May 22, 2009
-
Liberals are NOT Pro-Government!
How on EARTH did it come to pass that liberalism was associated with supporting and being aligned with Big Government?
It makes no sense. It’s NEVER made any sense. Liberals were and are and have always been the people fighting against the government. Their crusades of popular organization were always intended to force the government to make changes it didn’t want to make, to grant people more freedom and more opportunities than they otherwise would have. Liberals wanted to fight “the Man” and by “the Man” they certainly meant not just big business, but big Government as well. It was people who had power that were the target. The people who are indoctrinated into treating individuals like pawns for their big game with the goals of achieving wealth and power for themselves.
If you look at the history of Liberalism it becomes clear right away that it has nothing to do with building up government. Indeed, liberalism as a field of study started off as a series of critiques of the State. Of course these were simply intellectual coagulation of popular thought amongst the populace at the time but that’s besides the point. If we study the so called great liberal thinkers we see a common thread amongst them all which is a desire to dismantle and destroy the avenues of power so that people have a right to self determination.
Socrates perhaps is the first recognizable name in history who argued for liberal ideas. He was, of course devoted to defeating the “sophists” who were in control of thought and devoted to limiting people’s thinking and deluding them with propaganda. Socrates argued for not taking things for granted and the idea that individuals might be capable of understanding as well as the ruling elite.
Plato was a slight divergence from this tradition. He tried to pull the Socratic ideal back into the realm of an ordered Statist society. Namely, he thought the main problem with Athens and Greece in those days was that the people in charge were idiots and that if you put the smart people in charge and determining the fate of all those dangerous masses too ruled by their desires things would work out just fine. He saw the problems with the current State society that Socrates pointed out, but he concluded that the problem was that people like Socrates weren’t in charge.
Aristotle pulled it back strictly into the liberal perspective. He spoke of creating a state that was a community of equals and of individual participation in the outcome. His Politics even entails a pretty clear Welfare-like system.
It goes further back too. Other Greek thinkers and thinkers of other cultures forgotten to history. It can be argued very easily that Jesus fits VERY COMFORTABLY within the liberal tradition. Only the restrictive, limiting, totalitarian system he was rebelling against through popular uprising wasn’t the State or Big Business but the all too powerful Church that existed at the time. Still he argued quite emphatically for people to assist one another, and to treat people as equals. Very liberal ideas. Somehow over the years it became perverted and commandeered by an absolutest Church, but his thoughts more or less survived and became the foundation of what later became modern classical and neoclassical liberalism.
Of course as time passed more famous liberal thinkers rose to prominence. The often misunderstood classical economists Adam Smith and Karl Marx who are often portrayed as opposites when they probably had more in common with each other than they do with modern economic theory. Both were concerned primarily with structuring an economic system that realized the human potential of the masses. Both were afraid of the dangers of a totally unrestrained markets to create inequity and destroy individual potential.
Perhaps the quintessential Liberal in American minds is of course Thomas Jefferson whose thoughts are so well known it hardly bears repeating. Certainly all you need to know to see his well deserved position in the annals of liberalism is the Declaration of Independence wherein Jefferson states quite clearly that all men are inherently equal and that a government’s only Just actions are those done with the consent of the people and done in order to protect people’s rights and effect their safety and happiness. That’s a VERY minimalist government idea. And it’s also radically liberal.
You can find plenty of other liberals throughout history. George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, John Rawls, and John Maynard Keynes come immediately to mind. And the American standbys of John Dewey and Martin Luther King of course are well known. And that leads us up to modern activism as a liberal tradition quite nicely. Here you get thinker-activists like Malcom X, John Lenon, and Noam Chomsky.
If you study these writers and thinkers and activists you see consistent themes repeated again and again. There is a focus on individual self determination. A focus on equality of treatment and an equality of opportunity. And all along there’s a discussion of the risk of allowing powerful institutions to keep individuals “in their place” and limit the opportunities for personal growth and development.
This is NOT a Big Government philosophy. Liberals are if anything enormously critical of the government. Many outright feared it. And is that any surprise? The liberals of most recent ages saw brutal government attempts to put down popular movements. They saw governments allowing and informally condoning organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and hardly prosecuting criminals from these organizations. They saw the government allowing individuals to be intimidated out of their right to vote and restricted in where they could eat, go to school, or even going to the bathroom. The deck was stacked against individuals, in particularly the people of the least power and the primary institutions used to enforce that inequity were by and large run by the Government.
So liberals fought these institutions. They fought to change them. Hence the plethora of movements that began in the 60′s and continue to this day. Movements to fight for freedoms. Civil Rights movements. Gay rights movments. Women’s rights movements, International Solidarity Movements, and Anti-war movments. All of them are devoted to competing against institutions of power and pushing them to change in a way that would serve in the interests of regular people.
Yes somehow this radically anti-Government philosophical trend has been perverted in recent years. The term “liberal” has vastly lost its roots and its meaning. Liberal suddenly is now virtually defined as anyone who opposes the ideas of the common mouth pieces of power such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They are seen as people who want “the Government to run your life”, to tell you what to do, etc.?
