Hey Vivian Paige, Guess What I Bought (and some thoughts)!
Yes, I bought that silly book "Conservatives Without Conscience" after a good and lengthy blog conversation about the book, liberals and conservatives, and progressives and neo-conservatives.
I have a longer post in response to Vivian's question, but classical liberalism (my pet political philosophy to date) isn't an old idea; in fact it's the one political philosophy that used to be the uniquely American one before modern American liberalism and American conservativism swallowed it up during the 1950's and 1960's:Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy. Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As such, it is often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures that libertarians now describe as their fellow "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution. One group of thinkers that are not listed in the Wikipedia article -- and should be -- are the Scholastics, notably Aquinas, John of Salisbury (who first ventured into the idea of natural law), Scotus, and the Spanish Jesuit scholastic thinkers of the 16th century of which Suarez is the most read.
Classical liberalism's last foray into the public square as a movement was Barry Goldwater's GOP nomination in 1964. Since then, conservatives took on the role of leadership (see Russell Kirk's essays on conservativism for more information) and by 1976 were the pre-eminent political philosophy of the Republican Party.
Likewise on the left, classical liberalism was the genesis of modern American liberalism, the last of whom could arguably be noted as President Jack Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. With the dual assassinations of both men in 1963 and 1968 respectively, liberalism turned into more than an argument for fairness, it turned into an argument for equality (John Rawls would be what I have in mind), a distinction that introduced social rather than individual action as the prime mover.
Here is an excellent treatise on classical liberalism to print out and read:Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties. The article goes on to describe where rights come from (rights are inherent, not granted by governments or men), where rights are transgressed, the difference between what are rights and needs, and different arrangements where rights can be derived (contract, utility, natural law, etc).
From liberalism and conservativism, you get an evolution of thought that ultimately projects itself as policy. To date, that policy has been measured. But the radical fringes are starting to overwhelm the half-measures of "fixing" classical liberalism in this country to be something more than it was intended to be.
Vivian specifically asked me why progressives were hurting the Democratic Party (and extrapolating from that, why neo-conservatives were hurting the Republican Party).
Frankly, IMO other than differing issues, there's not much separating progressives and neo-conservatives at all.
So here are my thoughts on both: Neo-conservatives project the power of the state internationally, while progressives project the power of the state internally. Both are violent, crude, intolerant of opposition, destructive to their own ends, near-sighted in their consequences, and ultimately seek to divide the body politic between us and them.
Liberals and conservatives always seemed in my mind to be two different ways of applying the same political philosophy, hence the complaint from libertarians and socialists that the major parties really don't offer a choice.
As a result, we get spiked versions of each. More coarse, more direct, and far more emotive thanks to what's at stake -- the vast power and resources of a bloated American government.
One is reminded of Weimar Germany in the respect of violent fringe parties struggling for power while pushing out the mainstream. Violent political parties mowing down common sense and civil discourse, until either the Nazis or Communists were "right". Ultimately the Nazi's won in Germany, and the Social Democrats, the Catholic Centre Party, even the Nationalists who forged Germany under Bismarck eventually gave in.
Communism, crushed in Germany along with everyone else labeled "other," won elsewhere and performed similar atrocities against humanity in places like Soviet Russia and China. Catholics, Jews, Orthodox, virtually anyone who preached the virtues of a free society were crushed under one boot or another, either bearing a swastika or a hammer-and-sickle.
The Nazi/Communist death struggle is an interesting take on the matter. I recently watched Enemy at the Gates again, a story of Soviet sniper Vassili Zaitsev's duel with Nazi sniper Major Koenig. In the beginning of the movie, there is a scene where the Red Army drives raw conscripts toward the Nazi lines to be mowed down, each one carrying either a rifle or five bullets. When the conscripts run back to their lines after being massacred by the Wehrmacht, their own Soviet officers turn and mow down the conscripts. So the movie begins.
There is no rooting for one side or the other. One roots for Zaitsev ultimately, in a struggle to survive as an individual. Enemy at the Gates ultimately is a story of individualism over state control, no matter which side (left or right) commands -- not because it is anarchaic or an argument for license over liberty, but because individualism is something built within the soul. Enemy at the Gates is an argument for the power of the individual to triumph despite the worst of state control; it is an exposition for classical liberalism if one could ever be made.
I wonder if we lose the individual at times, in all the CNN and FOX News, the blogs and the newspapers in an effort to create movements and sway minds. Perspective is a horrible thing, but most folks are too self-absorbed trying to be right all the time to pay much attention anymore.
