Skip to comments.

Posted on 12/19/2001 9:14:05 AM PST by Starmaker

(In Part 1 of this essay I wrote that modern American ‘liberalism´ does not represent the philosophy of the Founding Fathers; that it is, in fact, practically the opposite, a thinly disguised socialism.)

In 1956, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote, “The American political tradition is essentially based on a Liberal consensus.” He was referring to the classical Liberalism of free markets, individual liberty and limited government. Within the framework of that tradition there is room for disagreement and varying emphasis, and throughout U.S. history there have been political movements and parties that debated issues such as greater or lesser federal power, regulated trade versus free trade, and justification for the restriction of certain liberties. But Whigs, Mugwumps, Free Traders, Bull Moose or whatever, these and most other American political groups have fit within that classical Liberal tradition.

However, the ‘liberalism´ with which we are familiar today, I would argue, is from outside the classical Liberal tradition of the Founding Fathers. Modern American ‘liberalism´ supports government intervention and regulation of the economy. It supports government social programs that, in effect, redistribute wealth to some groups at the expense of taxes on other groups. On moral and behavioral issues modern ‘liberals´ advocate that government take a ‘hands off´ policy, effectively supporting the drug and alcohol culture and the sexual promiscuity that results in one third of all births being illegitimate, and one in four unmarried adults being infected with a sexually transmitted disease. On economic issues, however, it takes the opposite stand, focusing on group identities and giving ‘special´ status to minorities, women, homosexuals, labor unions and other narrowly defined groups. The special rights afforded and the politically correct code demanded for any action or even speech concerning these protected classes is clearly at odds with the classical Liberal emphasis on individual liberty ‘for all.´

Two competing, and opposite, belief systems, both called ‘liberalism´? There is little wonder that most Americans are confused, if not downright put off, by politics. But perhaps we can eliminate some of the confusion by identifying the avowed opponents of modern ‘liberalism,´ those people known as ‘conservatives.´

‘Conservatives´ are said to be those who favor things-as-they-are, the established political and economic system. That´s true as far as it goes, but that means that ‘conservatives´ in Russia, for example, could be Communists. Or in post-WWII Italy or Germany, ‘conservatives´ could be Fascists. In that sense, ‘conservatism´ is simply an attitude about change. That, of course, is the sense that modern ‘liberals´ like to promote to Americans about their political opposition, picturing them as being against progress of any kind. But remember that Schlesinger said, in effect, ‘we are all Liberals´? Well, today´s true Conservatives (capital C) are, in fact, classical Liberals, favoring the free markets, individual liberty within the framework of law and limited government system created by our Founding Fathers. They are indeed suspicious of change that affects the free market or impinges on individual liberties, and especially those that result in the growth, and thus greater power, of the federal government.

The true Conservative´s views are grounded in strong moral beliefs, most often based on Christian principles, thus they support institutions that impart those moral values and standards, such as the family and the church. Their suspicion of big government comes from their view of man as fallen and prone to evil, thus the necessity of the rule of law to protect all men, and to prevent some from gaining too much power, which they will inevitably abuse. That is, true Conservatives favor the type of government long established and proven successful, opposing relatively recent changes that ‘liberals´ claim are necessitated by social conditions such as poverty, discrimination, etc. Conservatives believe that such ‘crises´ are the refuge of demagogues in search of power, and that the operation of a free market will result in greater wealth and prosperity for all groups willing to work and live responsibly, thus eliminating such temporary conditions.

The battle in American politics today, then, is between misnamed neo-socialist ‘liberals´ who seek an expanded role for the federal government in all areas of life, and classical Liberals, today called ‘conservatives´, who seek to limit government intrusion and power, thus preserving individual liberty. But what about my contention that modern ‘liberalism´ is outside the American tradition of classical Liberalism?

I turn again to Schlesinger, who wrote, “Even those Americans who privately reject the [classical] Liberal tradition—like the Communists of the '30's and '40's or the McCarthyites of the '50's—can succeed only as they profess a relationship to [classical] Liberalism . They wither and die in a [classically] Liberal society when their anti-liberal purposes are fully exposed and understood.” (Remember, classical Liberalism means free markets, individual liberty and limited government; thus the ‘anti-liberalism´ he refers to here would support a strong central government´s regulation of the economy and intervention in society.)

Aware that their brand of socialism, presented on its merits, will be ‘exposed and understood´…and rejected…modern ‘liberals´ attempt to benefit from the imagery of liberty and freedom attached to our tradition of classical Liberalism by using that term in order to implement a totally different political agenda! But Schlesinger´s comments are from 1956, before the sweeping changes of the Great Society and subsequent big-government programs became a way of life.

Linking neo-socialist programs with the cultural and political ideas deeply ingrained in Americans through civics and history classes was sound strategy. But the dumbing-down of America by lowering academic standards in favor of a pernicious emphasis on self-esteem and diversity consciousness has left the last several generations relatively ignorant of our true political tradition, and thus even more vulnerable to ‘liberal´ rhetoric. Just this week, Charles Schumer (D-NY) led a media blitz that ‘big government is good,´ in an unbelievably brazen admission of the ‘liberal´ agenda. How many publicly educated people under the age of thirty are equipped to reject such self-serving hype as the socialism it is? And they are even less indoctrinated than those subjected to the cant of ‘liberal´ college professors!

Now, to head off a favorite ‘liberal´ claim of Conservative ‘ignorance´ for not knowing that socialism ‘requires government ownership´ of agriculture, industry and commerce—i.e., the means of production—let us understand that there are various forms of socialism. While the Soviet and Chinese models are one extreme, where the national government indeed owns and totally controls all economic elements, the central government control of privately owned means of production through regulations, taxes, incentives and other legislation is perhaps more common. Such an economy is ‘managed´ by the intervention of government, restricting individual liberties for the ostensible good of the whole, and is thus not free to respond to the accumulated choices of millions of consumers, as in the free market, or capitalist, system.

Near the middle of the 20th century, modern American ‘liberalism´ took a distinct turn towards such a political system. Franklin Roosevelt´s New Deal marked a sea change from classical Liberalism, and set modern ‘liberalism´ on its current path of federal government influence and control over social and economic conditions. The rationale was that the free market had failed to provide the material goods that people need and want, leaving them in the dire straits of the Depression. Lyndon Johnson´s Great Society took us further down that path, with an even wider array of welfare and educational programs, urban renewal, civil rights and other programs.

To be sure, they were rationalized as being for the good of all, to protect minorities from oppression and discrimination, to ensure quality housing and education ‘for the children,´ and so on. But this trend represents more than a minor disagreement about how to implement the government envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It represents a foreign political experience, one that rejects the classical Liberal tradition that has brought Americans such unparalleled economic prosperity and political freedom. The fact that ‘liberals´ deliberately attempt to disguise that fact is reason enough for concern; but the historically documented results of that foreign experience is cause for alarm.

I don´t question the sincerity of every ‘liberal,´ but there is such a thing as being sincerely wrong. Why would reasonably intelligent people choose a political system with such a horrendous record of oppression, misery and death? Chesterton pointed out that when a man stops believing in G-d, he won't believe in nothing…he'll believe in anything . That´s where modern ‘liberals´ are today. In their idealism about the perfectibility of man, they envision no poverty, total freedom and total equality, even though the power they´re willing to give government in order to accomplish their dream has elsewhere resulted in national nightmares. In Part III, we´ll return to Ludwig von Mises for a profile of these ‘liberals, ´ whose faith in government is so great.

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.