Yet NO liberal wants the Government to run your life. No liberal wants ANYONE to run your life. Liberals want YOU to run your life. They want you to do so by influencing your government to change in ways that directly benefit you. And hence the society becomes a society that benefits us all. That’s what real Democracy is fundamentally about. That’s what unions exist for. And that’s what popular movements and civil disobedience is about. That’s liberalism.
So the next time you hear someone talk about some “big government liberal” I hope you take the time to re-examine the history of liberalism and realize taht this person is trying to pull a fast one on you. And then ask yourself why?
Just maybe this person has an alterior motive that doesn’t really have your best interests at heart.
Comments (6)
i find that anybody who uses the term ‘liberal’ as an insult is a massive idiot whose opinions don’t warrant consideration in the first place anyway. but that aside, this post is a top riposte.
Ah yes, I’ve had this kind of discussion before.
PERSON: “Isn’t that what liberals are about? Big government?”
ME: “Some of them, yeah. But there are also grassroots liberals, who are more into the people.” (explanation follows)
PERSON: (ignores me)
There’s just a certain lack of knowledge out there as to what constitutes liberalism. It seems to me that some liberals *do* kind of want a gigantic government that controls everything… but others want to remove the government entirely, instituting an uncompromising rule of the people. I believe both of those would go too far. However, many conservatives and independants have no idea what liberals as a whole actually think.
actually, republicans have always been the ones supportive of a weak federal government and of power being distributed among local governments. liberals are generally more supportive of taxation of business and social programs funded by government money- which increases government control.
but I kind of agree with you because liberals are more supportive of social freedom [like gay rights]… however, conservatives are more supportive of economic freedom [capitalism] and probably freedom of speech too since liberals are usually the ones who try to dictate what is politically correct…
my big dish with many republicans is that some of them do not fully recognize/comprehend the concept of separation of church and state.
but those in power, no matter the political party, always want to increase their power. that is why each president has passed measures to increase their own power that are not talked about at large in the media. especially during war time.
sorry for the huge comment. this is a round-a-bout way of saying that I don’t like either side of the political spectrum. thanks for giving me something to think about.
<3
@Alyxandri - the description you give of liberalism and conservatism and the Republican party is precisely how it is painted in the main stream media today but it’s a distortion. The terms have vastly lost their meaning allowing people basically to lable people whatever they feel like and attribute to them whatever absurd beliefs they feel like. To effect, these days “liberals” are often just anyone who disagree with “conservatives” and vice versa. and liberal and conservative are also considered virtually synonymous with Democrat and Republican which likewise makes no sense. It should, in a rational world be possible to be conservative and a Democrat just as it should be possible to be liberal and a Republican but proclaiming to be either today would get you very odd looks at the very least. More likely you’d be cut out of the debate entirely since you don’t fit into an easily understood mode.
In actuality conservatism probably has been more bastardized than the term liberalism. Conservatism originally had *nothing* to do with business, big or small. Nor did it have anything to do States rigths and god knows it certainly had no evangelical leanings. Rather conservatism was the school of thought that said that in the process of reforming society to provide individual freedoms and rights, caution must be taken to protect some of the traditions of the past. In effect they believed that reform needed to proceed slowly because they feared the chaos that would result from rapid reform. So whereas many conservative thinkers might have believed slavery was wrong, they generally were opposed to outright freeing the slaves but would have wanted a more gradual transition. They saw that as being more humane. Likewise conservatives were against the French revolution because it was too chaotic in their minds.
The tension between liberals and conservatives of course comes from the suspicion that conservatives generally stand opposed to social progress because that progress weakens their power and control. In contrast of course the conservatives argue that the liberals are unthinkingly demanding change without a proper consideration of the consequences of their actions.
I have a LOT of respect for conservatism actually. Classical conservatives like Hume and Madison were at least intelligent articulate thinkers who I believe did have the good of society ultimately in mind. I also think they were wrong. I think they were a product of their times and their inability to trust individuals to determine their own destiny.
But when you think abotu it that way, the original philosophies, which in actuality is more pro-Government? It should be clear, I think. It’s the conservatives. They’re the party of the status quo, protecting government from the anarchy of social change and upheaval. It’s the liberals that are anti-government. Strictly by the terms.
Now it all gets more complicated when we start talking about social liberalism vs economic liberalism, etc. etc. But I think the core principles have remained the same and people who are really conservative have not much changed in their ideology. The problem is you don’t see a lot of those people around. Rather the Republican party has been coopted by a clear business oriented class. They are not pro-status quo, rather they advocate strongly for policies that enhance and empower businesses. And in order to do that they advocate changes that directly enhance the power of the State. In other words, Big Government. In particular, big military government, big police state government, and big interventionalist government policies abroad and big protectionist measures to defend businesses against the masses. And this really happened, during Reagan and both Bushes. They spoke of small government and Free Trade ideals but what actually really happened is quite the opposite.