Maybe classical liberalism is an ideology for a slower time, when people could afford to think for themselves and conduct their affairs without resorting to license to meet the next craze, the next bit of self-indulgence, or the next opportunity to climb on another's back to get a promotion?
I'd like to think not, but I'm disappointed daily. Still, given the fact that classical liberals believe as Jefferson did in the inherent will of individuals to be free, the battle for common sense hasn't died out yet.
Ideas govern the world, and ever since the French Revolution we've been keen to try out Utopia wherever we can. It always fails, we ask why, modify the argument and reapply it elsewhere. Have we succeeded? Only in America have we come close, and that was the achievement of a free market, a free people, and a free society.
It hasn't been perfect, but name one other society that is more free, more prosperous, or more enterprising? Classical liberalism built that society, and if we're not careful to preserve it we will lose it entirely.
|
 |
Vivian J. Paige 
10 Comments:
Maybe we should start a book club :)
Ideas have histories. One of my favorite things to study.
I'm an 18th century Radical, 19th century Liberal, 20th century Conservative, and 21st century corpse.
The problem with Liberal thinking began back in the 1830s (some would say the seeds were in the 1790s) when Transcendentalism and Unitarianism started Christians down the path away from Biblical authority, Christian orthodoxy, and Protestant ideas of the individual rights to Human Secularism in line with the ideas of the French Revolution and the thinking which followed.
Rousseau, replaced Montesquieu and Locke and Blackstone, in Human Secularists' minds. Hegel, Darwin, Nietzche, Freud continued the left turn. In this country, John Dewey, Kinsey and Marcuse - in addition to John Rawls moved the Liberal Human Secularists further into group identity and rights.
Oops, gotta go to lunch with grown up kids.
As I learn more about this, I'm starting to agree with this statement. The roots are the same, are they not?
This isn't to say that they have the same approach, but both Democrats and Republicans tend to believe in the free enterprise system, the rights of the worker, are against massive social programs, a fair and level legal system without favortism, egalitarian in nature, and yes -- both hail the same heroes (I don't see either party surrendering Washington or Jefferson anytime soon). ;)
We emphasize different aspects, liberals and conservatives in America are either liberal or conservative on classical liberalism, not your European definition of liberal (which we are) or conservative (which we have never been).
Jim -- I emphatically reject Rousseau (you knew that, but I figured I'd make it clear for the studio audience), who had zero bearing on the American revolution rooted in classcial liberalism, versus the French Revolution rooted in the continental Enlightenment.
A battle which was settled when Jefferson's Republicans (liberals in the British tradition) beat Adams and his Federalists (conservatives of the British tradition) in the election of 1800...
Hence why we strive towards meritocracy rather than wallow in ideas of class and birthright.
Here are some of the splits.
Post-Darwin to the Scopes Trial in the 1920's the Liberals, including the mainline Protestants and many Catholics, walked away from Orthodoxy. The Black Protestant Christians are among the few orthodox Christians who remain 'Liberal' to the Democrat Party for many reasons and to Liberalism for social issues despite the stances going against what they believe in church.
The idea of Judicial tyranny and elites ruling through the courts began in the 1920s, when Justice Franfurter said, "The Constitution says what I say it says." It's continued to get worse. Unfortunately, tragically, the moral imprintur, and authority, that integration gave to courts gave them too much power and they've been corrupted by it.
The idea of statist economics ( aw, I'll just call it the socialism it is) started with FDR and his desperate moves during the Depression.
The idea of group vs. individual rights began back in the 1880s in class actions about Unions but morphed over the years to become the Liberal trinity of race, class and gender(s).
The rejection of Judeo-Christian moral ethics was the shocking split in society in the 1920s - based on the walk away from Christian orthodoxy noted above - to the real pull in the 1950s beat movement - to free speech - to dirty speech - to homosexual 'rights', women's lib etc etc. taken to extremes.
This all comes together in the 1960s when Liberals reject the ideas held in common, not totally - think normal curves here - and think about world wide 'revolution', before they got serious about making money, and rejected Nationalism for Internationalism - and become the sons and daughters of the French Revolution - and before that Diocletian. (and before that Baal and Asheroth)...
Going on vacation now - sorry I won't see your reply - for 2 weeks. Maybe I can look it up in the archives.
No connectivity at beach place we are going.
Best wishes
It's worth putting on the shelf. Besides, with the way I read books it's not out of the ordinary (for me anyhow).
Post a Comment
Home