The Descent of Liberalism

[PJABBER]

For some time, I have been advocating the re-consideration of classical liberalism by those who seem only to be aware of social or "welfare" liberalism. I do so because, for liberalism to be as effective as it once was in defining America, it must willingly take from both of these antagonistic perspectives.

There is a long philosophical history to liberalism, and the definition of it in Europe and the rest of the world more or less comfortably enfolds classical liberalism. In the past sixty years, however, classical liberalism in the United States has faded from "liberal" thought and consideration and has thus forced social liberals through ever growing exclusion into an ever smaller and ineffective box.

Though social liberals have won at the ballot and enacted legislative initiatives, they now face what is likely going to be a significant backlash as the electorate has been taken aback at the social liberal's drive to put people into classes and then to treat each class differently.

The "progressive," or social welfare liberal, sees no problem with his advocacy of class warfare. It is part and parcel of their world view. But by becoming so dominated by only a part of what liberalism used to be, they have left themselves open to accurate accusations of elitism, racism and oppression.

As I read the various arguments in this forum I am struck by both the tone and the form of debate. The intolerance of the "social" liberals here is increasing, even as more join in a critical attack on the very precepts the social liberal holds as true and immutable.

What they do not recognize in their reactionary haste to lambaste all contrary opinion, is that the attacks are as much a call for them to return to the classical theory of liberty that was a natural, if somewhat uncomfortable, part of their antecedents, as it is a call for the rejection of both the class warfare they take such delight in and their mockery of the very idea of personal freedom.

I provide a link here to a recent article that provides a very well written understanding of what social liberalism now represents in America.

The Descent of Liberalism

Michael Knox Beran

From the April 5, 2010, issue of National Review

Michael Knox Beran is a contributing editor of City Journal. His most recent book is Forge of Empires 1861–1871: Three Revolutionary Statesmen and the World They Made.

In his 1950 book The Liberal Imagination, Lionel Trilling said that “in the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition.” Liberalism was no less the dominant political tradition; a coherent conservative opposition had yet to emerge. Over the next 60 years, however, the liberal imagination lost its hold on the American mind. In October 2009 Gallup found that just 20 percent of Americans described themselves as liberals; twice as many called themselves conservatives.

What happened? Part of the answer lies in liberalism’s loss of an element that was essential both to its intellectual vitality and to its popular appeal. Liberalism in the middle of the 20th century maintained an equilibrium between the antagonistic principles within it. The classical liberalism that descended from Jefferson and Jackson survived in the movement; the social liberalism that derived from the theories of 19th-century social philosophers, though it was steadily gaining ground, had not yet obtained a complete ascendancy. Liberalism today has lost this equipoise; the progress of the social imagination, with its faith in the power of social science to improve people’s lives, has forced liberals to relinquish the principles and even the language of the classical conception of liberty.

The two philosophies that animated liberalism in its prime were widely different in both origin and aspiration. Classical liberty is founded on the belief that all men are created equal; that they should be treated equally under the law; and that they should be permitted the widest liberty of action consistent with public tranquility and the safety of the state. The classical vision traces its pedigree to Protestant dissenters who in the 17th century struggled to obtain freedom of conscience. Their critique of religious favoritism was later expanded into a critique of state-sponsored privilege in general.

The American patriots who took up arms against George III thought it wrong that some Englishmen were represented in Parliament while others were not. This sort of privilege, in the Old Whig language of liberty from which classical liberalism descends, was known as “corruption.” The revolutionary patriots, it is true, countenanced their own forms of corruption; when they came to write a Constitution for their new republic, the charter tacitly recognized slavery and other forms of discrimination. The country, in Lincoln’s words, was “conceived in liberty,” but not until it experienced various “new” births of freedom was the promise of its founding ideal extended to all of its citizens.

Unlike classical liberty, social liberty is formed on the conviction that if a truly equitable society is to emerge, the state must treat certain groups of people differently from other groups. Only through a more or less comprehensive adjustment of the interests of various classes will a really democratic polity emerge. The social vision traces its origins to thinkers who in the 19th century argued that the close study of social facts would reveal the laws that govern human behavior, much as physics and biology reveal the laws that govern nature. Auguste Comte, for example, believed it possible to elaborate a “social physics” (physique sociale); Karl Marx purported to discover the dialectical laws of human history...