Actually if you equate “Liberalism” with the Democratic party it only fairs ever so slightly better. Democrats have become the party of Big Business, large government subsidized corporations, largely touting them as a vehicle to provide social welfare to the individuals. They do advocate some direct government subsidies to individuals and lower classes and the poor but it’s almost a foot note in the policies of the Democratic party members that have been in power. And that’s there largely because the Democratic party derives a good chunk of its power from popular support and so has to to some extent bend to the popular will. So they implement little miniscule minimum wages, and have some absurd pseudo health care proposals that actually benefit insurance industries more than consummers. But the Republicans don’t even bother to even do token gestures in support of hte populace. Instead their path to power has lain for a long time now in simple rabble rousing and fear mongering and appealing to the worst aspects of human nature as well as just trying to confuse people and deceive them directly. And what surprise is that? Who would vote for a party that proclaims your interests are directly secondary to that of all businesses unless they were driven to it through irrationality and confusion?
Free speech is an interesting concept indeed. The biggest barriers to free speech are certainly not the much touted “political correctness” line. Rather it’s again, no surprise, the corporate nature of the ordering of our society. Corporations have NO requirement for free speech. The first amendment and much of our legal framework surrrounding it applies to government. If you work for a corporation you are bound by what you say in accordance to the will of that company or else you risk your livelihood or WORSE since many companies have the power to limit your capacity to get work elsewhere and or can destroy you in other ways. So take Imus for example. It wasn’t the government that made him lose his job. Nor was it the liberal outcry which was perfectly understandable people exercising their discontent with what he said, using their freedom of speech. No, he lost his job because the company he worked for chose to fire him! And that was a solely authoritarian decision based entirely on a profit motive and not based on any moral principles whatsoever. That’s how freedom of speech gets stifled.
So try to say something really anti-corporation today? Where will you say it? If you write it in a book, the company need not publish it. Write it on a blog and the company that owns the blogs could shut your blog down without hesitation or remorse. They face a risk when they do that, namely popular liberal opposition. But they have that power right now cuz the society is ordered in such a way to give them that power. And republicans regularly argue that that is the BEST way to order society. And they call it Free Markets and non-interference and small government and all that jazz. Namely they are saying we should all shutup and let the companies do what they want. Some liberals, namely those like ME say that’s fucking absurd.
Yeah I agree with you entirely about each party working to increase their own power. That’s a systemic problem of a two party system on one level and a human nature problem on another. But what’s ridiculous of course is that WE the people aren’t fighting to increase OUR own power at the same time. That’s what liberalism really IS about. It’s saying we should. Classical liberalism is anyway. Classical conservatism says yeah that’s fine but don’t go overboard with it and fuck up the society. Fine and dandy by me so long as you recognize that it needs to be done. People have a RIGHT to fight for their own interests. Why should only Presidents try to increase their power?
And welfare programs that “put more control on the State” actually also put more power in INDIVIDUAL hands. They really do. When poor people can actually EAT and not get locked up they have more power to determine their own destiny. And they can fight power more directly. The State controls the programs, true, and they can abuse them too. But that’s all the more reason for individuals to force the State to use them correctly and fairly and justly. That’s no argument for getting rid of them entirely which would impoverish and weaken the individual.
Yeah and as for separation of Church and State I think I’ll leave that for another day as I haven’t given it much thought lately. But I basically agree with you. I don’t get how Republicans have become associated with a Church run/integrated government and I find that very idea radically terrifying.
Anyways, never apologize for a long comment! I quite like getting them and hope you continue to do so
I hope my insanely long reply didn’t bore you too much. lol. And yeah I don’t like either side of the political spectrum much either.
@ModernBunny - yeah it’s funny. the idea that liberals are big government is drilled into people and repeated over and over and over and over again until people actually believe it. If the only time you’ve ever HEARD the word liberal in your life is in conjunction with the idea of big government, why would you believe otherwise? You wouldn’t of course. Unless you came to believe your sources of information were untrustworthy and serve primarily their own interests. Which of course they are and they do, but you have to come to realize that on your own.
Conservative and moderate media of course paints liberalism all in one brush and it’s of course an image that is most beneficial to them and drives many people toward the republican party. Heck they even coopt a lot of the very same liberal language that is at the heart of liberalism from ancient times and twist it all around to be in support of business laws that suck away the rights of individuals. It’s almost beautiful in how elegant a manipulation of language has taken place if it won’t so terrifying and disgusting.
Liberal thought of course runs a huge gamut. But anyone who thinks the government should be controlling peoples lives is NOT a liberal by any definition I can understand. That’s a Statist and totalitarian or maybe even a Fascist.
@nephyo - I didn’t read all of it. lol. sorry, just being honest.
I would just like to point out that political parties evolve over time. just because a party had a traditional role in history does not mean that it hasn’t changed it’s platforms.
that’s all.
<3