What’s important to realize, however, is that the designation “classical” was only added to this original liberalism upon the subsequent emergence of modern liberalism. This was to distinguish it from the latter, which had become a different ideology altogether.
Much different.
Today’s liberalism prescribes government action – in the form of a law, mandate, regulation or program – in every sphere of life, from child-rearing (anti-spanking laws) to hiring (EEOC) to school admissions (quotas) to sports (Casey Martin in golf, Title IX) to diet (banning trans-fats). Its adherents on the Supreme Court gave us the Kelo decision, an attack on property rights. It preaches that government has a place in religion (forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraception), but religion has no place in government, quite the opposite of Jefferson’s conception of the separation of church and state. Now its minions have gone so far as to attack freedom of speech with hate crime/hate speech laws and even seek to redefine marriage and allow homosexuals to adopt children.
Because of this transformation, today’s rough equivalent of classical liberalism is Goldwater conservatism. (Note: I believe it is a myth that these ideologies are the equivalent of today’s libertarianism, as is commonly held.) And it should surprise no one that individuals of the latter stripe have long embraced the former’s principles. Once the founders’ liberalism became the status quo, it was no longer revolutionary. Then its proponents quite naturally became known as the protectors of the status quo, or, conservatives.
Of course, some liberals would say they’re evolving. But as I have demonstrated, both liberals and conservatives evolve; the question is, how are they evolving and is some atavistic adjustment in order? Let’s examine this with a parable.
Imagine America as a ship. The people aboard are a motley crew, liking different positions and forever arguing over whether it’s best to place the helm in the right, middle or left portion of the vessel. Now, in this tug-of-war, the helm shifts left and right as the strength of one side or another waxes and wanes. Of course, a passenger can occupy any area he wishes. But the further you stray to either side, the lonelier you become, so most stay within earshot of the band and buffet table. Overlooked by virtually all, however, is that the ship is off course and steadily drifting left because engineers working below, out of plain sight, are manipulating the rudder.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
Well, I consider myself a liberal, and I oppose hate-speech laws as well as the Kelo decision. I also believe that neither religion nor government should get involved in each other's business (and that Jefferson's opinion of the separation of church and state has less weight than, say, James Madison's); that the notion of anti-spanking laws is absurd; and that preventing homosexuals from marrying and adopting children is cruel, arbitrary, anti-liberty, and far more harmful to family and social values than gay marriage or adoption could ever be.
Seems that these are positions from both sides of the aisle. So either I'm the great exception, or the terms "liberal" and "conservative" at this point are essentially meaningless.
2 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
Today’s liberalism prescribes government action â€" in the form of a law, mandate, regulation or program â€" in every sphere of life, from child-rearing (anti-spanking laws) to hiring (EEOC) to school admissions (quotas) to sports (Casey Martin in golf, Title IX) to diet (banning trans-fats). Its adherents on the Supreme Court gave us the Kelo decision, an attack on property rights. It preaches that government has a place in religion (forcing Catholic hospitals to provide contraception), but religion has no place in government, quite the opposite of Jefferson’s conception of the separation of church and state. Now its minions have gone so far as to attack freedom of speech with hate crime/hate speech laws and even seek to redefine marriage and allow homosexuals to adopt children.
All of these fall under the category of protecting "life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness."
1. Child rearing laws- protect the rights of the child from abuser
2. hiring laws- protect rights of potential empoloyee from company
3. banning trans-fats- protect rights of the consumer from company
4. crime/hate laws- protect victim from criminal
5. gay rights- protect rights of homosexuals
You will note that when the DOI says "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men," it does not say "all companies, corporations, white heterosexual adult males" it says "all men" and kindly today we have given this a broader interpretation to all mankind.
Second, note it says "to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men." This overtly declares the role of government to protect these rights with LAWS. In short, they did not see government as an evil violator of rights, they saw it as the way of securing those rights.
In most of the cases above I don't see how they are inconsistent with protecting rights. It just depends whose rights are you protecting. In all civil life there is a conflict of rights, the real question is, whose rights need protecting more?
It might seem aristocratic to talk about certain groups needing protection, but then again, so were the founding fathers.
3 - Clavos
At least some of your disagreement seems to hinge on definitions of terms.
For example: is the parent who merely spanks his child an abuser? Or simply a parent exercising his responsibility to instill discipline in the child? And if there is a difference of opinion as to what is the correct way to instill discipline, is it the purview of the state to dictate which is the correct method? Does the parent not have a right to determine his own methods of child rearing, as long as no actual physical damage is done to the child? My father spanked me regularly; I'm none the worse for it.
