The Modern Left Abandons Classical Liberalism
As modern conservatives eschew classic conservatism, so too do today's liberals deny their honorable ideological ancestry.
Upon reading part two of Rick Moran’s series, Intellectual Conservatism Isn’t Dead, I found myself nodding in agreement with many portions which both criticized current, “movement” conservatism and praised classic conservative theory. What was lacking in this analysis, however, was a parallel look at some of the high points of liberalism in our country and the sorry state to which much of it has devolved today.
I’ve long felt that many of the core tenets of classical liberalism were the better angels which are needed to glare over the shoulder of sound conservatism, preventing the excesses which can result from extremism in either direction. Classic liberalism realizes that there exists a proper function of government to temporarily protect and support the weakest and most vulnerable among us when disaster strikes. It understands that unchecked power can and will be used to the detriment of those who have been historically oppressed without the protection of a big brother. It is willing to open the public purse, where appropriate, to ensure that the needs of the many are met while still providing opportunity for the energetic few. It holds a heartfelt conviction — this one really sticks in the craw of modern conservatives who crow at length about American exceptionalism — that peace is always preferable to war.
Unfortunately, experience has taught us that each philosophy, when taken to the apparently unavoidable, absurd extreme, can turn into a pox upon us all. Each and every time we hand unchecked Washington power to a liberal majority, it winds up being akin to giving the car keys to a drunken teenager. While your noble intentions may have been to ensure that everyone had a good time and an adequate supply of beer, the family car inevitably winds up in the ditch and the best we can hope for is that everyone manages to crawl away without serious injury.
In considering the first liberal virtue above, that being the role of government in a “great society” to protect those at risk, I was prompted to recall one passage from Moran’s essay.
Reformists — and I include intellectual conservatives in that mix — have, as neoconservatives have done, accepted the New Deal and many elements of the Great Society. But their overall critique of both lies not in a rejection of the role the state must play in a modern industrialized society as so many movement conservatives do, but in the belief that value-based reforms as well as more efficient allocation of resources can be achieved without destroying the “safety net” while promoting virtues such as self-reliance and independence. In short, conservative reformists want to alter the liberal culture in the bureaucracy that seeks to expand their clientele rather than reduce it.
Indeed, there are few serious thinkers who would deny that a fundamental thread in the fabric of a free, democratic, capitalist society is the idea that we strive to ensure an equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Everyone, if they are willing to pour in the requisite blood, sweat, and tears, will have the chance to rise to the top, but the vast majority will not do so. However, the sympathetic (and yes, socialist) aspect of our great experiment dictates that we provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks and face the prospect of starvation or exposure to the elements.
But too many modern liberals bristle when we suggest that checks, limits, and restrictions must be placed on this government largess. “Why,” I have been asked, “should I have to provide proof for some sort of means test in order to receive assistance funded by tax dollars?” Indeed, these same people will question why there should be limits on welfare payments or how we can expect recipients to begin working after a period of time in order to receive such benefits.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Jazz Shaw is a heretical, Northeastern former RINO and regular columnist at The Moderate Voice. He can be reached at jazzshaw@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
29 Comments
1. Snorri Godhi:The modern **American** Left cannot abandon classical liberalism because they never accepted it — unlike **European** social liberals (including British liberals), who really are the progeny of classical liberalism. (I’d describe myself as more of a Whig.)
As for “classic liberalism”, I don’t know what it is, but it sure sounds a lot different from classical liberalism. Perhaps the author can provide the names of a few representative “classic liberal” authors and texts?
I’ll never tire of recommending this essay:
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS1.html
First sentence:
“Most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type.”
You can appreciate the significance of that if you consider that [a] by “Tory”, Spencer meant statist/socialist, and [b] the essay was written 125 years ago.
Oct 20, 2009 - 3:47 am 2. Now and Then:1. Snorri Godhi:
Interesting name, It sounds East Injun.
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:06 am 3. Poor Citizen:When it comes down to liberal or conservative…for me, it depends on the issue. That is why I consider myself independant. I think issues are way too complex for simple answers based upon a simplistic ideology, dont you?
