a wealthy few have been given advantages by the State goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton serving as Secretary of Treasury under George Washington. Hamilton felt that common people could never be trusted with strict limitations on government and a free market of artisans, farmers and small business owners, and that an elite of rich, educated merchants/bankers was the best way to establish orderly progress.

Although political rhetoric was for a long time couched in the spirit of Jeffersonian free markets and limited government, the real movement has been toward a Hamiltonian Merchant-State, and in the last 75 years or so, socialist ideas crept into the rhetoric, even if not explicity. Socialism and communism had a direct impact on American political ideas in the 2oth century and that impact has settled in a mixed economy and political rhetoric made palatable to American tastes. When Joe Biden gives a speech and says he's out to save the middle class, he's implying that capitalism and the "free market" have failed, and that statist measures are necessary to protect the middle class and the poor from exploitation by wealthy capitalists. Thse are socialist ideas made seductive by our State's collusion with big corporations to smother and make a free market impossible -- but Biden won't admit the hand he and others like him have had in perpetuating this ongoing rigged game. Biden and Obama and all the politicians before and present who have perpetuated the powerful State machine will blame the party out of power, and they will blame bad actors in industry. This is close enough to the truth that the public is seducd by the justice of redistribution of wealth.

The truth is that no American alive today, and perhaps no American who ever lived, has known a truly free market. This leads statist apologists and supporters to conclude that a free market is a utopian dream that can never be establsihed in the real world -- just like pure Marxism never materialized. So, we have an odd situation where it's fatalistically conceded that the State will not wither away under communism and the State will not be rendered powerless under a free market and limited government. The modern liberal accepts both these propositions as true, so that leaves statism as the only viable means to organize society and maintain orderly progress.

Most liberals believe the Constitution is a good structure within which to operate our government, but that the interpretation of the Constitution depends on the exigencies of the times in which restrictions are applied. In 21st century complex society, the problems we face have little relevance to the siuation of the orginal handful of states, they solemnly declare, so the clauses and amendments dealing with taxes, regulation of commerce and general welfare are interpreted in light of capitalism's perverse developement and present failures. A liberal, present-day interpretation of the Constitution allows government the necessary latitude to regulate and ameliorate the abuses of industry, to tax income sufficiently to provide for the general welfare of those who are victims of insufficiently constrained capitalism, including environmental protection, financial reform, healthcare delivery and coverage, worker's rights, discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, immigration status and race, and election contributions, among other aspects of industry's and commerce's impact on society which have come to the attention of the State as issues in need of governent regulation.  

The libertarian response to these ideas has been effectively muffled in media, the political realm and the univerisities. Hardly ever will you hear the term libertarian used in media, by politicians or by professors, except as a modifier or an historical footnote. You will hardly ever see a fair explication of libertarian ideas as respectable for public consideration, because it's anti-statist. Most people aren't familiar with the word statism, either, because it's a complicated concept that those dependent on the State would rather not clarify. Most people simply think in terms of government, policies and laws that affect them or their special interests. A female teacher will become a Democrat because her special union interests are at stake, and policies have an immediate and direct effect on her life, plus, Democrats support female empowerment in the workplace -- both of these messages are sent from the media constantly, so the messages cement the female teacher's relationship with the Democrat Party. It's unlikely this teacher will expend the energy to study statism, libertarian philosophy and free market principles.

Statism has become the default structure of government, and the predominant argument has been over which political party will apply statism to benefit which group's interests. Because Republicans and the right have used government to push their statist agenda on the public, there's little reason to expect the modern liberal to fight for libertarian principles. Neither party is willing to take the first step toward limiting government and cutting spending, because there hasn't been enough pressure, and they would have nothing to gain by cutting spending and returning power to the private sector. So, the liberal will say that since statism is the only real-world solution, I will support statism to achieve my goals and empower my special interest.

As a nation, we are stuck in a statist system which is self-perpetuating, with no one discerning any benefit in being the first or leading the way to limit government. The Libertarian Party is practically ignored in elections because they have no political power. This inexorable movement of statism, although it's reigned in slightly from time to time, is reaching the point of no return. When Hegel's Absolute State becomes a reality, it will have to run its course to destruction. Liberal positions toward the State are at present gullible, and their faith is unfounded, but the alternative has not been presented. The expectation that Republicans will be the first to revolutionize society and bring about limited government and a free market is not based on anything but rhetoric and the fact they have resisted progressivism as a minority party -- they have said and done these things before, only to pick up the statist mantle when in power.

It also remains to be seen if the limited government movement will remain vigilant if Republicans regain political power. Another question is how will the ordinary liberal react if Republicans do indeed follow through with their stated plans to limit government power? If Republicans establish integrity and fight to end corporate welfare, will liberals support this effort? If Republicans fight to end the wars and re-establish a policy of foreign non-intervention, will liberals support the goals? If Republicans develope solutions to entitlements which are not harmful to those in need, will the liberals consider these solutions and help to creatively save the country from financial collapse due to a crushing and voracious welfare state? If Republicans develope an alternative to failing public education, will liberals respond with energy to help transform education in America for the better?

I'm not expecting Republicans to take drastic measures to cut spending and limit government intervention, but liberals, the libertarian-left, Big Government conservatives and moderates are faced with critical decisions in the next ten years - they can continue to play the game of pretending that  a free market we've never had is unstable and requires intervention to smooth out its misperceived defects, and that limited government would be too weak to handle the social problems we face in the 21st century, or they can face the music and courageously admit that statism is illiberal and anti-social, and that the present system leads to collapse -- and this reveals the true viciousness of statism that creates dependency which it can't service, bringing everyone down to a lower standard of living with much less, if any, freedoms left. 

This pseudo-religion, the State, is dying -- it's time to move forward.