Classic Liberalism: A Chance for Political Parties to Unite

In the old days, say 1850 and before, the country operated fairly heavily in the realm of “Classic Liberalism.” Classic liberalism is defined roughly this way:

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

John Stuart Mill (‘Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’) and John Locke (all true power of governance derives from the people) laid out the fundamental ideals of Classic Liberalism. Adam Smith is another famous proponents of Classic Liberalism, sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism. But somehow the country drifted away from these core tenets. Some of that drift has been justified correction. Some has been radical ideology worming it’s way into the basic configuration of constitutional intent. Some have radicalized the intent of Classical Liberalism turning it into full-fledged Libertarianism. At it’s best, Classic Liberalism provides core values that both parties can agree on, even if they arere split over the finer points of its implementation.

The Republican Party has become the bastion of theocrats hoping to Christianize the country, and self-serving arses who say any dollar earned is a good dollar despite environmental harm, harm to the greater good, or harm to individuals. It seems to have become the party to protect senior citizens from those greedy young people. At its best, it supports fiscal conservatism, a staunch adherence to the right to individual liberty, and — surprise! — land and environmental conservation.

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by misguided political correctness leading to a “we solve all your problems” brand of immature and fiscally reckless governance. It’s become the party that protects illegal aliens from paying for anything. At its best, it supports a moderate safety net, corrects for legal social injustice (like Jim Crow laws), and protects the environment. Democrats have supported individuals over corporations in the form of unions and labor laws.

Both parties could use a return to some of those core ideals in Classic Liberalism:

  1. Fiscal Conservatism: NO ONE should spend more than they have, not government, not individuals. How did we become a country that embraces debt as a money-making tool? It’s just wrong. Many Classical Liberals supported the Gold Standard. The gold standard limits the power of governments to inflate prices through excessive issuance of paper currency. If not the gold standard, then at least adherence to hard currency and limits to or complete elimination of fractional reserve banking.
  2. Separation of Church and State: All people should enjoy the right to worship in the most personal and meaningful way. And this should have NOTHING AT ALL to do with government. See Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason.
  3. Legislative Restraint: No law should be passed, no individual liberty abridged, without a fundamental justification of its necessity. In other words, seatbelt laws save lives and money, yet constrain individual liberty. Our bar has been lowered way too far allowing laws to abridge individual freedoms in exchange for a nanny state. Once these laws are passed, like taxes, they never come back. Laws should be passed in the protection of freedom and to provide a reasonable framework for constitutional rights to be expressed in contemporary times (e.g. bans on automatic weapons and profit raiding or other modern excesses the founders could not have foreseen).
  4. Smaller Government: This one’s tricky for all of us these days. All government programs should be lean and efficient, including the military and the safety net of social programs. The military is bloated. Medicare is bloated. Prisons are bloated with non-violent offenders. State and county budgets are trying to cover more and more. As a result, taxes are going only one way: UP! The role of government at every level must be delineated.
  5. Individual Responsibility: Inherent in the ideas of John Locke in the concept that the individual is the government. Individuals must step up to the civic plate by voting and participating as officeholders. No more “They did it!! They made our taxes go up.” They are we. We must ensure that laws are reasonable, pay taxes for all the benefits we enjoy, and propose tangible solutions when we see problems. A passive citizenry leads to no good. Keep the participation constructive and push for solutions. Work hard to earn stuff. No one owes you anything.

Two immediate issues call for Americans to unite to find suitable solutions: the Banking Crisis, and Climate Change.

Regarding the banking crisis, Classical Liberal economists (Smith, and to some extent Friedman) argued against regulation since they believed that enlightened self-interest would preserve the system and constrain the greed-factor. It hasn’t. There’s been an egregious lack of the “enlightened” portion of that behavior. Classical Liberalism sought to balance the right to entrepreneurial pursuit and the right to protection of the individual over more powerful entities. Post economic meltdown and bail out, the more powerful entities seem to have gained the upper hand.

Where Climate Change is concerned, we are currently in the throws of a philosophical dilemma best summed up in the analogy called the Tragedy of the Commons.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968. The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest will ultimately destroy a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest for this to happen.

The phrase usually does not refer to the article but to the dilemma itself, typically in talking about a circumstance to which it is thought to apply. Perhaps most who use it are not aware of, nor have read, Hardin’s essay but are looking at conceptually parallel situations.

Central to Hardin’s article is an example, a hypothetical and simplified situation from medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons), on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin’s example, it is in each herder’s interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the carrying capacity of the commons is exceeded and it is damaged for all as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the commons will be destroyed to the detriment of all.

The Constitution intended to protect the common good. It seems that any party for the future needs to heed the lesson of the Tragedy of the Commons and provide a solution that accommodates a reasonably regulated and protected model for shared resources. The Constitution does not cover this explicitly. So far, the Democrats seem to have stepped up to this plate somewhat while the Republicans bury their heads and deny the threat of unrestrained population growth, environmental degradation, and resource depletion (see peak oil).

Neither party has come anywhere near solving our Bankers Gone Wild problem.

But the main point of this post is this: We can agree on most of what made, and still makes, this country great. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Daily Kos all spout hatred and sowing chaos where we should be looking for common ground. We have some big issues to attend to as a country. The sooner we join forces to get back to our core values the sooner we’ll find reasonable solutions.

  • Share/Bookmark
October 7, 2009 | Filed Under Perfect World | Leave a Comment