Liberalism: a Discussion About Meaning and Relevancy

George Santayana is often quoted as having stated that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It seems important to open a discussion about the historical rise and fall and rise and fall again of what we call "Liberalism". While surely many will disagree, Ortega y Gasset has about as good a definition of Western liberalism as a social upheaval: He writes about "the accession of the masses to complete social power" (Ortega y Gasset 11). He goes on to say what, surely, conservatives all over the world see as the threat of liberal politics: that the masses cannot direct their own personal existence. Given the assumption that the masses are eager to be rid of tyranny and tyrants, liberal politics and politicians then become extremely paternalistic. They assume that these masses yearning to be free (sorry, Emma Lazarus!) require a leadership and a government that reaches out to somehow solve their every need. As present-day American Republicans would say it: Liberalism stands for more government, and more government includes intrusion into citizens' everyday lives. If this is even half-way accurate, then one needs to make some basic assumptions about the rise and fall, the waxing and waning of Liberalism over the centuries and come up with several bases for the see-sawing of Liberalism. And to suggest that, somehow, since 1989 Liberalism is the only one of the so-called "great ideologies to remain standing- is unfortunately, wishful thinking. Liberalism, merely according to course readings, is the great sociological and political chameleon. For that reason, these four assumptions:

First, Liberalism is not the same as "democracy".

Second, while the political ideals of Liberalism are to provide a better existence for the underclass, Liberalism itself was and is controlled by the middle class.

Third, initially one could say without fear that the beginnings of political liberalism was a movement against the power of the Church.

And, fourth, when those the liberal wing of a political party raise up, economically, these new middle class bourgeoisie inevitably turns conservative.

Democracy is an often misused word. Manent (1995) claims that "Radically depreciating the pretensions to 'virtue' of the nobility, and simultaneously making people 'honest', Machiavelli becomes the first democratic thinker" (Manent 16). And even though this author claims that Machiavelli drew a distinction between the evil in politics and the inherent goodness of people, he never really went so far as to permit these "ordinary" people to assume the powers of The Prince. As one can read the various philosophers, (Hobbes and Rousseau, for example, are more antagonistic or supportive of the Church of their day) there is no one who truly claims that the so-called

"masses" have the power to control a Liberalistic nation. That, one assumes, is left to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, whose "overthrow" theories would put the proletariat in control of not merely the capitalists but all the middle class. And yet, it is clear to Manent for one that the idealism of Liberalism as the font of equality fails ultimately: ""....democracy....even tells a person things that he would otherwise hesitate to believe completely: that he is just as good as anybody else...But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he..." (Menant 107). Nowhere is this insight more relevant than in the American liberals from William Jennings Bryan to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who need to be wealthy or be beholden to the wealthy in order to run for elective office. While we may have lived during a Liberal period for the eight years of the Clinton administration, it was not an era of equality. To paraphrase George Orwell's Animal Farm: some were (and are) more equal than others. The ideal was and is there- the practice leaves something to be desired. Allen and Lloyd's inclusion of Mercy Otis Warren's comment that "The desire of distinction is inherent in the bosom of man, notwithstanding the equality of nature with which he was endowed" (Allen & Lloyd 294) is telling in proving my second assumption:

Which brings us to that second point- the fact that it is, for the most part, upper middle and middle class thinkers and political activists who built, controlled, and somehow, dismantled the ideals of Liberalism in Western civilization. It is the nature of unequals to join together philosophically and still be poles apart in terms of background and wealth. Rousseau was one of the first to take notice of this "inequality of man"- far more than Machiavelli who found that benevolent Princes with the priority of survival of their reign and dynasty needed the common people and vice versa. Rousseau called a second form of inequality "moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established or at least authorized by the consent of men" (Rousseau 333). Consent, whatever the ultimate political entity means that certain rights are limited because of the limitations of either holding office, or being a sort of eminence grise due to position in the media or industry, not to mention conventional politics. As Allen and Lloyd point out: "The freedom, equality, and independence which you enjoyed by nature, induced you to consent to a political power" (Allen & Lloyd 26). The fathers of our Constitution were not from the "masses. They were, for the most part, middle or upper class landowners or professionals. They were, perhaps more liberal in their outlook for the new nation than Tory sympathizers who plagued the new nation. However, to take their resounding opening remark, that "all men are created equal" was then, and is now, simply not a fact. Even at the time of our Constitutional Convention when the civilized world watched to see how a new nation could survive lawfully, white men were more equal than blacks (It seems that a black man was equal to about three-fifths the vote of a free white man). Women were disenfranchised until 1920. What Liberalism in the new nation held out as hope was some sort of equality of opportunity. But, even that was a sort of Constitutional Mt. Sinai, with the first six or so Presidents playing the part of Moses in different guises. These men were "gentlemen" who felt some sort of limited obligation to the less fortunate Americans.