An awful lot of recent lawmaking has been aimed at expanding the role of the state as nanny, a trend that is deplorable IMO, and which allows ever greater intrusion by the state into the lives of its citizens.
Orwell truly was a visionary.
4 - Nancy
But do consider, it's this supposedly 'conservative' BushCo government that is the one that has intruded the farthest of ANY previous government on individual rights & privacy. Also, if as the author argues, 'liberal' is a fluid term, by his own argument, he makes the case that so is 'conservative'. In effect, he's made a case that conservatives are just as waffley as liberals - just not as benign in intention - & in both cases the outcome is anything but benign.
BTW - "engineers working below, out of plain sight, are manipulating the rudder." Who/what group is the author designating as these manipulative parties? He doesn't say, but it's the most interesting sentence in the article.
5 - Dave Nalle
2. hiring laws- protect rights of potential empoloyee from company
3. banning trans-fats- protect rights of the consumer from company
These two are pretty questionable. While someone has a right not to apply for a job or buy food from a given company, they don't have the right to use the force of government to compel that company to hire them or produce food in a particular way. That places the right of the individual consumer above the rights of the producer/employer and for law to be fair it has to protect the rights of both equally.
Dave
6 - Michael J. West
One might argue, though, that cities that ban trans fats do so in the interest of public safety, since current estimates say that trans fats directly cause 30,000 heart-disease deaths per year...
7 - Michael J. West
Look, the truth is, it's absolutely ridiculous and useless to accuse one side of the political spectrum of "prescribing government action in the form of a law, mandate, regulation or program" to further its agenda. The other side is just as willing and interested in prescribing laws, mandates, regulations, or programs to further its own.
Surely the "conservatives" in America recognize that tightening FCC regulations and skyrocketing "obscenity" fines over a 0.5-second broadcast of Janet Jackson's breast, also constitutes government intervention and restriction of the rights of corporations that produces goods and services?
I'm not necessarily in favor of increasing governmental involvement in American life. Let's just stop pretending that one of our two major political ideologies is any less guilty of that than the other, shall we?
8 - Nancy
The facts are, as the oil, pharmaceutical, & tobacco industries have so amply proved, that if government doesn't protect the individuals' rights against those of the corporations or those who run/own them, then said corporations are more than willing to run roughshod over any & all rights of everybody else, even if it entails inflicting on them known dangers, even death, with callous indifference & reckless disregard for human life as long as they (the corporations & the wealthy/powerful) get to line their own filthy pockets with yet more money when they already have more than enough for any one lifetime. There is no limit to the sheer greed & ruthlessness of these monstrosities. Look at the history of labor in this country. Before the unions, corporations used workers - children, women, etc. - as virtual slave labor, 14- 18 hours a day, no benefits, no rights. Now, over 150 years later, they're STILL trying to convert their labor to slaves, with no benefits & no rights. They never quit trying to make inroads against their employees having basic human rights; nor do they ever quit trying to peddle dangerous products to the public which they know full well are dangerous, even deadly. Consider how often the auto industry has had to be dragged kicking & screaming to fix a potentially deadly flaw in the design of their vehicles. Consider the infamous photo of those 7 tobacco executives standing in front of a congressional hearing, PERJURING themselves that they have NO knowledge that their companies ever tried to cover up or destroy inside information that nicotine was addictive & deadly to the consumers. Consider the recent pharmaceutical situations, where greedy corporations have been willing to put drugs with deadly side effects on the market - or keep drugs that can save lives off of it - in order to pump up their already obscene profit margins in the name of sheer corporate greed.
All this & more is more than justification for the government to come down hard on big business or anybody else, with laws & standards. Remember they protect YOU, too, boy. If you think those same companies wouldn't hesitate to poison you or your family just because you're on their side, in order to make an extra dime, hoo - then YOU are a dreamer, gullible, naive, or just stupid!
9 - jaz
same old same old...
i've said it before, and say it again...to many partisans trying to frame their opposition
label, label, label...that's all the punditry types can do, the more they polarize the more influence they garner...and always with half truths and bullshit
totalitarian/anarchist - capitalist/socialist chart....the linked test shows MUCH more accurately where a person stands politically, and helps define the differences in a non-inflammatory manner
that's for those who think for themselves...folks like this Original Poster don't want you to look at things like this...OR to think for yourself
they want you to think like they tell you to
fuck that
Liberate your Mind.
