Liberalism: On A Collision Course With Liberty
Edward J. Dodson
[1992]
Within the United States the ideological frame of reference used
by politicians and citizens alike to label an individual or a
proposal is based on the terms liberal and conservative. Given the
long tradition attached to these socio-political labels, we apply
them without much conscious thought. Yet, many of us who might
willingly describe ourselves with one of these two labels are
ourselves unsure of what we have in common with others who do
likewise.
In a very general way, being liberal is thought to suggest
approval of government intervention to promote an equality of
treatment for all individuals under the Constitution. A liberal is
also thought to advance the cause of equality of opportunity (or, to
a greater or lesser degree, equality of result) where the
distribution of personal wealth and income are concerned. A
conservative, on the other hand, is thought to favor a far more
narrow interpretation of the Federal government's responsibilities
in the protection of civil liberties or pursuit of equality
objectives, assigning these issues to the prerogative of the States.
In point of fact, these seemingly clear distinctions tell us very
little.
Except for those individuals whose writing, statements or actions
puts them clearly outside the mainstream, there is considerable
cross-over by so-called liberals and conservatives on many policy
issues. Often, an individual's ideological rhetoric conflicts
markedly with the type of policy initiatives pursued when holding
political office or serving in some advisory capacity. One reason
for such inconsistencies is that our socio-political arrangements
and institutions serve to mitigate and limit the range of policies
around which a consensus can be built. There is a remarkably
homogeneous value system holding Americans together, despite the
nation's tremendous diversity in ethnic, religious, and racial
makeup.
The everyday challenges of settling a continent, building an
industrial base and absorbing an endless stream of immigrants from
all over the globe did create a nation very different in
circumstance from what the framers of the Constitution ever foresaw.
Despite a strong bias in favor of the propertied and a concentration
of local and national power in the hands of a select number of
families, those born in America or who came here during the
nineteenth century adhered to the romantic notion that the playing
field in America was, if not perfectly level, more level than
anywhere else. Not until the late nineteenth century did American
institutions come under direct attack by reformers and agitators
championing causes similar to those the Old World hierarchy wrestled
with much earlier. The reform movement was initiated in the United
States by a strange coalition of labor organizers, social
scientists, professional managers and educators under the
Progressive banner. In the twentieth century an enlarged coaltion
that included enlightened industrialists and public officials,
forged what has been called Liberalism.
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the accepted role of
government was to facilitate private interests. This was the age of
unbridled individualism; and, in its later stage, of
monopoly-capitalism. In the last two decades of that century, a
growing number of thoughtful individuals began to take stock of the
systems' shortcomings and consequences; they united against the
excesses that had despoiled the public domain and created a large
and growing underclass of propertyless farm and industrial workers.
By the early twentieth century, their efforts were rewarded in
subtle but important changes in public opinion and in the use of
government to regulate private interests. When those who had
operated virtually uncontrolled for so long finally understood what
was at stake, they inched toward compromises that softened some of
the outward conditions of poverty and oppression their enterprises
had contributed to, but used their wealth and power to make sure
change would be incremental and largely to their benefit.
Americans were unwilling to consider nationalization of land or
industry as proposed by European Socialists or Russian Marxists. The
spirit, if not the reality, of individual liberty remained one of
the nation's strengths. There was, however, great concern among
leading citizens over the appearance in the United States of Old
World problems. Progressives clamored for reforms in child labor
laws, for government support of education, for the construction of
hospitals, for clean drinking water and sanitation systems, and for
a whole range of programs thought unnecessary or intrusive by
earlier generations.
Widespread unemployment in the 1930s opened the door to even more
direct government intervention in the private affairs of individuals
and businesses. Beginning with this period, both the Republican and
Democratic parties advanced increasingly interventionist progams
designed to reduce the social and political tensions between
economic classes. The Second World War, the post-war anti-communist
crusade, the civil rights movement, the rise of feminism and
environmentalism, all contributed to the great enlargement of
government enterprise and to the politics of Liberalism that has
dominated the last half century.
Liberalism functions on the basis of compromise and a blend of
policy choices in six key areas. These are detailed on the attached
chart to demonstrate that liberalism, itself, is not a
socio-political philosophy, but crosses the boundaries between
cooperative individualism and state socialism. Under liberalism,
full equality of opportunity cannot be realized. The securing of
liberty is, in fact, prevented under liberalism by the degree to
which privilege (i.e., sanctioned inequality) dominates
socio-political arrangements.
Socio-Political Systems
The chart identifies and describes the five important theoretical
forms of socio-political systems. As shown, liberalism operates to a
greater or lesser degree under policies associated with either
cooperative individualism or state socialism. The greater the policy
emphasis on security (i.e., order), on redistribution, on policy
driven economic activity, on the use of manmade law to control
individual behavior, on centralized authority and on representative
(i.e., delegated) democracy, the stronger will be the pull toward a
system of state socialism. Conversely, policies adopted in the
direction of maximizing individual liberty, natural distribution,
market (i.e., noncoercive, win-win) economic relationships, ethical
constraints on behavior, decentralized authority and maximum citizen
participation in government, will pull a society toward cooperative
individualism.
Movement too far to the left in these policy areas supplants
liberalism with harsher forms of state socialism and, potentially,
totalitarianism. Policies implemented beyond the bounds of
cooperative individualism pull societies into what are historically
uncharted waters; there, human nature collides with the degree of
cooperation and selflessness demanded under communitarianism or
anarchy.
An important point to take notice of is that socio-political
arrangements allowing natural law to freely operate may create
equality of condition but cannot generate equality of opportunity.
Only cooperative individualism (by prohibiting sanctioned
inequalities to occur) establishes the conditions necessary for
equality of opportunity to flourish. This is accomplished by
protecting individual liberty against the criminal and economic
licenses alluded to by John Locke generally, and with greater
specificity by Tom Paine.
Another important characteristic of cooperative individualism is
that the natural distribution of wealth to its producers be
protected by the positive laws adopted. Such laws as they relate to
property will clearly distinguish between production and values
attributable to privilege held in the form of titleholdings to
nature and licenses restricting open commerce and trade.
Labor, applied to land (i.e., nature) produces wealth. This
describes the distributive process for legitimate individual
property. Wealth belongs to its producer. Titleholdings and licenses
are privileges, the exchange value of which is created by the
nation's willingness to uphold these claims to privilege. Therefore,
this form of value (if permitted to accrue to the titleholder or
licensee) is by definition unnatural property. To the extent that
government fails to collect these values for the benefit of the
entire nation, the nation suffers from a redistribution of wealth --
from producers to those who simply claim what is produced on the
basis of privilege.
The securing of liberty and its protection requires the
establishment of government. However, a strong argument can be made
against the formation of large nation-states based on their
historical tendency to protect monopoly privileges with highly
coercive and oppressive police powers. Cooperative individualism
works on behalf of liberty by maximizing citizen participation in
government and by preventing monopolies in both property and
political power. As a result, much of the societal conflict
associated with other socio-political systems is mitigated by the
high level of cooperation generated when individual initiative is
rewarded in direct proportion to the effort expended.
History and our common sense direct us to cooperative
individualism as the only means to secure for ourselves and future
generations the benefits of a fundamentally just society.