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:22 am 4. Gary Ogletree:Liberals like Lincoln and FDR understood that when war is the preferred choice it must be pursued to victory. Modern war as practiced by American and Israeli liberals gave us Soviet enslavement of Eastern Europe, N. Korea, defeat and betrayal of our allies in Vietnam, years of mass murder in the Balkans, and the permanent occupation of Judea by hostile muslim Arabs. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Anytime the commies or the jihadis beg for a cease fire and negociations, you know victory is near and it’s time to hit home the lethal blow. Peace comes from a totally defeated enemy. Anything less is a cynical program to waste the lives of those who have stepped up to defend us.
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:25 am 5. huxley:Another muddled piece by Jazz Shaw, who seems to be confusing social liberalism or the New Deal or perhaps even progressivism with classical liberalism.
Jazz Shaw: As commenter SG suggests, how about providing some cites from established authors or sources about liberalisms of whatever flavor as opposed to winging it with what you believe?
I don’t think these categories mean what you think they do.
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:46 am 6. jw:Newspapers like the New York Times started using the term “liberalism” as a euphemism for socialism, Marxism, and even communism, a perversion of its traditional meaning, the love of liberty, including liberating the mind. The term “left” derives from the French Revolution when the National Assembly sat in a semi-circle; on the far left were the Jacobins led by Maximillian Robespierre and on the far right were the monarchists and clericals. Revolution became fashionable in the nineteenth century, and the revolutionaries thought of themselves as the heirs of the Jacobins and Robespierre, so they called themselves “the left” and anyone who disagreed was “rightwing.” So much for John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and many others. (Lenin solved the problem of the “Thermidorean reaction,” when Robespierre and his followerswith his Reign of Terror were thrown out of power and executed, by establishing a state with the permanent Reign of Terror.)
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:49 am 7. venividivici:I think issues are way too complex for simple answers based upon a simplistic ideology, dont you?
Isn’t that what the analytical process is supposed to do, break down complex problems into simpler ones? Isn’t the proverb “Hard cases make bad law” a warning not to use those few instances where the analytical process can’t accomplish that as guides for policy?
One of the big differences in approach is that the modern Left wants to solve almost all “coordination games” (which are really what politics deals with) via involuntary means like taxation and regulation, whereas the rest of us prefer to solve these problems via voluntary means AND are willing to admit that if people are not voluntarily willing to solve them, the cost of doing so is likely to be higher than the benefit and hence not worth incurring. One of the main cognitive biases of the modern Left is the intransigent belief that if it collectively identifies something as a “problem”, it must be a problem. Not necessarily.
Oct 20, 2009 - 6:55 am 8. Saltherring:The people in charge of Americ’a government are anything but liberal. They are hard-line Marxists hell-bent on dismantling the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with a totalitarian central government.
Oct 20, 2009 - 7:48 am 9. Kipling:I have several basic problems with the position taken by Mr. Shaw, and by extension Mr. Moran, in the essay.
First, the intellectual smuggness and moderate elitism is highly offensive. The title of Mr. Moran’s piece is “Intellectual Conservatism Isn’t Dead” and, according to Moran and Shaw, intellectual conservatsm is moderate conservatism. By inference then, all non-moderate conservatism – what they label as movement conservatism – is also non-intellectual. Those who take conservatism seriously and follow it beyond the comfort zones of the wishy-washy moderates are labeled as absurd, unreasonable, and extremist.
Second, Mr. Shaw provides no support for his view of classic liberalism. He does not define it, put it in historical context, or even list its basic tenets. Instead, throughout the entire essay it remains an undefined entity that then morphs to fit what ever point Mr. Shaw decides to make. For example, the liberal and conservative view of war comes down to their basic view of mankind. Liberals view man as basically good and only in need of education and reason to do good. Thus, one can reason with and educate the leadership of Hamas and North Korea. Conservatives hold that man is inherently bad and must be restrained thus making war sometimes inevitable. These are fundamental tenets.
Third, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Moran accept the basic tenets of liberalism – as demonstrated by their acceptance of the New Deal and elements of the Great Society. They accept the ideological underpinnings of liberalism and then seek to modify it with conservatism designed to increase the “efficient allocation of resources.” Such a position is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Or perhaps, a better analogy, is finding a way to make the Titanic sink more efficiently after it hit the iceberg. Regardless, the fundamental principle of conservatism is gone and all that is left is the “efficient allocation of resources.” How intellectual?
