Reading a book about political philosophy written in 1944 certainly turns one's labeling process on its ear. Today, Socialism is a very liberal concept, but it used to be exactly what liberals despised. I feel completely confused, wondering if I've just lost touch with the heart of the argument for liberalism. I wonder if others who consider themselves to be liberal are able to make the distinction, if I am just aimlessly guessing at why people justify things. I've always considered myself a liberal, but I've certainly changed how I feel about the limits of state control. Let me put it this way: before I realized that corporations held as much power as they do, I was a total fan of the free market. I embraced the freedom of expression and of commerce. Now, I want someone to protect me from the big companies who can control the markets. Liberalism, if handled correctly, contains the answers to what ails me, but it hasn't been handled well at all, so now I am stuck calling myself a liberal while also seeking comfort in the state's power.
This is a crisis of philosophy, so I'm hoping that writing it out will provide some catharsis.
Let's go back to the roots. Liberalism (or, the doctrine that should be subscribed to by anyone who correctly calls themselves a liberal) pretty much dictates a hands-off approach on all matters from the government. Including public utilities, the rule of law, and national security, the government policies serve the individual. The United States was founded under very liberal ideals. The term, "small government," may be associated with conservatives these days, but it is at the core of what liberalism stands for. (The problem is that conservatives are proponents of protectionist policies at the same time they want small government.) When I hear people complaining that the damn liberals are trying to take away their rights, I see a little awkwardness. A true liberal would typically support second amendment rights while opposing national healthcare. Granted, they would also oppose war while fighting for the separation of church and state. So, what I see in today's modern political landscape of the USA is no true liberal party (outside of the Libertarians, who are represented by fucking wackjobs) that really represents liberalism.
Now, the real crux of what liberalism stands for is the lack of societal planning. The reason for this is simple; if one man gets his way, there are a hundred other men who get the raw deal. We are driven to plan because we see an ideal society or a problem that needs fixing, but every man's utopia is grounded in the limits one must impose to obtain it. This is why liberalism is simultaneously difficult to maintain and easy to misunderstand; a liberal society will always be suboptimal to an idealist of a particular slant and, eventually, someone is going to want to patch up the holes. One should know that there is never a "common good." The very fact that you may disagree with me or with anyone should spell this out quite clearly. The problem is that right now people WANT a plan; when you're down and out, you want a path through the darkness. This makes us vulnerable to totalitarian ideas.
"Ah," says my co-worker who is twice my age, "now you're starting to see." Yes, yes, I see. What we have here in the States are two parties twisted to the same degree, differing only in the means they use to reach their ends. Both have a plan and they are trying to impose it on the population. In this sense, a party supermajority is actually a bad thing, regardless of it is your party that has it.
Protectionist policies are a form of societal planning. To impose any such policy is to say, "We have achieved this much, now we must ensure that we do not lose it." How noble, yet how damaging. Any teenager will tell you to keep your hands off of their personal development, as you should any societal system. Any person who has lived a full, interesting life will tell you that the great victories would not have happened without the losses that paved their way. The liberal way goes much the same; allowing the natural forces of free economy to dip and rise, accepting the loss of a standard for the emergence of a new custom, progression. I see that protectionist policies have shaped the corporatist world we live in from the beginning of the last century, and now liberalism is a dream... a crazy dream to even the sane.
Well, I've never denied being a bit nutty.
0 nibbles:
Post a Comment