Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc,

This is an interesting question in several ways. But it seems to require a preliminary discussion on the question "What is liberalism?" There are many varieties and versions, and that is an important part of the problem you address here. Certainly, I think that some historical discussion could also be helpful. Here are some initial distinctions:

1) The "liberalism" of contemporary European "liberal" parties:

This itself often divides into varieties or "wings." But in any case, there is the British liberal party--recently in a coalition government with the Tories. Then there is the German liberal party, the FDP, which has suffered at the pols by its long association with the German conservatives --and the antagonism of the CSU.  I believe that there are other European parties, and perhaps you could say something about them --especially as they relate to domestic conservative parties. 

2) Although the U.S. has no liberal party, so-called, the Democratic party, founded by Jefferson and Jackson no less, is traditionally (say since FDR)  the party of liberalism. But this is a somewhat leftward liberalism, somewhat akin to European social democrats, and standardly distinguished from "classical liberalism" --more akin to the European usage and often identified with the thought of J.S. Mill.

Jefferson himself is plausibly a pre-liberal figure, more like a "classical republican," and in his time and afterward, the party was in fact called the Republican party--something like more republicanized Whigs.

3) Also worth considering is the nature of contemporary "neo-liberalism" which seems to have been more successful in recent decades, than any party calling itself "liberal." Of late, it seems to be in some decline. 

4) Just to stir the pot a bit, its worth noting that F.A. Hayek, often lionize by conservatives, considered Edmund Burke one among the greatest liberals. Still, he rejected both the labels "liberal" and "conservative," and decided that he was himself properly an "Old Whig."

5) Of late, there has been scholarly discussion of "liberal imperialism." Once the British Whigs fell and were replaced by the Liberal party, the British empire expanded again. The Whigs seem to have had a better critique of empire. 

In general terms, political parties will often change their programs without bothering to change their names. This creates considerable confusion. Again, as a general point, given the varieties of "conservatives" in the Western world (it was often said that the German conservative politician, Helmut Kohl stood well to the left of American liberals), "liberal" works somewhat in the fashion of a domestic contrast, as does "social democrat."  So, figuring out the genuine varieties of "liberalism" --even in the Western world, seems to require some catalog of the varieties of conservatives --which may well lead off into a kind of catalog of  national political anthropology!

So what sort of "liberalism" do you want to discuss? One alternative here is to discuss issues, one by one! That may be a clearer objective.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G.,

thanks for your interest in the question.

I am a political philosopher and historian of political thought, but not a political scientist. SO I am not som uch at home at contemporary political parties, but if I understand it correctly, neither in the UK, nor in Germany, and I gues the same is true about France or Italy or Spain, is there aprtyi n poer which would identify itself as liberal. If that is true, I find that enough to ask the question I did.

I totally agree with you that AMerican liberal party politics is quite far away from the COntinental one. And yet liberal intellectuals are quite similar in these cultures, I would say.

Is that clarifying the issue, or you need further explanations?

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

Canadian recently elected a liberal government. This government is currently popular and will probably remain so for at least the next 4 years.  The key to this success is that they removed the strong spending disciplines imposed by our previous conservative government and their constant reduction of the social support measures for the less wealthy.  Now this government is reinjecting money in the economy but it can do so because of the relatively small debt relative to the GDP that Canada has which will allows this government to do deficits after deficit until the next election.

 But at some point the financial crunch will have to be faced.  The real problem, that this government can neglect for a few years, are that government revenues have been reduced by allowing rich individuals and large corporations to legally evade taxes by electronically transiting their wealth and revenues in some offshore juridictions.  Most countries have also allowed the same sort of legal taxes evasion.  So government revenues mostly depend on the taxes of the middle class whose wages are decreasing because of the globalisation of the economy.  It is a slow process and one that is continually pushing the wages of the middle classes of the richer countries towards the wages of the educated middle classes of the poorest countries which have much lower cost of living.  

Unless a political solution to this declining revenu problem is addressed then liberal governments will have to apply austerity policies and thus have to sacrificed their liberal ideas. 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc,

Thanks for your reply. It seems you are interested in the prospects of European liberal parties, in the European sense --corresponding, more or less to the American usage of "classical liberal." Regarding that, I suspect that the European conservatives do better, because they can adopt "liberal" policies, on occasion to appeal to voters, but are better established socially and institutionally. If people want to do battle for control of institutions, then the conservatives almost always win --thus, to translate into a more traditional idiom, "the (left-wing) absolute sleeps forever."