Fourth, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Moran fail to realize that conservatism means that one conserves the basic principles that serve as the foundation of western society and civilization. Classical conservatives rejected the new innovations of the progressives who wanted to destroy the foundation and rebuild based upon their own untested schemes. They also rejected pragmatism and utilitarianism as destructive to the foundations as well. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Moran embrace all three in their essay. Therefore, it is clear that movement conservatism is closer to classical conservatism than the moderates.
Oct 20, 2009 - 7:57 am 10. cfbleachers:Jazz, the unfortunate thing is that there are really no more liberals, the leftists ate them. Swallowed them whole.
Fanaticism is the rule of the day on the left side of the spectrum. You are MUCH more likely to find moderates on the center-right. You actually are “allowed” to live there…but, you have no real voice in modern politics.
There is no center-left. It doesn’t exist, it is not allowed to exist. You MUST be radically opposed to all ideas that don’t absorb…then regurgitate…”the message”.
The power of peer pressure on the left is so vast, broad, deep and abiding…that resistance to it is nearly impossible. Just look at ANY comment from the trolls here. Or at Koz Kidz. Or HuffnPuff.
The cultlike adherence, the eye-bulging, spittle-flecked rage.
Leftism has eaten liberalism and it is impossible to be Joe Lieberman in modern leftist America. In a movement where Joe Lieberman’s honesty is brutalized in favor of Michael Moore’s insipid anarchy.
Where Mao is a hero and Reagan is a villain.
Rick’s article on Intellectual Conservatism is a must read, as far as I’m concerned. But you will NEVER see an article about taking a more measured approach to liberalism of the same ilk. Leftism simply won’t allow it.
Extremism on each side of the spectrum is filled with a bag of horrors. And currently, our greatest danger…comes from the left flank.
Oct 20, 2009 - 8:17 am 11. Michael:Political philosophy depends on a person’s fundamental view of human nature and the role of government. For most of American history the vast majority of citizens held rather similar philosophies, the differences were one of degree and not an overwhelming degree at that.
The basis of both is that human nature is self interest. The divergence in political thought is what this means to a political body.
The conservative belief is that citizens should be free to do as they please because they will take care of themselves and only minor to moderate government intervention is needed or even desirable. This intervention is to rein in people’s negative aspects. The positive aspect of this limiting government since is has been proven throughout history that governments are terribly inefficient and prone to tyranny.
The liberal belief is that citizens being human are flawed and need to be supervised and protected from the bad things that they do and that other people may do to them and from bad things that can happen in general. The positive aspect is that it provides a basic safety net against those other flawed humans.
Conservatives have drifted farther into the ideal of ever less intervention. This gives rise to companies whose board members cross multiple boards feeding each other 10s or 100s of millions in salary and bonuses for failing miserably. Equal opportunity suffers.
Liberals have drifted even further to government being the only and ultimate controller of the deeply flawed citizens. This leads to government telling private citizens how to live their lives in ever more intrusive and actually insulting ways and taking away more and more control from those citizens. The ultimate flaw however is that those who run the government are as deeply flawed as the citizens and they want to tell other citizens how to live their lives.
I as a right of center citizen I think that conservatives need to get back to conservative ideals. Too many of the Republican office holders are left of center. The liberals have moved so far away that they hate the history of America and want to “hope and change” this country into a different country, a different people.
In our past no matter how heated the debates became (with a very few exceptions such as slavery) we were still two sides of the same coin. Now the left has moved so much farther left that we are more like those hard plastic balls on one long string that were called “click clacks” or something similar. They were a toy and one swung them up and down to crash into each other and rebound to do the same thing on the other side. I believe they were regulated out of existence as being too dangerous for children.
The government is the “click clacks now and we are the children.
Oct 20, 2009 - 8:51 am 12. Professor Guvinoff:The word liberal itself has been highjacked. Nowadays we need to recognize the difference between “Thomas Jefferson liberal”, the real thing, from “John Kerry liberal”, the real McDecoy. In today’s discourse, most of the time, liberalism is an affectation, not a commitment to time honored principles such as individual liberty and freedom of speech.
Today’s “liberals” are people who take offense whenever they hear the story of the distraught child who breaks his toy as soon as he receives it. They would think this is terrible, deplorable, shocking, etc… Yet this is what they are doing with the western civilization: They have taken it as their toy, and they cannot wait to destroy it!
Not all of us are fooled all of the time, but the “liberals” are working hard to keep up their pretense while vociferously “defending” their pseudo-principles. This why many folks become conservative when they mature.
