Reclaiming Liberalism

[JerichoHill]

I'd like advance the notion, if I could, that at least here in America, there is no major political party with a cohesive, logically valid message. Republicans, typically, want less government involvement in their wallet but more in their bedroom. The reverse seems to be true for Democrats.

At some point, policies that are at odds with each other on some sort of philosophical level must be reconciled. I think we can borrow a phrase from psychology "cognitive dissonance" here.

I'd like to put forth that, over time, great ideas degrade. And that, from time to time, we need to hit the reset button. One such of these great ideas was proferred several hundred years ago by the European Classical Liberals. Of course, now the L-word prevents your election in America today. Talk about degradation.

The unifying concept is simple. Man, through his existence, has desired to be "free". Man, when left to his own devices and choices, performs best when his action is of his own volition, and not due to someone else's.

Therefore, if we wish to reclaim liberalism, we must start at a base. This base is Freedom.

Proceeding from this base, one must recognize that, Freedom to perform acts that harm other individuals necessarily is harmful to society as a whole. The base must be revised.

"Man should be free to act as he pleases, so long that his actions do not cause harm to others (and others abide by the same rule).

This is Pragmatic Freedom. This concept will get you to an interesting place, politically.

One with this view would, by logical extension, support free economic interaction (where pragmatic). One would also support social freedom (gay marriage would not be outlawed, and neither would some (or all) forms of drug use. It would, at least here in America, draw together concepts on the right and the left (and therein is the problem with the current system that this is possible).

Government's function, would, rather than provide services for its citizens, function as a guarantor of pragmatic freedom existing, and nothing further.

The problem, with this ideal, is that man has more than just a desire to be free, but a desire to also control his fate.

And that, is how we go from the liberal of old, to the political persuasions of today, and the downward spiral of the system, until the next reboot.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I agree whole-heartedly. I am by some standards a liberal, but not by the standards of modern American politics. I stand for less government in both the economic and social spheres - it is not the government's job to make sure that everyone is equal economically, nor to make sure that people aren't sinning. But since one party takes one side of that and the other takes the other, I am left without a party or even a good title. I am certainly "conservative" in a sense as well, but I just can't define myself as conservative or liberal and have people understand what I believe. Well, I believe in freedom and liberty.

 

[Truronian]

I agree. I find myself without an obvious political party to support in Britain due to the (effectively) two party system. Generally I just define myself as libertarian to distinguish myself from liberals in the modern sense.

 

[Sidhe]

I like your ideas but I don't see how something as radical as you suggest could come to pass, not without a new party coming to prominence which is unlikely. If both sides could adopt your ideas to one extent or another then both of them would be more rounded as parties.

I like Truronian am a liberal only in the sense that I am halfway between socialism and conservatism. I'm not a direct supporter of the liberal democrats.

 

[cairo140]

Despite the great revolution of liberal thought, it seems to be lost in these days. If you look at major political parties these days:

"Conservative" or Republican means less economic intervention but more social intervention.

and "Liberal" or Democratic means more economic intervention but less social intervention.

Sure, both Canada (where I live) and the US have a "Libertarian Party," but nobody hears from them. But the reason is obvious: such a party cannot survive even within the next 20 years.

Here is the reason:

The richest people in the world (who support economic liberalism) tend also to be very socially closed minded to new schools of thought (acceptance of homosexuality, etc).

Whereas, the only individuals who will accept these sorts of social liberalist thought tend to be rather poor, thus support government economic intervention.

It is going to be another 20 or 30 years at least (if we're lucky), when open-minded people are the richest in the world, and true liberalism can dominate. Republicans and Conservatives all shout Freedom! Freedom! but they aren't the real freedom. The freedom exists in controlled libertarianism - the future of society.

Nice post topic, it's interesting to discuss whether there will be true revival of liberalism. One would surmise that Conservatives would drop their social bigotry faster than Liberals would drop their economic intervention strategies; and that is what I believe to be the long-term future.

 

[Eukaryote]

Totally, it's time for a reset. I hate how liberal is an insult and a "bad word."

This is the true meaning of liberalism:

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

How is that an insult? If you don't like libralisim, then move out of America and into North Korea.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Well, I have been preaching a specific anarchy. That's freedom.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Actually there is a small strain of true Liberalism in the Democratic Party. And it's truer to the ideal of freedom than the Libertarian Party type line that you seem to be pushing. A good role model for us true Liberals is Elizabeth Anderson. A small excerpt:

In this series of posts, I've been developing a view about the rules we should institute if we want to live in a free society. On the view being constructed, we take freedom as our foundational value, in terms of which institutions, including property rights, are justified. In taking freedom as our starting point, we treat property rights as instrumentally valuable for promoting freedom. Particular property rules are to be justified according to how well they promote freedom. This approach is distinct from one that starts with certain assumptions about what we own, as natural rights theories do, or that assumes that we are entitled to certain property rights in virtue of moral desert or productive contributions. I've already argued that such approaches are incompatible with capitalism. Arguments for private property rights based on freedom, however, are compatible with capitalism.

