To judge from the names people
call them, liberals must be terribly misguided
people. Why would any sane person choose to be a
liberal anyway?
Believe it or not,
the word "liberal" derives from the Latin
word for freedom, and so its current association with
excesses of big government is puzzling. To
understand this curious situation, in which a word so
closely related to the once cherished American ideal
of liberty has become an insult in the eyes of some,
we must consider the history of modern liberalism.
The late 18th and early
19th centuries were a time of revolutionary
change. Great Britain's North American colonies
rose up against the Empire and, against seemingly
impossible odds, successfully wrested their
independence from what was the most powerful nation
on earth at the time. Inspired by the
humanistic ideas of the Enlightenment, the leaders of
the fledgling United States were launching a daring
new experiment with an ancient idea of government
without kings. Sparks from these radical
developments touched off earth-shaking anti-monarchy
movements in Europe, beginning with the French
Revolution and leading to the Napoleonic Wars that
spread across Europe, their effects subsequently
rebounding across the Atlantic to the Latin American
colonies. Perhaps just as important as these
political revolutions, the development of the
high-pressure steam engine in England launched the
Industrial Revolution, which, despite initial
economic and social upheaval, would ultimately
obviate the ages-old dependence of human civilization
upon forced labor.
Throughout its history,
the term "liberal" has routinely been
associated with political, social, and technological
change. Consequently, over the course of time
it has come to apply to a variety of ideas as
civilization has evolved. In the context of the 19th
century, the term "liberal" applied to a
new spirit of individualistic entrepreneurship, of
men with new ideas and men with money forming
alliances to exploit the new technology and produce
more goods more cheaply than had ever been possible
before, in the interest of amassing great
profits. Liberalism advocated a "hands
off" policy of government, to allow
industrialists the freedom to invent, innovate, and
develop with minimal restraint. In the process,
though, labor forces were brutally exploited;
competition was cut-throat; consumers were not only
swindled by misleading advertising, but also
endangered by lack of attention to safety and
quality. Indeed, the liberalism of the time was
in many ways comparable to what we today associate
with unbridled conservatism.
It took considerable
time for the word "liberal" to become
associated with the emancipation of slaves, the rise
of labor unions, and universal suffrage. But by
the 20th century, liberalism had actually become the
ally of common working men and women against
an exploitive industrialist elite. Naturally,
any force for change (even if clearly beneficial)
generates opposition among the establishment, which
tends to view as threatening any changes to the status
quo. Beginning in the 1770s, liberalism
promoted democracy at the expense of monarchy and
colonialism; in the 1800s, it promoted a free market
at the expense of mercantile charter; in the 1850s,
it promoted industrial growth and urbanization at the
expense of cottage industry. In the 1900s,
liberalism championed the rights of workers at the
expense of the industrialists it had served earlier;
in the 1930s, it funded government programs to revive
an economy wrecked by laissez faire
capitalism. In the 1960s, liberalism championed
human rights, and in the 1970s, ecological and health
concerns, challenging entrenched practices of
socio-economic discrimination and environmental
exploitation. In the 1980s, Soviet experiments
with liberalism led to the collapse of the bankrupt
communist system, and in the 1990s, economic
liberalism restored a debt-driven U.S. economy to a
self-sustaining, market-driven system.
Through all these
changes, from the Enlightenment to the present day,
liberalism has maintained a relatively constant
association with a broadly educated stratum of the
public — those who attempt to comprehend,
appreciate, and (if possible) enhance the myriad
interrelationships between man and mankind, and
between mankind and the universe. Indeed, many
of America's founders were intellectuals of this
sort: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, John Adams, and others. A font
of innovation, liberalism leads the advance of modern
civilization, from each stage to the next. In
the process, it must confront the conservatism that
attempts to arrest change and concentrate power and
wealth in the hands of whatever faction happens to be
dominant. This is not to say that liberalism is
good and conservatism is bad; each has its
place. Conservatism is necessary to restrain
the headlong (and sometimes incautious) rush of
unbridled liberalism, which, if unchecked, could
destabilize society and thereby defeat its own
purpose. To use a familiar nautical analogy,
liberalism may be thought of as the rudder of the
ship of state, and conservatism as the keel; the one
determines the course, while the other steadies
it. Conservatism's value is not that it
prevents change, but that it causes us to stop and
think before acting, perhaps averting potentially
disastrous consequences. Liberalism's value is
not that it disrupts established patterns and
traditions, but that it allows us to identify and
address existing and potential problems, and to grow
and progress rather than stagnate.