Oct 20, 2009 - 9:14 am 13. Snorri Godhi:JW (#6): Not so fast! The words “left” and “right” have always been labels for incoherent and shifting coalitions, even during the French Revolution; and they still are. But even Lenin spoke of the “left” as an “infantile disorder”, because in his time the “left” still meant democracy and equality, something to which he was opposed. Similarly, Mussolini declared himself “right-wing” because for him the “right” meant authority and the State, while the “left” meant individual freedom. I suppose it is only when Stalin and FDR became pals that “left” changed its meaning by almost 180 degrees.
Oct 20, 2009 - 10:29 am 14. Snorri Godhi:PS: Now and Then, I have taken my nom de plume from the Icelandic Sagas. See especially Eyrbyggja Saga.
Oct 20, 2009 - 10:31 am 15. sunny black:I have to take exception with so much of this article.
To put it simply, Obama and his cohorts subscribe to social liberalism. In practice it’s associated with European social democracies.
Classical liberalism, in so many ways, is what this country was originally about. I’m not going to list names of who is or isn’t a classical liberal (if you’re that curious you should really look it up so that you have a clearer understanding of the distinction between social and classical liberalism).
It’s a worthy discussion because personally I think the idealogical discussion in this country should be between conservatism and classical liberalism. We’ve seen social liberalism for what it is and, by god, I hope more and more of us are getting a clear idea that this presidency, while great on a AP-photo cum piece-of-art level, is frightening in reality.
I’d recommend checking out Iliana Mercer’s blog, barelyablog.com for someone who is a bright, articulate and unapologetic classical liberal. She has some smart resources for anyone looking to do more research.
Oct 20, 2009 - 11:28 am 16. deguello:Mr. Shaw,give ‘em a break,they had to discard SOMETHING, when they took up molesting underage Honduran girls,or accepting money from NAMBLA.
Oct 20, 2009 - 12:09 pm 17. Richard:Oh man, have you so got this wrong.
Its conservatives that have abandoned classical liberalism.
Modern day liberals are progressives, collectivists, statists, what have you, and unfortunately have not abandoned their principles but instead of gripped them even tighter even as the last twenty years have demonstrated their utter and miserable failure around the globe.
Oct 20, 2009 - 12:26 pm 18. sara:What is clear from American history is that the meanest, most radical, win. From the white racist organization infesting our educational and social/political institution of history to today’s Marxist American haters, our country’s classical liberals can not hold the line. The majority of Americans do not agree with the oppression and control strategies of haters, but every time they fall for it’s appeal to darker angels within humanity.
Those with dark motives or the energy and intellect of hate – in direct opposition to the founding ideals of freedom and ethics – have far more energy and staying power over those who are benign. The dark ones appeal to the darker angels of voters and American voters can be counted on to fall for it every time. Institutional leaders will fall to constitution haters out of outright fear of being harmed by the hate.
Sorry, but history and present day experience shows us that hate in Ameirca – be it Marxist hate or National socialist hate – win the day over the constitution’s plea for freedom – every time. And the haters make it sound so reasonable and justified…
Oct 20, 2009 - 12:39 pm 19. westcoast barbie:I disagree that peace is always preferable to war. Dennis Prager put forth an interesting thought: There are two types of peace — that which is maintained and that which is attained. Those living under the yoke of evil tyrants, subjected to mass murder, executions, political imprisonment, and other forms of torture at the whim of such tyrants are in fact living “in peace” with other nations. Peace is maintained.
However, to attain peace – long-lasting peace – requires something else. Do those in the Sudan deserve UN Peacekeeping forces that fail even at maintaining the peace? Or do they deserve guns with real bullets aimed and fired at those who would perpetrate evil acts upon the populace? Would those who were responsible for the death camps in Germany and other Nazi-occupied countries (which very well could have existed in the absence of WWII) respond to diplomacy, even sanctions? The bloodiest war in our own history (160,000 dead) was fought to eradicate the dreadful sin of slavery. Without that war it may have taken decades to accomplish – though we would have been living “in peace.” Would talks with radical Islamists lead to them deciding not to follow their dictates of world-wide domination of Islam?
The list of examples is long and ugly throughout history, even today. And it would be difficult to imagine that people could live in peace within those countries without the use of internal or external force (read: people at war against evil).