I think we see from Brassard's note, just above, that his Canadian "liberals" are more like liberals in the American sense --post FDR. I think he gives an interesting short account of their objectives. I suspect, though, that borrowing to address the problems mentioned regarding incomes is a short-term solution. What is really needed is structural reform of international commerce and banking to favor greater domestic manufacturing --winding down or delaying "globalization" in some degree. If you could see the poverty in the poorer neighborhoods here, in our fine town, then you might get some sense of the kinds of problems generated by constantly exporting manufacturing.

"Classical liberals," I think, tend to be naive about structural reform of markets and treat the actual conditions as though independent of all political influence or possibility of reform. American liberals, on the other hand, have often made the state itself over into an instrument for supporting their constituencies.  For that reason, they are politically shy about structural reforms. --Or, so it seems to me.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Ferenc,

Callaway is obviously right in asserting the huge differences existing among various kind of liberalism.

Anyhow if we take it from the classical political philosophy standpoint I think that the inherent problem of today liberalism is always its tendential denial of the political:

I mean the back wave of an ideal world ruled just by the law, in terms of individual rights, and/or by fair slightly regulated markets.

In such a liberal world there is no room for the abyss of the political decision, but this abyssal dimension is still around us.

In this sense, the main problem of political liberalism, according to me, remains the "denial", in technical psychoanalytical terms, of its own political side.

Dear Ferenc,

Callaway is obviously right in asserting the huge differences existing among various kind of liberalism.

Anyhow if we take it from the classical political philosophy standpoint I think that the inherent problem of today liberalism is always its tendential denial of the political:

I mean the back wave of an ideal world ruled just by the law, in terms of individual rights, and/or by fair slightly regulated markets.

In such a liberal world there is no room for the abyss of the political decision, but this abyssal dimension is still around us.

In this sense, the main problem of political liberalism, according to me, remains the "denial", in technical psychoanalytical terms, of its own political side.

Nothing is wrong with liberalism. It won all its battles in Britain and the US, and continues to inform the work of economists and politicians in both countries. Because it is so dominant, it remains the target of bile of lefists under a name meant to be an insult, "neo-liberalism." It is the standard against which others struggle.

If it were not relevant, nobody would bother to attack it. 

I'm puzzled, again, by your question. It begins with an assumption - a strong statement even - that liberalism has a "problem." W

Where is evidence of that? What makes you think so? Are you coming from a socialist critique? If so, I think it needs to be made more explicit. What are the problems you see with or in liberalism?

(socialism is relevant too - increasingly so, it seems, judging from US primaries)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Weaver & readers,

Good to see that we have a defender of "neo-liberalism" on board here. The chief difference of this from the tradition of European liberal parties is that the liberal parties placed more emphasis on civil liberty and, generally, more libertarian themes. Consider, for instance, J.S. Mill's On Liberty. My impression is that "neo-liberalism" is not intended to be an insult to anyone, but has been the economic liberalism of globalization --which is in fact dominated by the constituents of the non-liberal parties in Europe--including Great Britain. In GB, it came in under the "New Labour" party --to the consternation of its more leftward wing. Europe's conservative parties have played a large part in promoting it.

Generally, globalization has been a matter of trading favors among national economic elites. If you are going to put large amounts of money into foreign countries, then you want to have the good will of the local elites in order to sure of being able to get in back again. That is part of the explanation of the growing inequalities around the world. Notice the current "populist" revolt --both on the right and the left--in the U.S. primary elections. The stagnation of wages among ordinary people has created very considerable economic distress. 

Notice, again, the growth and prospering of the "snooper-state," the continuing obsession with internal security, and the decline in traditional legal protection of privacy --and the rise of "preventive detention." These are not the kinds of policies one associates with traditional European (or American) liberalism. "Neo- liberalism" is a very different practice.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Monateri,

Many thanks for your comment here. In general terms, I certainly agree with your analysis.

you wrote:

In this sense, the main problem of political liberalism, according to me, remains the "denial", in technical psychoanalytical terms, of its own political side.

---end quotation

I don't know if I'd go in for psychoanalysis here, but in any case, there is a very strong tendency to want to ignore the political decisions which do, or may, enter into the structuring of markets. I suppose many just want to get on with business and there is a disinclination to take explicit responsibility for needed changes or modifications of the legal framework--which in fact make the market possible. It may be, on the other hand, that the influence of big business, with any considerable investment in globalization has gone into non-public channels --confidential, "constituency" relations and negotiations. 