Continue here...

 

[Lemon law]

If nothing else, Europe changes faster than the USA, and changes from a leftist government that is too Liberal, back to a conservative government that is too conservative , and then back to a too liberal government. As the cycle endlessly repeats without finding a happy medium.

My reaction is the US current worse case scenario for the GOP would be to ever get back in charge with the GOP leaders they now have. It took GWB almost eight years to totally collapse a strong economy even though the damage was gradual, but with the weak economy we now have, the collapse would be near instant after GOP governance. Which is not to say the GOP is incapable of better governance ideas, but what I am saying is, current GOP leadership is totally incapable.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Classical liberals thought that all white heterosexual males were created equal. That's good news for me, less good for women, gays and non-whites.

Classical liberty is founded on the belief that all men are created equal; that they should be treated equally under the law; and that they should be permitted the widest liberty of action consistent with public tranquility and the safety of the state.

I agree with this as the ideal, and unlike social conservatives I would apply it to things they find offensive such as decriminalizing soft drugs and allowing gays the right to civil unions / secular marriage.

But I agree with the social liberals who say that centuries of unequal treatment of women and minorities requires intervention by the state to remedy the persistent effects of this mistreatment.

I think it should be color-blind and class-based but it is true that the people who get something taken away to make up the difference are mostly going to be well-off white males like me.

 

[Corn]

If nothing else, Europe changes faster than the USA, and changes from a leftist government that is too Liberal, back to a conservative government that is too conservative , and then back to a too liberal government. As the cycle endlessly repeats without finding a happy medium.

My reaction is the US current worse case scenario for the GOP would be to ever get back in charge with the GOP leaders they now have. It took GWB almost eight years to totally collapse a strong economy even though the damage was gradual, but with the weak economy we now have, the collapse would be near instant after GOP governance. Which is not to say the GOP is incapable of better governance ideas, but what I am saying is, current GOP leadership is totally incapable.

LOL fail. Classic!

 

[CallMeJoe]

LOL fail. Classic!

Such a brilliant, insightful and detailed commentary...

 

[earthman]

Funny how the people most strongly advocating "color-blindness" and non class-based government seem to be members of the elite status quo who have never experienced any real discrimination themselves...seems equally odd that the people who most strongly advocate the dismantling of the social welfare state are the ones who would never need it or benefit from it...it's a good thing I'm not cynical or I might think that their only motivations were naked greed and self-interest, if not open bigotry.

 

[PJABBER]

The point of the article is that both perspectives are valid and that America was founded and grew on a liberalism that accepted both and balanced both even as there was a continuing dynamic tension.

It is not a Republican vs Democrat issue. It is a matter that when one side of the dynamic gets to dominate, the American experiment starts to falter. When government reflects only social liberalism we have oppression and statism. When the classical liberalism dominates there may be a systemic failure to address certain societal problems.

As a classical liberal, I certainly want less government intervention and I believe that will result in a greater good and a greater happiness by the very nature of mankind, as described by Jefferson and Locke, but I do not want the extremes of anarchy.

I, and the authors I cite, argue that the pendulum has swung too far, at the cost of too much personal liberty, toward the overwhelming control of oppressive government. That it swung this way in the name of redressing imbalances of fortune, real and imagined, is now but a cover for the lust for power.

I fully expect the pendulum to swing back at the end of this year, but the long term conflict remains to be balanced and resolved. I hope it is by the recognition and re-acceptance of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and in the form that preceded the current era of overreaching imbalance. In this way, I am a conservative. In that it will take great dynamism to do so, and as I seek to eliminate the class warfare that social liberals have come to foster and revel in, I hope we will see many more liberals in the classic sense come to the forefront.

 

[shira]

For some time, I have been advocating the re-consideration of classical liberalism by those who seem only to be aware of social or "welfare" liberalism. I do so because, for liberalism to be as effective as it once was in defining America, it must willingly take from both of these antagonistic perspectives.