Yes, Eastern Europe was liberated without a shot, thank God. But doubtful those tyrants today throughout the world would respond to the same pressures placed upon them by a strong US president, a Pope, and a fearless Pole.
Oct 20, 2009 - 7:07 pm 20. Anonymous:Poor Citizen: “I think issues are way too complex for simple answers based upon a simplistic ideology, don’t you?”
I might have agreed with you when I was young. I’ve seen enough of big government and big institutions to know that they should never be trusted.
Never, ever trade an once of freedom for a promise of safety or security. They are false promises. Liberty always.
Oct 20, 2009 - 7:48 pm 21. Old Soldier:Poor Citizen: “I think issues are way too complex for simple answers based upon a simplistic ideology, don’t you?”
I might have agreed with you when I was young. I’ve seen enough of big government and big institutions to know that they should never be trusted.
Never, ever trade an once of freedom for a promise of safety or security. They are false promises. Liberty always.
Oct 20, 2009 - 7:49 pm 22. Bob:“But when classic liberalism gives way to modern, extreme liberalism, they seek to use this problem as a launching point to a single-payer, government-controlled monopoly of the entire health care system.”
The Left brings to mind the owner of a house who, upon finding his toilet plugged up, razes the entire house to the foundation and builds anew, rather than simply fixing the toilet.
If only a fraction of the population can’t afford health insurance, fix that segment instead of boogering everyone’s health care.
Oct 20, 2009 - 8:09 pm 23. paul_unalaska:“Thomas Jefferson still survives” – final words of John Adams
Bob, while I agree with your last paragraph regarding reform, it’s never been about ‘fixing’. It’s all about power.
Starting small and unavoidably expanding their tentacles.
Oct 21, 2009 - 7:38 am 24. Richard:The modern American Left is anything but Liberal. I am a classical Liberal. I want Freedom, Liberty, Abundance, Prosperity and Options in all things in my life, and for you too. The best way for us to have all of those things is for government to get the hell out of the way.
The American Left wants absolutely none of those things. If they did, we would have more of them under their governance right now, not less.
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:52 am 25. Poe M:I started to read this, but I realized the author did not know the meaning of “classical liberalism.” He seems to mean “modern liberalism, the way it used to be” instead. Anyway, Wikipedia has a decent overview (as of today, 10/22/2009) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Oct 22, 2009 - 4:39 am 26. Thomas_L.....:So, Mr. Shaw … I take it you’d stand in the way of me getting my skittle pooping unicorn? Fascist racist!
Oct 22, 2009 - 7:14 am 27. rbell:Mr. Jazz would do well to read J. Gresham Machem’s “Christianity and Liberalism”. The core mind set of Liberalism is set forth in this book. In detail Dr. Machem describes the cherished beliefs and world view of those who consider themselves classic liberals. He also points out that they are members of another religion that is not Christian. The genesis of modern day liberalism started out in the pulpits of America’s 19th century apostate churches and then moved over into politics and education. It was a natural migration because nothing in liberalism is Christian, and it ultimately became bored by the deity that it was suppose to worship. .
This should not be discarded as a religious book nor because it was written over 80 years ago. It is as current as today’s hip hop music. He covers all the social issues we are discussing today. At that time liberalism was a cancer over taking many denominations – and still is. It ultimately led to the destruction of Christianity in this country – believe me it is dead. Liberalism in politics and government has had the same effect. It has lead to some of the most stupendous failures in social engineering that has ever been attempted in human history. Yet liberals are oblivious to the failures they have created. In thier own minds they nobel because they have good intentions and that’s all that matters to them.
Oct 22, 2009 - 2:17 pm 28. Bugler:Classical liberalism: I don’t think it means what you think it means, Jazz.
Oct 23, 2009 - 6:36 am 29. Jonathan:I don’t think rbell understands it, either. What he is describing is liberalism in the modern sense. Many classic liberals were and are Christian. In fact, that’s the main thing, I think, that differentiates classical liberalism from libertarianism. While classical liberals and libertarians believe many of the same things in regards to role of government, they’re based on entirely different philosophies. Libertarians are objectivists, Ayn Rand lovers. Classical liberals, even when they are not Christian, support Christian values and ideas. Which they share with conservatives. In that sense, modern liberals and libertarians are more alike, since they both hate traditional values.
Oct 26, 2009 - 3:20 pm