Of course, it matters how freedom is defined. In my last post, I explained two conceptions of freedom: as one's opportunity set, and as personal independence (non-domination). In this post I'll just be looking at the notion of freedom as opportunity sets, and see where it takes us. I'll be arguing that this notion of freedom delivers, fairly straightforwardly, a strong case in favor of institutions of private property, in a way that narrower notions of freedom as bare non-interference cannot do.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Man should be free to act as he pleases, so long that his actions do not cause harm to others (and others abide by the same rule).

Everything effects everything else. In fact, one could argue that everything effects everything else both "negatively" and "positively" in an infinitely complex manner. In fact, the only way to eliminate actions which "cause harm to others", would be to cease to exist.

For me, that simplistic statement on moral action is flawed due to the ultimate inability to eliminate conflicts of interest.

My scepticism about this core idea is probably what separates me from an economist.

However, that being said, I still think it tends to be a wise general guideline for economic and political action. But again, what you are ultimately doing is deciding whether "positive" effects outweigh "negative" effects, and that encroaches closely on ends justifies the means territory for me. Thus I cannot through myself into corner of the absolute morality of the idea.

 

[Zarn]

I think the actual term 'Liberalism' is lost. Even I can't stand it. I believe the ideals will come back, though. Don't lose hope.

 

[Panzeh]

As a market anarchist, i'd say, go for it. The problem with total freedom is that it comes with it total responsibility. Not abstract responsibility ('social responsibility'), but no excuses for anything you do. No blaming other people, no diffusion of responsibility. You're only responsible for yourself, but you're totally responsible for yourself in every way.

The problem is that people either can't or won't handle that kind of responsibility.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

'Liberalism' has been hijacked by extremists. In the Wiki definition above, it mentions 'freedom of thought' and the 'free market' of ideas. That no longer exists in liberalism.

 

[Sims2789]

I like a lot of what you said, JerichoHill. Old-school liberals and conservatives from all eras have taken away personal responsibility (by expecting the government to fix social problems or by blaming the government for social problems). It's good to see that other liberals are thinking this way; it's a good change from the average Trader Joe's liberal's gentrified socialism, something I'm surrounded by. I predict a strong libertarian element in the Democratic party within fifteen years, as most of my intellectual friends feel the same way (and also resent San Francisco ballroom liberals).

 

[Zarn]

Actually Sims, a huge percentage of the Republican party is becoming increasingly less conservative but still capitalistic. We just are not in power, yet. It was either the conservative or the social-liberal for us (2004 election). Most of us picked the former. Alot of us wished we voted Libertarian...

 

[Sims2789]

Actually Sims, a huge percentage of the Republican party is becoming increasingly less conservative but still capitalistic. We just are not in power, yet. It was either the conservative or the social-liberal for us (2004 election). Most of us picked the former. Alot of us wished we voted Libertarian...

You could have voted for a small-government Democrat or a big-government Republican. Though Kerry may have raised the top 1%'s taxes by .01%, he wouldn't have greatly interfered with the free flow of commerce, and certainly wouldn't have to the extent Bush has with his subsidies.

 

[Zarn]

Kerry isn't small government and is not economically Libertarian. He was more of the same from the Demoncrats.

 

[Eukaryote]

The problem with the 2004 election is there were only two options: The Bad, and the Worse. The votes picked the worse.

I wish there wasn't just left wing and right wing. I wish there was a logic wing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I wouldn't confuse Liberalism with Libertarianism. Whilst they share similar views about free speach and drugs and so forth, and Liberalism does support a free market economy, generally they differ where Liberalism advocates government welfare programes supported by taxation whilst Libertairianism is more about absolute minimal government.

I'm somehwhat of a follower of Social Liberalism, as in I believe strongly in personal freedom's but also in the idea of a large wealfare state, supported by relatively high taxation.

Wikipedia says: Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty. Social liberals are outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services that social liberals intend to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.

 

[Elrohir]

Why not just join the Libertarian party?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I voted Libertarian in 2004. I will admit that I am not really a Libertarian but a libertarian (there is a difference) but I felt that this was a way to show that I refused to accept the limited options given me (Kerry or Bush). There is no party that really reflects my political views, although PJ O'Rourke is probably the author who comes closest.