There is a long philosophical history to liberalism, and the definition of it in Europe and the rest of the world comfortably enfolds classical liberalism. In the past sixty years, however, classical liberalism in the United States has faded from liberal thought and consideration and has thus forced social liberals through ever growing exclusion into an ever smaller and ineffective box.

Though social liberals have won at the ballot and enacted legislative initiatives, they now face what is likely going to be a significant backlash as the electorate has been taken aback at their philosophical inclination to put people into classes and then to treat each class differently.

The "progressive," or social welfare liberal, sees no problem with his advocacy of class warfare. It is part and parcel of their world view. But by becoming so dominated by only a part of what liberalism used to be, they have left themselves open to accurate accusations of elitism, racism and oppression.

As I read the various arguments in this forum I am struck by the both the tone and the form of debate. The intolerance of the "social" liberals here is increasing as more join in an attack on the very precepts they hold as true and immutable.

What they so not know in their reactionary haste to lambaste all contrary opinion, is that the attacks are as much a call for them to return to the classical theory of liberty that was a natural if somewhat uncomfortable part of their antecedents as it is a call for the rejection of the class warfare they take such delight in and their mockery of the very idea of personal freedom.

I provide a link here to a recent article that provides a very well written understanding of what social liberalism now represents in America.

"Classical liberalism" as viewed by reactionaries like you is essentially modern-day libertarianism, a useless philosophy whose adherents are ideologically blinded to the reality that unrestrained free markets are inevitably and irreparably destructive. But even libertarianism can be called enlightened - given its expansive view of individual liberty - when compared with conservatism, which seeks to strangle individual liberties (except the right to own firearms) while embracing all of the worst excesses of free-market extremism.

But why should anyone be surprised that PJabber wants to re-embrace a movement that was essentially dead by the late 19th century? Conservatives have a very difficult time letting go of the failed ideas of the past.

 

[werepossum]

Funny how the people most strongly advocating "color-blindness" and non class-based government seem to be members of the elite status quo who have never experienced any real discrimination themselves...seems equally odd that the people who most strongly advocate the dismantling of the social welfare state are the ones who would never need it or benefit from it...it's a good thing I'm not cynical or I might think that their only motivations were naked greed and self-interest, if not open bigotry.

Not necessarily true. As a Person of Pallor I once attempted to apply for a good government training program (with TVA) and could not even get an application; only minorities were being allowed to apply to be tested. I don't deny that there is still discrimination (at two different jobs I heard the boss say "You didn't hire that ni***r did you?") or that minorities still fall behind whites in most economic categories, but government reverse discrimination breeds more bigotry and racism even as the War on Terror breeds more terrorism. Like the War on Terror it may still be worth doing for specific purposes, but only with the realization that ultimately a colorblind society requires that government be colorblind. Therefore either goals are set up and worked toward, or we enshrine minorities as a permanent underclass incapable of competing with white males.

 

[Corn]

Such a brilliant, insightful and detailed commentary...

Mocking the idiocy of that post wasn't meant to be insightful. Tell me, do you agree with the ridiculous assumption that the economy of the prior 8 years was "strong" as the defective lemon claims? I hope not, because just like Clinton's "strong" economy, it was a false economy doomed to failure right from the beginning as the dot.com bubble burst followed up with 9/11. The policies enacted by Bush (ownership society, low interest rates) simply postponed the inevitible.

 

[Thump553]

* * *
Though social liberals have won at the ballot and enacted legislative initiatives, they now face what is likely going to be a significant backlash as the electorate has been taken aback at their philosophical inclination to put people into classes and then to treat each class differently.

The "progressive," or social welfare liberal, sees no problem with his advocacy of class warfare. It is part and parcel of their world view. But by becoming so dominated by only a part of what liberalism used to be, they have left themselves open to accurate accusations of elitism, racism and oppression.

As I read the various arguments in this forum I am struck by the both the tone and the form of debate. The intolerance of the "social" liberals here is increasing as more join in an attack on the very precepts they hold as true and immutable.
* * *

Sure seems to me like you are attributing the flaws of American fundamentalists upon their polar opposites, the liberals. It was not the liberals or moderates that were shouting down people and our elected representatives at the town hall meetings I attended last summer-or on the ones I saw on TV. The red-faced screamers I witnessed were almost universally teabaggers and their fellow travelers.