Now that we have briefly
reviewed the history of modern liberalism and the
general ideals of liberals, let's consider some of
those labels frequently applied to them nowadays.
Anti-Business
Liberals Business leaders and
investors are typically wary of the uncertainty
brought about by change. They therefore tend to
be politically conservative, and conservative
politicians are consequently viewed as
"pro-business." Since the Great
Depression, however, performance of business and
investment markets during liberal administrations has
historically been roughly double that experienced
under conservative administrations. Even
supposedly "anti-business" environmental
and cultural concerns have sparked lucrative business
opportunities which did not previously exist.
While it must be conceded that some liberal policies
have produced or aggravated economic inflation,
overall they have enhanced the general standard of
living (even after taxes), through stimulation of
production and the fostering of a broad consumer
market. Meanwhile, ostensibly
"business-friendly" conservative
administrations have been marked by erratic economic
swings and recession, banking calamities, rising
unemployment, and disproportionate increases in the
national debt — not to mention the scapegoating,
social unrest, and rise of crime and hate groups,
which inevitably accompany economic distress.
If the stock market needs to be a little nervous to
make money, so be it. The nation has
historically been better off economically, socially,
and culturally, when thriving securities markets have
been powered by a healthy consumer market.
Bleeding Heart
Liberals Leave it to conservatives to
come up with a derogatory label for what is
presumably a fundamental American ideal: equal
rights and equal treatment under the law for every
citizen, regardless of ethnicity, creed,
socio-economic status, or sexual orientation.
Liberals believe that equality under the law is a
core value of democracy. Some conservatives
evidently believe otherwise.
Environmental
Freak Liberals Admittedly, some
environmentalists have shown themselves to be
full-fledged fanatics, just as cursed with tunnel
vision as the greedy exploiters whom they
oppose. However, being environmentally
responsible does not mean losing touch with
reality. Indeed, it requires a more
comprehensive and purposeful awareness of the finite
world which supplies our needs. It means, for
example, appreciating that clean water does not flow
from a faucet by magic, but is part of an essentially
closed hydrologic cycle, and that the wise or foolish
actions of a growing human population have cumulative
effects on both its quantity and its quality.
It means understanding that we share the same
biosphere with the other creatures of our planet, and
that sudden extinction of species that have been
around for millions of years (or since creation, for
those who hold to such a view) is a warning that we
might be doing something that could someday threaten
our own survival. It means not simply chanting
in protest against pollution and exploitation, but
working intelligently to develop clean and
responsible ways to meet the material needs of
society, to renew natural resources wherever
possible, and to recycle those which cannot be
renewed. (Many of these efforts require new
technology and more work — hence more
jobs. But is this a bad thing for a growing
population?)
The carefree days,
when man could casually plunder his planet's
resources, and foul its soil, air, and water without
thought of consequence, are gone. Believe it or
not, there was a time not long ago (your scribe being
old enough to remember it), when the air was clear
enough that even city dwellers could see the horizon
by day and the stars by night, and tap water did not
get cloudy and fizz in your glass, and freshly fallen
snow didn't have visible particles of crud in
it. Clean air and water were not considered
freaky back then; they were just what nature could do
if we gave it half a chance. Is it really too
freaky to hope that, with a little planning and
effort, we and our kids might one day enjoy such
things again?
Godless Liberals
During the past few decades, liberalism has come
under attack for being
"anti-religion." Ironically, this has
resulted from liberalism's defense of religious
liberty of various minorities—Jews, Hindus,
neo-pagans, atheists, liberal Christians, and others—against what leaders of an increasingly
vociferous fundamentalist Christian faction contend
is their right to use the power of government to
impose their beliefs and traditions upon society as a
whole.