H.G. Callaway

The problem with contemporary liberalism is that liberalism per se is an irrational ideology. Incapable of proving its conclusions by reason, liberalism has turned against reason itself and degenerated into sophistry.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Weaver & readers,

Good to see that we have a defender of "neo-liberalism" on board here. The chief difference of this from the tradition of European liberal parties is that the liberal parties placed more emphasis on civil liberty and, generally, more libertarian themes. Consider, for instance, J.S. Mill's On Liberty. My impression is that "neo-liberalism" is not intended to be an insult to anyone, but has been the economic liberalism of globalization --which is in fact dominated by the constituents of the non-liberal parties in Europe--including Great Britain. In GB, it came in under the "New Labour" party --to the consternation of its more leftward wing. Europe's conservative parties have played a large part in promoting it.

Generally, globalization has been a matter of trading favors among national economic elites. If you are going to put large amounts of money into foreign countries, then you want to have the good will of the local elites in order to sure of being able to get in back again. That is part of the explanation of the growing inequalities around the world. Notice the current "populist" revolt --both on the right and the left--in the U.S. primary elections. The stagnation of wages among ordinary people has created very considerable economic distress. 

Notice, again, the growth and prospering of the "snooper-state," the continuing obsession with internal security, and the decline in traditional legal protection of privacy --and the rise of "preventive detention." These are not the kinds of policies one associates with traditional European (or American) liberalism. "Neo- liberalism" is a very different practice.

H.G. Callaway

In the US, I think liberalism--in the sense of civil rights and also in the sense of support for smaller businesses and farmers-- has been deeply compromised by a version of militarism.  The constant fighting has injured the US at home.  Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell address saw it coming:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Dear Susan, add to this the Trump phenomenon. How would Fareed characterise that one?

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Eric, if you have a claim as strong as you one, you need to provide more proofs, otherwise it seems to be shaky. 

Lioberalism is acclaimed to be the ideology of rationality - so the burden of proof is on your shoulder to show that this is not the case.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Eric, indeed I had in mind something Eric points to. It is not enough for an ideology to win econoimists or political scientists. The real issue is win elections, I guess.

But I can certainly accept if you think there is no problem here for liberalism. If you do not find any, for example, in the country where we live (namely, Hungary), I cannot do much about that.

Best,

Ferenc

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc & readers,

Many thanks to Susan Laird for pointing up the relevancy here of Fareed Zakaria, "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," Foreign Affairs, Vol 76, no.6, (from 1997)

It is available on line for those who may want to read through the complete article:

http://www.closer2oxford.ro/uploads/2012/06/12/The_Rise_of_Illiberal_Democracy.gf1ruw.pdf

This piece is a bit dated now, including discussion of many topical issues from the 1990's but is basically an eloquent plea for "constitutional liberalism." Part of the argument is that this arose and has existed independently of popular democracy.   

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Durfee,

I have had occasion myself to post the on-line video of President Eisenhower's warning, and I certainly think it should be taken more seriously by our contemporary politicians and political thinkers.

You wrote:

In the US, I think liberalism--in the sense of civil rights and also in the sense of support for smaller businesses and farmers-- has been deeply compromised by a version of militarism. The constant fighting has injured the US at home. Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell address saw it coming:

---end quotation

I think of the related matters in terms of the damage done to the country by the long ordeal of the Cold War. For comparison, after the Civil War, when the U.S. had over a million men under arms, the figure was very quickly reduced, and within a couple of years it was down to 30,000--where it remained for the next 30 years! That is how seriously the post-Civil War politicians took the danger of "standing armies in  time of peace." Though the President is to be credited with winding down 2 recent wars, it often seems unclear these days whether we are at war on in a period of peace. The two seem to blend into each other.  No doubt, we have various important commitments around the world, and I see little appeal of isolationism; but I still think that much more should have been done to reconstruct the country for civilian purposes after the end of the Cold War.

At the same time, this seems part of a larger problem. I believe there is a tendency to treat all sorts of large-scale institutions as supporting constituencies or possible constituencies of the major political parties. They seem, at times, to compete in supporting and drawing support from them. The "military-industrial complex" is only one paradigm of this phenomenon. Especially in comparison, ordinary citizens are much less appreciated in their role as political supporters capable of judging candidates.