 

[PJABBER]

Sure seems to me like you are attributing the flaws of American fundamentalists upon their polar opposites, the liberals. It was not the liberals or moderates that were shouting down people and our elected representatives at the town hall meetings I attended last summer-or on the ones I saw on TV. The red-faced screamers I witnessed were almost universally teabaggers and their fellow travelers.

Extremists of both the Right and the Left are the same in their stridency, though recent history really does reflect behaviors of a much worse sort by the Left.

You only have to look at how the hatreds of the Left were expressed this decade to realize that there is a sense of unhingement when they gather.

Many more people are now politically aware and active than there were a couple of years ago. For most, this is their first foray into activist politics. The gatherings of the moderates and the Right, the fiscally conservative tea partiers, well, they may be angry at not being heard, but they have not yet resorted to the violence so typical of the anarchists and the Left. They gather, make their point, pick up their trash and go home, ready to see what happens. When nothing that they expect does, the frustration, thus far, has been reflected by more of the same, relatively quiet demonstration. The mid-term elections are coming, they still believe in due process. These people will vote to take the smug incumbents out. We await the results of that contest in just a few months.

I do believe there is a massive undercurrent of anger at social liberalism, at ever growing government intrusion into peoples lives, a sense that principles on which many thought America rested have been abandoned for the sake of a class warfare few accept.

But the manifestation of that is relatively mild thus far and merely exaggerated by certain parties of the Left so as to try to make their own cause more sympathy worth than it is. Certainly these same parties of the Left were far from moderate in their own expressions when they were in the minority.

Interesting how the Left is reacting, now that the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine if they actually have to face the invective they themselves uttered a few short years ago?

They can avoid all of that, of course. To do so, they would have to honestly accept classical liberalism as a worthy balance to the social liberalism that now dominates their perspective.

And that, my friend, would the hardest thing ever for them, enamored as they are with class warfare.

 

[earthman]

"Classical Liberalism" sounds more like classical fascism in practice. The wealthy, strong, and ruthless dominate everyone else, and fight amongst themselves for power, using the underclasses as cannon fodder, either economically, or literally. Throw in some religion and you've got the perfect mix from their point of view. The founding fathers (with perhaps a couple exceptions) never intended that landless workers would vote, much less women or non-whites. The American Republic was created to preserve the status of the european landed gentry, just without the kings and nobility skimming off the top. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The ideal society is only ideal from the viewpoint of those at the top of it.

 

[PJABBER]

"Classical Liberalism" sounds more like classical fascism in practice. The wealthy, strong, and ruthless dominate everyone else, and fight amongst themselves for power, using the underclasses as cannon fodder, either economically, or literally.

As usual, you haven't the foggiest notion about what is under discussion. Rather than learning, you prefer to spout nonsense.

Perhaps a primer?

What Is Classical Liberalism?

I suggest that once you finish that short introduction you mosey yourself over to The Ludwig von Mises Institute and start your education in earnest.

 

[shira]

Fundamentalists of both the Right and the Left are the same in their stridency, though recent history really does reflect behaviors of a much worse sort by the Left.

You only have to look at how the hatreds of the Left were expressed this decade to realize that there is a sense of unhingement when they gather.

Many more people are now politically aware and active than there were a couple of years ago. For most, this is their first foray into activist politics. The gatherings of the moderates and the Right, the fiscally conservative tea partiers, well, they may be angry at not being heard, but they have not yet resorted to the violence so typical of the anarchists and the Left. They gather, make their point, pick up their trash and go home, ready to see what happens. When nothing that they expect does, the frustration, thus far, has been reflected by more of the same, relatively quiet demonstration. The mid-term elections are coming, they still believe in due process. These people will vote to take the smug incumbents out. We await the results of that contest in just a few months.

I do believe there is a massive undercurrent of anger at social liberalism, at ever growing government intrusion into peoples lives, a sense that principles on which many thought America rested have been abandoned for the sake of a class warfare few accept.

But the manifestation of that is relatively mild thus far and merely exaggerated by certain parties of the Left so as to try to make their own cause more sympathy worth than it is. Certainly these same parties of the Left were far from moderate in their own expressions when they were in the minority.