If we look to the stirrings of American liberalism in the Twentieth Century, the two prime examples- Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, were neither of them born to "the masses". They were patrician in upbringing, but paternalistic in their empathy for the have-nots of America. They both used extensive political clout to create social legislation that had far-reaching consequences. FDR's attempts to end the Depression with government-subsidized work projects, Social Security, reforms in banking and agriculture, the strengthening of unions. JFK began the road to Civil Rights legislation and what ultimately resulted in the one law many (if not most) conservatives disdain: Affirmative Action. In fact, in glancing over the history of so-called "liberal" American Presidents, only Democrats Andrew Jackson and Harry S Truman stand out as not having come from middle class backgrounds. In other words, one can generalize and state that the see-sawing of Liberalism in Western civilization is basically tied to thee economic conditions of the nation or areas where it rises or sinks.

One can even search in vain for truly proletarian philosophers and writers who could espouse the benefits of a morally righteous Liberalism in Western Civilization. Perhaps the only such "prol" writer who comes to mind in the U.S. is Eric Hoffer. Every writer who was either convinced or lured to the ideal of liberalism as the answer to the oppressive nature of dynastic kings or the Church, have come from wealth or a social standing well above the so-called "common man". Yet, these writers and thinkers were adamant in their rejection of past values, instead formulating standards of liberalism as the recognizable future status of republican nations.

Perhaps the idea of liberalism which Ortega y Gasset calls (that principle of political rights.... (which) limits itself to leave room for those to live who neither think nor feel as it does..." (Ortega y Gasset 76) is also what Mark P. Petracca considers "Rational choice" (Lloyd 288): "The rational choice approach to politics assumes that individual behavior is motivated by self-interest, utility maximization, or more simply put, goal fulfillment" (Lloyd 288). But, what are those goals? It might seem to the uninvolved that liberalism is merely the use of political and fiscal power to enhance the lives of the underprivileged, as well as finding a stable environment for the middle class. The problem with that generalization is that there is no moral center to it. And, if nothing else, Liberalism is supposed to be the moral epitome of ensuring human dignity and promising to reduce the causes of economic misery.

If one can agree that the second assumption of liberalism is its determination to provide a form of paternalism, we can easily conclude that, while the stirrings of Liberalism during the Enlightenment and thereafter in Europe first focused on the plight of this rising bourgeoisie, Liberalism's rise was then guillotined by those who used its premise to gain the same totalitarian power they had a first fought against. Robespierre and Oliver Cromwell were not that unlike one another- putting to the test Lord Acton's adage that power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. "Liberte, Egalite, fraternite" became nothing more than an opening for Napoleon's empire.

And to claim that Disraeli in Great Britain was the font of British liberalism, firmly stepping on the premise of Locke and Hume and Hobbes, is also misleading. If nothing else, this was an age where British colonialism, despite the loss of the American colonies, was still in full sway. After all, Victoria was still Empress of India. However, unlike the Crusades, British colonialism was not done in the name of Christ.

And so, to the third assumption- the rise of liberal thought was as an antithesis to the power of the Church. If some see Machiavelli as an early philosopher of an ascending Liberalism,, the truth is that "Machiavelli is more an antireligious religious reformer rather than a philosopher....Machiavelli's entire approach consists of (a) position so as to attack the very foundations of the Church's autonomy..." (Manent 18).

Rousseau says that "divine law" is different from Man's law. But, he sees a contradiction there. In fact, he sees Christianity as being open to tyranny. "Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is too favorable to tyranny for tyranny not to take advantage of it at all times" (Rousseau 225). This, in a valid sense, opened the door for criticism of the Church's role in government, certainly in Rousseau's France. It should have been Richelieu, not Louis who said "l'etat c'est moi!" If there is one chasm between liberalism and the Church it comes in the stated objective of the Church (any Church of those days)- and that is to promote its dogma as being inviolable and therefore unable to be threatened or undermined by any political or man-led attacks. As Rousseau wrote: "Now that there no longer is and never again can be an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be shown to all those that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of a citizen" (Rousseau 227).

Burke also saw the liberal tendencies of the French revolutionaries as appropriating the Church's lands as a first step toward a separation of Church and State: "What the French revolutionaries had done was to declare the lands of the Church repossessed by the nation...and to move toward what became the Civil Constitution of the Clergy..." (Burke xxvii).