10 - Methuselah
Labels are most often used as straw horses in order to accuse an opponent of some acknowledged perfidies, usually some kind of atrocity. Most people have diverse opinions, but that's dangerous to demagogues so they try to enforce discipline by threatening to drive a person out of the tribe.
Same roots as racism.
11 - Victor Lana
Today's liberal is tomorrow's conservative, and I would imagine it can work the other way too. Whatever the case may be, last time I looked this is America and everyone has a right to be whatever he or she wants to be politically (and I dare say in every other way as long as no one gets harmed).
Live long and prosper!
12 - moonraven
Labeling is just another form of avoiding discussing the issues. It's really abused on this site by folks like Dave Nalle--he not only labels folks as liberals and leftists and socialists at HIS convenience, but he also smears a string of adjectives in front of those specious terms.
Now Bush is trying to pass himself off as a leftist--taking off for Latin America and trying to upstage Chavez by simpering cynically about "social justice".
Any hard and fast affiliation to ideology is a substitute for thinking creatively about how to save the planet from being flushed. It's already in the toilet and now we have idiots arguing about what color the turds are.
13 - alessandro Nicolo
Man has always "labelled" himself. The Chinese did it, the Indians did it, Greeks did it, the Romans did it, Dante did it (Italian renaissance city-states are a clear and intriguing example), the Church did it, the Humanists did it, the Philosophes did it and just about every other brilliant mind in the course of history. So it must have some weight. It's a way for man to measure himself. To keep tabs of where he stands as he progresses - or in some cases regresses. That said, ideologies tend to shift indeed but its principles should never be comromised. Liberals right now (who seem to ally themselves with socialist thought) are not evolving. It's a stagnant dilemna which explains the thoughtless ideas coming from its ranks. It's a rut.
14 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
"2. hiring laws- protect rights of potential empoloyee from company
3. banning trans-fats- protect rights of the consumer from company
These two are pretty questionable. While someone has a right not to apply for a job or buy food from a given company, they don't have the right to use the force of government to compel that company to hire them or produce food in a particular way. That places the right of the individual consumer above the rights of the producer/employer and for law to be fair it has to protect the rights of both equally.
Dave"
For sure they are questionable (esp. trans fat ones), but their are rights on both sides to be taken into account, just like the other four. One might also say in the trans fat example the law protects all citizens' right to property by not placing an unfair tax burden on them to take care of the irrational trans-fat consuming heart disease cases. Also some people have a right not to consume trans-fat but ussually these goods are much more expensive because they are not manufactured in large quantities (and because trans-fat is a cheap substitute). Obviously a less clear cut example that involves substantial government intervention, but their are some rights at stake, and it comes down to a value judgment, not liberal/conservative.
15 - STM
Am I really a Liberal? No, I've always voted Labor
16 - RJ Elliott
Absolutely brilliant post!
The left always wants "change" (what they call "progress"), but after they have successfully achieved this, they decide they want more change. They are never satisfied with the status quo, even if the current status quo was their "goal" just a few years before!
And conservatives are forever in the position of defending previous "progress" (the present status quo) in an attempt to forestall further "progress" (the future status quo, which they will tirelessly defend once they get there).
Thankfully, I'm a radical, and therefore unencumbered by the tiresome liberal/conservative debate... ;-)
17 - RJ Elliott
It just depends whose rights are you protecting. In all civil life there is a conflict of rights, the real question is, whose rights need protecting more?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
18 - RJ Elliott
BTW - "engineers working below, out of plain sight, are manipulating the rudder." Who/what group is the author designating as these manipulative parties? He doesn't say, but it's the most interesting sentence in the article.
The mainstream media? Wealthy campaign contributors? The "international community" ???
Use your imagination...
19 - RJ Elliott
"One might argue, though, that cities that ban trans fats do so in the interest of public safety, since current estimates say that trans fats directly cause 30,000 heart-disease deaths per year..."
One might argue that. One might also argue that the American "right" to own a car is a threat to the public safety, and causes thousands of deaths per year.
Wanna bet that future "liberals" will do their best to take away our cars in an effort to "save lives" and "protect the environment" ???
20 - Baritone
First, I feel that the entire argument presented in Duke's post is specious in that it proves nothing beyond the fact that things change. By and large to be "liberal" means that one is progressive, forward thinking, aware that we still have a long distance to go, that, yes, issues change, become redefined. Conservatives want to sustain the status quo. Many yearn for what they believe were "the good old days."