Interesting how the Left is reacting, now that the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine if they actually have to face the invective they themselves uttered a few short years ago?

They can avoid all of that, of course. To do so, they would have to honestly accept classical liberalism as a worthy balance to the social liberalism that now dominates their perspective.

And that, my friend, would the hardest thing ever for them, enamored as they are with class warfare.

I almost convinced myself to waste an hour correcting your poor grammar and clumsy phrasing. But I realized it was pointless, because even elegantly written bullshit is still bullshit.

 

[PJABBER]

I almost convinced myself to waste an hour correcting your poor grammar and clumsy phrasing. But I realized it was pointless, because even elegantly written bullshit is still bullshit.

Notwithstanding the poor writing skills from which, in part, I eke out a meager living, I appreciate your appreciation of the evident elegance to be found in sentence after sentence!

Getting back a bit on topic, Sarah Palin is going to be in Boston tomorrow (10 a.m. to 1 p.m. EST at the corner of Charles and Beacon Streets on the Boston Common!) Will the Left greet her with respect or will they hyperventilate and paw at the ground (à la San Francisco?)

Let the party begin!

By Michael Graham
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Boston Herald

Hey, I can see Palin Derangement Syndrome from my house!

You’ll see it too if you come to Boston Common tomorrow morning when Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express roll into town. I’ll be broadcasting my radio show live during the event and I’ve been asked to be part of the program as well. But what I’m really looking forward to is seeing the gathering of hate-spewing, anger-crazed lunatics.

Or as they’re more commonly known, “Massachusetts liberals.”

What - you think the Tea Partiers are angry? You obviously haven’t picked up the latest copy of the Weekly Dig, a local “progressive” publication that invited readers to design signage to welcome Palin and push back against Tea Party hate speech.

Among the signs published are several featuring a word very similar to “witch,” a couple of swastikas, a Hitler mustache and - in an odd move by anti-Second-Amendment liberals - one with an American flag, a bleeding tea bag and numerous bullet holes.

Stay classy, Boston liberals!

The problem with Palin is that, as everyone knows, she’s stupid. For example, she didn’t support President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus (actual price tag: $860 billion and rising) which has created so many great jobs...

She ignorantly opposed the Obama administration’s decision to try Kalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists in Manhattan...

She made the idiotic claim that Obamacare would raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000...

Anyway, Palin and the Tea Party movement are nothing but name-calling dolts, and so the only responsible, progressive thing to do when they come to Boston is to show up at their rally, wave idiotic signs and call them names.

No, really. According to several “progressive” Web sites, local libs are organizing to do just that on the Common tomorrow. “Nitwit central is headed our way, Boston,” warns one left-wing site bemoaning the “hatred being generated” by Tea Party protests. The Web site is urging followers to make their own signs parroting the “extremism” liberals expect to find there. So if you see a wildly offensive racist sign in downtown Boston - thank a liberal!

Why don’t supporters of Obamacare, the stimulus and other failed policies just have their own rally supporting their ideas? Other than because, well, they haven’t actually worked, I mean?

Because that’s not good enough for our irate liberals.

Palin is “bringing her big hair... and legion of racist militia members to Boston,” complains bostonist.com.

Another online site screams “We can’t allow Sarah to take a big Alaskan Husky dump in our back yard!”

Like I said, “classy.”

The goal here, as it’s been from the beginning of Team Obama’s assault on the Tea Party movement, is to intimidate concerned citizens into silence. But it’s not going to work - other than the glaring exception of Sen. Scott Brown, that is.

Voters and taxpayers are going to show up tomorrow and keep doing what we’ve been doing for a year now: Make arguments and ask questions. How do the economics of Obamacare make sense? Who’s going to pay the $3 trillion in new debt? Why should we tell our enemies in advance when we will or won’t use nukes?

And the left will keep responding with insults instead of answers. But at least they’re entertaining. There’s nothing funnier than a liberal protesting right-wing hate by waving a “Palin Is A Nazi B**ch” sign.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1246710

 

[OrByte]

Will Scott Brown be attending the Tea Party Bash in Boston?

 

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjz-ZkGZwQg&feature=related