In consequence, we seem to have something of a crisis of representation. Just what interests and points of view are being represented in Congress or in the state legislatures? There seems to be evidence of this kind of effect in the "populist revolt" of the primary elections--coming from both right and left. The political agents of the politicians seem to be especially focused on support from large-scale institutions, public and private, and people within those institutions have a kind of political immunity not enjoyed by the ordinary citizens. This is a way of looking at the "structural" conditions of our growing inequalities. As one might expect, growing economic inequalities are accompanied by growing differences in political influence.

From that perspective, renewed emphasis on "constitutional liberalism" seems a welcome theme. Basically, this is a matter of "equality before the law" --in some contrast with the politicians' tendency toward favoritism toward their important supporting constituencies. 

H.G. Callaway

Dione did a study and concluded the US is an oligarchy.  There is a vanishingly small chance that the will of the people will have an effect on national policy. I suspect it is also true of many states.  Next to no one wants guns in schools. 60-80% of Americans want gun control.  Americans are plain confused about health care.  Americans when given choices in polls are, by a significant majority, willing to raise taxes, reduce defense tens of millions.  Probably Americans would like to see corporations pay taxes.

The gap is huge between very tiny minority views that influence the content of legislation and the moajority view.  I will understand that minorities of all kinds--not just race or religion, but the realm of ideas--need to be heard and sometimes protected.  But now all we seem to get are minority views taking over policy.

E.J. Dionne.  I spelled his name wrong.

E.J. Dionne.  I spelled his name wrong.

E.J. Dionne.  I spelled his name wrong.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Durfee,

Yes, I have often read Mr. Dionne's columns and sometimes replied to them. I am also aware of studies pointing to oligarchy regarding policy decisions. I am sure you are aware of the significant election result in the Michigan primary --representing a populist revolt on the left. Job insecurity among working people and stagnant wages were, by all indications, important in this development --and in related developments around the country. We have something of a populist revolt on both the right and the left --reminiscent of both the "tea-party" folks and the strange, left and right, bed-fellows in the "occupy" protests of some years back.

I quote from a letter I received in reply, from the President (December 14, 2015):

Again, thank you for writing. By embracing hope and speaking out on issues that matter to you, you can help make a difference. I want you to know I'm listening, and I wish you all the best.

---end quotation

I wrote, warning of the profound alienation around the country.

In contrast with some, however, I suspect that the current reliance and tendency toward the empowerment of large-scale institutions, is not going to work--in this country. Notice the contrast between that development and the contrasting themes regarding "constitutional liberalism."

The country is too large for "large- institutionalist"  model of quasi-political organization, and it is too diverse. It matters less whether the large-scale institutions are public or private. What matters is that they force and empower a kind of internal conformity which does not sit well with the views or interests of the population in general and the common good. The political prominence of the large-scale institutions, in contrast to the position and prospects of ordinary people, including farmers and small business, as you say, --is the domestic essence of our growing inequalities.

The divisiveness and political dysfunction in the country can be plausibly viewed as arising directly from the political competition for the support of such large-scale institutions and corresponding support of their views and interests. The politicians are putting their own support for re-election above the consideration of the common good. By catering to and cultivating support for the large-scale generally, and through massive gerrymandering to form single-party districts, the politicians seem to be effectively excluding the moderate middle both economically and politically.

Or, so it seems to me.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Well, did I question a dogma above? No views on U.S. defense spending or on institutionalism and corporatism in world politics? I take it that part of what we are looking for is an explanation of the status of "liberalism" or, especially, constitutional liberalism--this, as a matter of equality before the law, would seem to belong to human rights.

Here is a link to a short account of U.S. defense spending in relation to that in the rest of the world:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-defense-budget-is-massive-2015-8

This high level of spending has long had many critics in the U.S. The figures are astounding.

I tend to think that this is the one great node, on which other forms or advocates of institutionalism turn. If the constituencies supportive of and by the military industrial complex are to have so much power and influence, then surely any political competitors will want to have similar institutional advantages --supported by the tax payers. No one side is going to back off their advantages until or unless their political competitors do?

One might even imagine a kind of Faustian bargain. The one side says, "We'll blink at your excesses, if you'll blink at ours." (This is more or less how it goes with gerrymandering. Each side does it when they have control of the state legislature --and it is estimated that only 10% of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are genuinely competitive. Whether or not this is anyone's plan, it seems that there is little effective opposition to large-scale military spending, instead it has its strong advocates and most others seem to go along --especially if they get something of what they want by way of similar institutional advantage? The present administration has spent as much or more than most recent administrations in constant dollar terms.