Progress demands fluidity. What is considered to be proper and adequate at one point in time often becomes stodgy and inadequate at another.
Change is the only constant. Laws and the norms of social conduct only work so long as they reflect the needs of society. Given that we live in a highly technological age, it is the most fluid period in human history.
The Dark Ages saw little change over its several hundred year span. Technology was virtually non-existent. Almost constant war and virulent disease took a huge toll. That along with the growing absolutism of the catholic church made any significant social change in most of Europe during the period nearly impossible. Even up to and including much of the 19th century, most people experienced little substantive change in the world they perceived during their entire lives.
Given the rapid changes we are experiencing today, it's is no wonder that laws and rules of social and moral conduct have difficulty keeping up. My older son is 28 years old. When he was born in 1978 there was no such thing as a home computer, let alone the internet. I worked in a high school library in that same year, 1978 where we still used ditto and mimeograph machines to make multiple copies.
When it comes to government involvement in controls over private sector business and industry, are there excesses? Of course. Have unions over-reached? Have they abused their power? Certainly. Everyone wants their day in court. Everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame. Everyone wants attention paid to their little corner of the world. Regardless, unions and government oversight are necessary. Nancy is absolutely correct.
It is human nature to abuse power. Given the opportunity, we will naturally line our own pockets even to the detriment of others. It stems from the basic survival instinct. We naturally look out for number one. But as liberals, we have attempted at least to go beyond Spencer's (not Darwin's) "survival of the fittest." On balance conservatives have not. They live with the basic notion that "If I've got mine, it's tough shit if you don't. It's not my concern." Liberals understand that without limitations, we are not yet sophisticated or mature enough as a species to police ourselves. Without limits we would still be living with all the evils perpetrated by the Robber Barons.
I know, this comment is spiraling out of control. But it's all true. I swear.
TLS
21 - RJ Elliott
"Without limits we would still be living with all the evils perpetrated by the Robber Barons."
The "robber barons" donated more to charity than you ever have, or ever will. They also helped create entire new industries than employed millions and made this country the industrial and economic and military power that it is today.
But yes, they were "evil" for being pro-American capitalists...
22 - Zedd
Selwyn
I don't think that you made your argument. I think that the ideas that you purport to be supported by liberals exclusively are not. Most the sports safety laws are put into play in highly conservative suburban communities that are littered with over protective, child obsessed moms. All of the liberals that I know support spanking children....
As for your argument against the banning of trans fats, that is just odd. Most trans fats are manufactured and serve as a major hazard to the human body. Why would a society approve such a thing. What does the saturation of such a dangerous substance into the foods in our society have to do with promoting the pursuit of happiness? Your reasoning against the banning or reduction in imposition of trans fats in our foods is irrational. That is a public safety issue.
23 - Zedd
Selwyn
What your seem to miss is that the notion of liberalism or conservatism for that matter, is highly contextual.
As for the tradition of liberalism, the complexities and evolution of society requires evolutions in the governance of that society.
One can hardly apply the tenets of order which worked for small hunter gatherer family based groups to today's world. The dynamics are different, the accountability and trust issues are completely changed.
One would also not want to apply the morays of Paine and Jefferson's world to today's world. They believed it proper to purchase and own human beings.
Your nostalgic idealising over past interpretations of what liberalism is reveals a sort of emotionalism on your part. You have failed to refute the legitimacy of the current understanding of liberalism.
The fundamental idea of liberalism is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.... individual rights against dogma, industry, monarchy, government and the powerful. Where one person's rights end and another's begin is the challenge of all societies. Working our way through THAT challenge is what we will be vexed with as long as we exist.
24 - Zedd
RJ
Clearly pronounced in the label of Robber Baron is the word "robber". Do you see Americanism to be defined by thievery, bullying and domination?
Are you so naive that you believe by putting the WORD capitalism next to another that it makes it good.
Example: CAPITALIST rapist?
Does rape then become good? A robber steals; is a criminal.
Yes indeed RJ stealing is evil. I am surprised to think that you believe that this country would not have reached its heights without moral business practices.
25 - Zedd
alessandro Nicolo
Liberals are evolving. Liberals are promoting issues that relate to global matters. As we expand our connection to one another globally, we also expand our knowledge of global structures and begin to address those that impede liberty on that scale.
Also by virtue of the change in society, liberals also change. The issues addressed pertain to the challenges of the day. Jefferson would not have had issue with trans fats because the technology had not invented such a challenge.