Posted on 12/05/2001 6:06:35 AM PST by Starmaker
Support for the rights of women and racial minorities, the disabled and homosexuals; support for abortion, affirmative action and multi-lingual public education; support for government social programs such as welfare and national health care; support for strong environmental regulations and trade unions; a large role for the federal government in social matters and economic issues, including income redistribution; equal results for all citizens, not just equal opportunity; a more passive role for government in moral issues, such as drug use, sexual expression, the arts, etc.
Most Americans recognize those beliefs as belonging to those who embrace what is commonly called ‘liberalism.´ However, what I´ve just described is not the ‘liberalism´ of the Founding Fathers, as modern ‘liberals´ would have us believe. In fact, today´s ‘liberalism´ is not only different from the original…it is practically its opposite!
Ludwig von Mises, the noted Austrian-born American economist, wrote the definitive work on the philosophy that so influenced our Founding Fathers, now called ‘classical Liberalism´ in order to distinguish it from today´s Americanized version. (Available on-line) His book, originally published in Europe in 1927 and entitled Liberalismus, explained how the Enlightenment had elevated the common man to supremacy in social and political affairs, making him sovereign in directing his nation´s policies about what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality, by whom, how and where. He emphasized that a free market provides only one way to the acquisition of wealth—to succeed in serving the consumers in the best possible and cheapest way.
Thus the foundation of true Liberalism is the free market so decried by modern American ‘liberals.´ Corresponding to this ‘democracy of the market ´ was the rise of representative government. Von Mises wrote, “The greatness of the period between the Napoleonic Wars and the first World War consisted precisely in the fact that the social ideal after [which] most eminent men were striving was free trade in a peaceful world of free nations. It was an age of unprecedented improvement in the standard of living for a rapidly increasing population. It was the age of liberalism.” (Hmm, free market capitalism and limited government intervention resulted in great improvements in the standard of living for the common man? I wonder how Daschle, Gephardt and company would ‘spin´ that?)
But in 1962, in a foreword to the first English-language version of his book, von Mises wrote: “Today the tenets of this…philosophy of liberalism are almost forgotten. In continental Europe it is remembered only by a few. In England the term "liberal" is mostly used to signify a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists. In the United States "liberal" means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations.”
Former U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., when he was Mayor of Philadelphia, described the modern "liberal" position very frankly in these words:
To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels.... A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society…(Atlantic, July 1953)
This 20th century American ‘liberalism´ was so different from the original meaning that von Mises found it necessary to change the title of the book to avoid confusion. Fordham University´s Louis M. Spadaro wrote in a 1977 foreword, “That it was deemed desirable or necessary, when the English translation was prepared in the early sixties, to re-title it The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth illustrates pointedly what I believe to be a real tragedy in intellectual history: the transfer of the term Liberalism.”
Spadaro wrote that the word ‘liberal´ had “clear and pertinent etymological roots grounded in the ideal of individual liberty…a valuable historical foundation in tradition and experience, as well as…a rich and extensive literature in social philosophy [and] political thought.” “Yet, for all of this,” Spadaro lamented, “the term Liberalism proved unable to go beyond the nineteenth century or the Atlantic without changing its meaning—and not just slightly but virtually to that of its contrary! The resulting confusions and imprecision are such that one finds it hard to conceive of a deliberate plan that could have succeeded more in obfuscating its content and meaning.”
Originally, then, Liberalism, from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," referred to the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for pre-capitalist production methods, constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies, and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage. Today, however, the American ‘liberal´, in von Mises´ words, “aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.” That´s quite an ‘evolution,´ even for ‘liberals´!
But so what? Why is it significant that today´s ‘liberals´ don´t stand for the same things that the Founding Fathers stood for? While that question could be answered with diplomacy and circumspection, I prefer the plainspoken, even blunt response: U.S. ‘liberals´ are wise enough to link their neo-socialism to the ideology of the Founding Fathers, taking advantage of the strong emotional and philosophical attachments most Americans have to the ideas of liberty and freedom historically associated with political Liberalism (of the classical type).
As von Mises points out, though, modern American ‘liberalism´ harbors a lie in its foundations. The socialist system and philosophies pushed by the ‘liberals´ in the U.S., primarily by the Democratic Party, would not be palatable to most Americans if they were presented unadorned and offered on their own merits. Thus ‘liberals´ seek to cloak their big-government plans in the rhetoric of ‘liberty´ and ‘tolerance,´ relying on the willful ignorance and political detachment of the majority to enable them to acquire the power to fully implement their ideology, which is anathema to the free markets and individual liberty that are the true foundation of America´s greatness.