But there is an
important distinction here. Liberalism does not
oppose religion; many liberals are devoutly
religious, and there is no conflict in that.
What liberalism opposes is coercion, including
coercion by religious groups and institutions, and by
government acting as their agent. Liberalism
seeks to protect the individual's and the family's
right to worship (or not) in accordance with dictates
of personal conscience, without interference,
assistance, or favoritism by government.
Liberalism takes a secular (religiously neutral)
stance; some religious activists, however,
erroneously portray this neutrality as hostility
toward religion. They conveniently forget that
it is precisely this neutral policy which has allowed
the flourishing of small sects such as their own in
America, in contrast to countries in which government
is allied with officially favored religions against
smaller sects.
Pointy-Headed
Liberals Here is another derogatory
label for a positive quality. It sounds like an
insult; but if someone calls us "smart" or
"educated" (meaning essentially the same as
"pointy-headed"), that would be a form of
praise in most people's estimation.
Intelligence and
learning are not synonymous with liberalism by any
means. There are some intelligent and liberally
educated (pointy-headed) conservatives, and there are
more than a few stupid, single-issue liberals.
However, many people who make learning an important
and continuing part of their lives, and who become
acquainted with cultures and disciplines other than
their own, have tended to gravitate toward the
liberal side of the political spectrum. While
intellectuals are not the only ones attracted to
liberalism, they have tended to be more constant in
their acceptance of it, whereas those with narrow or
transient interests have drifted into and out of the
liberal sphere with the changing of their needs and
of the times. Like liberals, intellectuals tend
to be less fearful of new ideas, and more
appreciative of innovation's historical importance,
current necessity, and future potential.
Those ideas
marking major advances of humankind—democracy,
science, industry, education, and the like—typically spring from the minds of learned and
creative people, who have the ability to think
complex problems through, to solve them rather than
simply to exploit them. If that is what it
means to be pointy-headed, then being sharp is
clearly an admirable quality. To be sure, the
world needs specialists and tacticians; we need
administrators, accountants, agriculturists,
architects, anthropologists, artisans, and
artists. But in our increasingly global
society, we also need interdisciplinary advisors,
people who can assimilate the essentials of many
fields of human endeavor, and devise ways to
coordinate them to greater advantage, with a minimum
of duplication, conflict, and adverse side-effects.
Politically
Correct Liberals The term
"politically correct" originated in the
1930s, probably in reaction to the virulent racist
stance of rising fascist regimes.
"Politically correct" describes an attitude
favoring the suppression of language and acts which
may be construed as offensive by various
groups. The term fell into disuse following
World War II, and remained dormant during the 1950s.
The 1960s were a
time of social upheaval. Anti-war and civil
rights demonstrations became increasingly violent,
and lives and property were at risk. In
response, there was a growing practice in academic
institutions to suppress expression of an
inflammatory nature. This seemed reasonable,
inasmuch as most of the "free speech"
initially being challenged comprised little more than
gratuitous ethnic insults, hate slogans, and threats—not the thoughtful academic presentation and
evaluation of competing ideas. Even if violence
were not an issue, some thought, universities are
responsible for maintaining a non-threatening
atmosphere conducive to study, calm reflection, and
thoughtful discussion. Consequently, censorship
policies at some universities gradually spread to
include any ideas which might be considered offensive
to anyone. Eventually, though, this came to be
viewed as unreasonable restriction of freedom of
expression. As concern mounted, that the
obligation of academia to examine and evaluate
controversial and challenging ideas was being
overridden by paranoia, the term "politically
correct" arose from its slumber with a fury that
stung liberal academicians. It was the height
of irony that liberals, the traditional champions of
the free exchange of ideas, should indulge in
censorship! (This is not to say that censorship
was otherwise unknown in America; indeed,
conservatives routinely argue for suppression of
ideas they don't like, on topics ranging from science
and sexuality to political and religious dissent.)