When the ideas of Liberalism were abandoned in Europe in favor of the "new" nation in the West, the influence of the Church over political thought waned. Eventually, even the Puritans of New England acceded to the political freedoms that their own strict Church had not permitted. Thbe principles of American constitutionalism is a distinct separation of Church and State which Liberals defend strongly, while Conservatives tend to bend the dividing line top this very day ("One nation. Under God"...and the permission of the Ten Commandments on display in an Alabama courtroom).

What about the fourth assumption of Liberalism that, once economically solvent, many Liberals tend to turn Conservative in order to hold on to their gains? A good example can be seen in the recent U.S. elections when many of the once-Democrat strongholds now skew toward conservative Republicanism. Jean Carnahan in Missouri and Max Cleland in Georgia lost because of the disaffection of traditional Democrats. As Anthony Downs is quoted: "The government expects voters to vote according to (a) changes in their utility incomes from government activity and (b) the strategies of opposition parties" (Lloyd 138). Two examples suffice: Reagan's winning strategy against a liberal Jimmy Carter was "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" and Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid!" Liberalism, therefore, rose and/or fell on the heels of personal income and savings, not true political motivation. On the other hand, liberalism took a tumble in 2002 because liberal thought stood in the way of "the war against terrorism". If there had been true liberal opposition to congressional candidates this past year, its headline would have said something like "Saddam Hussein did not downsize your company. Saddam Hussein did not cause the fall of Enron and WorldCom and the bankruptcy of K-Mart and the failure of Affirmative Action!" American liberals were scared into indifference in the voting booths.

In difficult economic times, as FDR stated: "the task of government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, an economic constitutional order....Every man has a right to life, and this means he also has a right to make a comfortable living" (Lloyd & Udrys 52). What differentiates FDR's view of economic growth and prosperity and that of the true Conservative, is that his belief was in government's need for economic assistance. More government is better government for the average man is a common liberal theory. The Conservative view, of course, is distinctly the opposite- less government is better government. More government is an intrusion on the ability of the average man to fend for himself. FDR, in his address to the 1936 Convention clearly pointed out the difference between the New Deal and the Republican opposition in terms of economics: "They granted that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live" (Lloyd & Udrys 170). While this sort of economic Liberalism was impactful during the Depression of the 1930s, today, in the 21^st Century, it has become anathema to the many middle class Yuppies who want government and bureaucracy out of their lives. Rich nations seldom are liberal. And nations, such as the Third World, wishing to emulate the economic success of the West are even more autocratic and reactionary. So, while the Conservative view, economically speaking, is somewhat similar to "God helps those that help themselves", the Liberal position is that it is government's duty to help those who cannot help themselves.

How do these assumptions characterize the morality of liberalism? The fact remains that politics in the Western nations today are less about morality and more about economic dominance. Illiberalism is important because (such as mainland China) the economic prospects are enormous. Contrary to some of the introductory comments for this project, while liberalism may indeed be the textbook solution to man's freedom of opportunity, a healthy life, and a stable community ambience, nevertheless liberalism is seen by many as outmoded. Liberalism is not inherent merely in the thoughts of free men, but in a government's laissez faire approach to economics.

We have moved from liberalism as a thought process and turned it into a political alternative in the Western World. Liberalism, as has been explained above, is the involvement of government in most activities of its citizens to promote economic security. From its very inception, liberalism was a means of leveling the playing field of a nation's citizenry. And yet, the emphasis on the have-nots within a nation promotes a sort of governmental inequality. "The perfection of government depends on the equality of its operation" (Allen & Lloyd 261). Liberalism's moral agenda depends on solving needs rather than satisfying the majority of voters.

WORKS CITED:

Allen, W.B. and Lloyd, Gordon: The Essential Antifederalist Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (2002)

Burke, Edmund: Reflections on the Revolution in France Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing Company (19987)

Lloyd, Gordon & Udrys, Almis: The New Deal and the Crisis in Political Economy: The Original Conversation and Documentary Record Malibu CA: Pepperdine University, (May 2002)

Lloyd, Grama: The Public Policy Profession Malibu CA: Pepperdine University, (May 2002)

Manent, Pierre: An Intellectual History of Liberalism Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press (1995)

Ortega y Gasset, Hose: The Revolt of the Masses New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (1993)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: "A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind" Works of Rousseau:Great Books of the Western World, Volume 38 Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica and the University of Chicago Press (1956)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: "The Social Contract" Works of Rousseau:Great Books of the Western World, Volume 38 Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica and the University of Chicago Press (1956)