No, I´m not talking about ‘conspiracy,´ except in the sense of a ‘conspiracy of shared values,´ to use novelist Randy Alcorn´s phrase. Those who share the idealism of the left, much like the radical Muslims we´re currently fighting, see it as their holy mission to create a state where everyone is ‘taken care of´ by the government, from birth to death. It´s for the good of all, they reason, so whatever means is required…thus legitimate political rhetoric becomes ‘spin,´ and truth falls by the wayside; use of positive images and associations for ‘liberalism´, and negative images for the opposing ‘conservatism´, are in order. Whatever works to promote ‘liberalism´ is good, and therefore acceptable. Simplistic? No; at its core, American ‘liberalism´ clearly and openly operates from the age-old ‘end justifies the means´ mentality. Associating their brand of socialism with the Founding Fathers´ classical Liberalism is merely a shrewd strategy, and one that has resulted in our opening the gates to the Trojan horse of ‘liberalism.´
In this first part of an essay that will appear intermittently over the next couple of months, I have sought to establish the fact that modern American ‘liberalism´ is a deliberate misrepresentation of the classical Liberalism of the Founding Fathers. The misrepresentation is for the express purpose of acquiring or maintaining the support of Americans too easily swayed by rhetoric and unarmed with the historical facts (did you think the ‘dumbing down´ of our public education system was just an accident?). In future parts I will show how this lie at the heart of ‘liberalism´ has resulted in a ‘language of deceit´ that is accepted and used even by those nominally opposed to the neo-socialism of the ‘liberals.´ Such insidious influence lends even more credence to the ‘liberal´ cause, and gains them further power to achieve their deliberately disguised aims.
Any political belief that must deliberately misrepresent or disguise itself in order to achieve its true goals doesn´t deserve the support of the people, regardless of its idealism or compassion. Such is the ideology of the zealot who believes that only he has the answers, and is willing to do whatever it takes to gain the power to implement the ‘correct´ policies. The history of the 20th century provides the epitaphs of over 100 million dead at the hands of such idealists. Such is the legacy of the socialism that ‘liberals,´ some perhaps unknowingly, seek to establish through in America.
In the Garden, the serpent told Adam and Eve that they would ‘be like G-d´ if they ate the apple…and we know how that turned out. If the American people want to knowingly embrace socialism, so be it. But they should have the truth upon which to make that choice, and not pretty ‘liberal´ lies.
It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad, that such things are sold under the pretext of freedom.
But so what? Why is it significant that today´s ‘liberals´ don´t stand for the same things that the Founding Fathers stood for? While that question could be answered with diplomacy and circumspection, I prefer the plainspoken, even blunt response: U.S. ‘liberals´ are wise enough to link their neo-socialism to the ideology of the Founding Fathers, taking advantage of the strong emotional and philosophical attachments most Americans have to the ideas of liberty and freedom historically associated with political Liberalism (of the classical type).
Associating their brand of socialism with the Founding Fathers´ classical Liberalism is merely a shrewd strategy, and one that has resulted in our opening the gates to the Trojan horse of ‘liberalism.´
Any political belief that must deliberately misrepresent or disguise itself in order to achieve its true goals doesn´t deserve the support of the people, regardless of its idealism or compassion. Such is the ideology of the zealot who believes that only he has the answers, and is willing to do whatever it takes to gain the power to implement the ‘correct´ policies.
Oh! The comment I could make about some certain FR posters on that last paragraph!
Starmaker, PLEASE BUMP ME TO THE NEXT ESSAY! Thank you for posting this!
HA, should we add this to our reading list? Evelyn please, no comment on how far behind I am. ;)
To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels.... A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society…(Atlantic, July 1953)
If one goes back and reads some of the speeches and dialogs of Senator Robert A. Taft, who was known as Mr. Republican and many consider the father of the modern conservative movement, one sees that Taft called himself not only a conservative, but also a classical liberal.
"I fear the U.S. is headed for socialism, which means, of course, ever increasing interference in the business of each citizen. Whatever happened to the glorious frontier, of minding one's own business? The word liberal has come to stand for the most damnable tyranny, a snivelling, mealymouthed tyranny of bureaucrats, social workers, psychologists and union officials. The world of 1984 is not even 30 years away."- William S. Burroughs, letter to Jack Kerouac, 1950
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.