As protests
diminished during the late 1970s, academic censorship
declined correspondingly, until on most campuses it
was once again reserved for addressing insults and
threats. Indeed, it has become synonymous with
advocacy of common civility, and political
correctness (as originally defined) has essentially
become a relic of the past. However, the term
persists. Having gotten so much political
mileage out of it, many conservatives have been
reluctant to let it fall into disuse, and continue to
use "politically correct" as a general
criticism of any liberal concept. Nowadays,
anyone associated with education, conservation,
health and safety, humanities, science, labor unions,
consumer or minority rights, religious diversity,
fiscal responsibility, or other "liberal"
ideas is liable to be branded "politically
correct," even if he or she has never advocated
censorship in any form. Indeed, widespread
overuse and misuse of the term have rendered it
virtually meaningless in colloquial use, with the
result that it has been transmogrified into a wryly
backfiring comment upon the unwitting who use it
indiscriminately.
Socialist
Liberals Though socialism and
liberalism are entirely different things, they have
become accidentally associated, through their
advocacy of government for distinctly different
reasons. Exercise of government power for any
reason inevitably encounters opposition, sometimes
even from those who benefit most from it.
Liberals' support of working people has been
characterized as "heavy-handed" by the very
industrialists who taught the world the meaning of
heavy-handedness in their exploitive treatment of
workers. Liberals' defense of civil rights
challenges the supposed right of a majority to
victimize minorities without restraint.
Liberals' support of secular education, culture, and
scientific research has been denounced as
"playing God" by factions who see an
ignorant populace as a resource to be exploited for
their own gain.
Yet the historical
fact is that, quite unlike socialism, liberalism has
strongly promoted economic growth in the private
sector. Parallel growth of government under
liberalism is simply a result of dealing with
problems and meeting needs arising from
private-sector growth and innovation. Yes, tax
revenues increase, but as a natural function of
rising income and purchasing power. Government
services can be enhanced, public debt paid down, and
tax rates responsibly trimmed, all while people enjoy
a higher standard of living.
Tax-and-Spend
Liberals This is perhaps the most
misleading tag that conservatives have pinned on
their opponents. If we look at government
spending records, we find that conservative
administrations typically spend as much as (and
frequently more than) liberal ones. In
fulfilling its obligations to the people, government
must pay for such things as national defense, public
roads and bridges, maintenance of navigation
channels, law enforcement, public health and
education, industrial inspection, commercial and
banking regulation, scientific research, and
emergency services. Aside from quarrels between
conservatives and liberals over spending priorities,
the real difference is in how conservatives and
liberals prefer to pay the bills for whatever
expenses government runs up. For although
government has the power to print money, money isn't
real wealth; money merely represents real
wealth (such as coal, copper, or corn). If
government simply increases the amount of currency
without a corresponding increase in real wealth, then
the unit value of the currency decreases, and we have
inflation. Sooner or later the bills must be
paid by someone. There is no magical way of
getting around it—as some national leaders
have discovered, to their regret.
The liberal
approach is straightforward: Raise enough in
taxes to pay for expenses. Ease taxes on the
poor who cannot afford to pay much, and place the
bulk of the burden on those who derive
proportionately greater benefit from the economic
system. Then maintain a balanced budget, except
when deficit spending is absolutely necessary to meet
emergencies. This is closely akin to standard
accounting practices for banks and businesses.
Under this system, taxpayers pay for the expenses
which government has incurred on their behalf—a tax-and-spend system.
Conservative
strategies are more—shall we say—creative. They frequently involve schemes to
benefit corporations, through tax breaks on capital
gains and depreciation. The hope is that this
"incentive" will somehow stimulate
production and higher profits, thereby generating
greater tax revenues. That's the
"supply-side" strategy. While it has
popular appeal, it has unfortunately failed every
time it has been tried. The reason is that it
ignores a fundamental principle, that industry
increases production in response, not to investment
and tax breaks, but to market demand. Savvy
investors understand this, and in a lackluster
economy are more likely to stuff any tax windfall
into "safe" investments like bonds, rather
than invest in businesses with stagnant market
potential. (So much for misguided incentives.)
Naturally, it is
embarrassing for conservative lawmakers to explain to
taxpayers and voters why the wonderful plan does not
produce the promised prosperity. So, rather
than hike taxes, they opt for deficit spending.
This means that government must borrow money (by
selling bonds) in order to cover expenses. But
the more government debt accumulates, the more
interest must be paid on it. And the money to
pay that interest comes from—where?—why, taxes, of course! But since conservatives
commit to no-new-tax policies in order to win votes,
something else must give, and that something else is
government services. Naturally, this applies to
almost everything (except lawmakers' salaries).
Let's face it: If government gives tax breaks
to some without generating revenue somewhere else, it
must also cut whatever programs that lost revenue was
paying for. So after the song and dance are
over, ordinary wage and salary earners ultimately end
up taking the burden off corporations, if not in the
form of higher taxes, then in the form of additional
maintenance on vehicles driven on poorly maintained
roads, of increased insurance costs due to cuts in
emergency services, of lower productivity and greater
absenteeism due to reduced health funding, and other
mysteriously escalating expenses too numerous to
mention.
The liberal
"tax-and-spend" policy might be unpopular,
but it pays the bills and keeps debt at a manageable
level, while keeping American workers the
lowest-taxed of any in the industrial world.
Conservatives' "borrow-and-spend" policy,
on the other hand, is essentially an expensive
exercise in wishful thinking. By relying on a
smoke-and-mirrors fiscal policy, it deceives
taxpayers with the idea that they are magically
getting something for nothing, all the while
burdening future generations with mounting debt.
Now we have a clear
picture of what's wrong with liberals (or perhaps
more tellingly, what's not right with them):
-
"Anti-business
liberals" favor market-driven economics,
which have historically yielded about twice
the growth and prosperity of conservative
debt-driven schemes.
-
"Bleeding
heart liberals" stand for equal rights
and equal treatment under the law for
everyone.
-
"Environmental
freak liberals" hold the vision that a
healthy environment and a healthy economy are
not mutually exclusive.
-
"Godless
liberals" support people's freedom to
worship (or not) in accord with personal
conscience, without meddling by government or
harassment by fanatics.
-
"Pointy-headed
liberals" examine issues in a
big-picture view that our highly specialized
society tends to overlook, and have even been
known to generate useful ideas, like new
technology and cures for disease.
-
"Politically
correct liberals" are mostly a relic of
the past, and even in their heyday
represented less of a threat to freedom than
conservatives, whose affinity for censoring
and outlawing anything controversial is well
established.
-
"Socialist
liberals" are a contradiction in
terms. Liberals favor responsible free
enterprise, whereas socialists prefer
government ownership of business.
-
"Tax-and-spend
liberals" advocate responsible and
sustainable fiscal policy.
Upon reflection, it
would seem that the supposed evils of liberalism are
not nearly as evil as portrayed by the competition,
and perhaps liberals are not so terribly misguided
after all. Indeed, it would appear that popular
criticism of liberals distills to the following:
-
Liberal policies
have been good for the consumer market and
the stock market.
-
Liberals stand for
fair and equal treatment of all citizens
under the law.
-
Liberals understand
that our needs can continue to be met only
through responsible use of resources.
-
Liberals believe
that people should be able to choose a
religion without government's
"help."
-
Some liberals are
intelligent, educated, and broad minded, and
occasionally have good ideas.
-
Liberals believe
government's highest obligation is to protect
people's liberty from abuse by other people,
by groups, by business, and by government
itself.
-
Liberals understand
that what really matters about government is
its quality, not its size.
-
Liberals think
government should pay its bills up front
whenever possible, instead of sticking future
generations with a mountain of public debt.
Now, if this constitutes
criticism of liberals, then we are prompted
to ask what alternatives conservatives consider more
praiseworthy. And if you find you agree with
some or all of these ideas, then maybe you're really
a liberal, too. Perhaps more people would be
liberals, if they could but find the honesty to
contemplate the world as it really is, the courage to
envision it as it could be, and the wisdom to
understand that medieval attitudes can only lead us
away from that vision, not toward it.
=SAJ=