The President did, again, wind down 2 wars. But we do not know who the next President will be --or what the inclinations of the next President will be. As long as such large-scale forces are available, someone or other along the line may well be tempted to use them. Who would trade on this situation to feather their own institutional nest?

No comments on these thoughts and prospects?

H.G. Callaway

I'm thinking, Callaway, but have a headache. Lots of states have shifted to independent redistricting, which is an institlutiional reform that should make for better (more reflective of preferences of voters as a whole) elections.  In the last election for House and Senate, more people voted Democratic than Republican due to gerrymandering.  That slow change will be good.   I think a neo-Progressive period will be upon us in a few years where we tinker with our democracy and spread some of the wealth from the oligarchs to the broader population.  We've done it before.  But, the America of small business and family farms on which American 18thC liberalism was based is long gone.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I've just put up the "pretext" for my forthcoming book focused on Edmund Burke and the American crisis, and I hope that readers of this thread will want to have a look:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297758694_EDMUND_BURKE_THE_IMPERATIVES_OF_EMPIRE_AND_THE_AMERICAN_REVOLUTION_AN_INTERPRETATION

I will be seeking possible reviewers as soon as the book is through production, or perhaps sooner.

One topic that interested me as I was putting this book together is Burke's very Whig aversion to "standing armies" in times of peace. This seems to have been partly based on a similar aversion among the great Whig peers; and it is definitely a significant feature in the political thought of the American founders. The point is pretty directly connected with the advent of the American crisis of the 1760's and 1770's.

After the defeat of the French in North America, and the British capture of Quebec, which involved colonial American support, the British found themselves in the possession of a great continental empire in North America. The neo-Tory party around king George III wanted a large military establishment to protect the new possessions, but as Burke tells the story, the Whig peers didn't want to pay for it, and in any case did not generally want to see an increase in royal powers and prerogatives. There was a history here of English kings using a large standing army to suppress the local gentry in the country. The Whigs were definitely "the country party," as contrasted with the "Court party." The solution which arose from the "friends of the king" was to tax the colonies themselves to support the new military establishment. But, of course, the American colonies objected, and this was the root of the American crisis.

Please have a look at my "pretext." Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway 

What would Edmund Burke say about Human Rights? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_Edmund_Burke_say_about_Human_Rights [accessed Mar 11, 2016].

Book EDMUND BURKE, THE IMPERATIVES OF EMPIRE AND THE AMERICAN REV...

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Durfee,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Taking the job of congressional redistricting out of purely partisan hands seems to me a very important first step of much needed reforms.

Whether we will have small farmers and small businesses is basically a policy decision. It is not an easy matter, of course, but to give up on significant dispersal of related economic power would not be a good step, in my impression. Its the easy way in politics to simply give in to those who already have the most power, neglecting the interests of all the others. 

I think that the "neo-progessive" era to come, which you foresee will be much more successful in the solution of structural problems if it recognizes that the viability of  the republic and of its democratic aspirations very much depend on our traditional orientation toward deep and significant division of powers. How this is best accomplished in any given period is a different question. But a politics based chiefly on the power of large-scale institutions seems to be a formula for oligarchy.

I am reminded here of the contemporary interest in local developments --e.g., new "micro-breweries," locally produced food, and also local retailing and manufacturing. Consider, for instance the wide-spread reaction, even decades back, against mass retailing and its negative effects upon small family retail outlets.

The law governs the markets, and economic activities must accept the law in order to operate in terms of its benefits. But no country can be organized by reference to purely economic considerations alone--or not of the type which sees no need for changes in economic regulation and structures of the market. Doing things that way, not only does one not get significant reforms, it is doubtful that we would get any viable national polity. If you want to take the progressive era as a model, then why not consider the anti-trust laws and the campaigns for "trust busting." You'll recall that Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans came on board.

H.G. Callaway 

Testing Theories of American Politics:

Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Martin Gilens

Princeton University

The problem with contemporary liberalisms are that they do not propose a political project for the future.

 I mentioned that in Canada the present liberal government is just proposing short term solutions by making use of the margin of credit that we temporarily have but will most likely not be there in the near future if nothing substantial is done for increasing government revenues. No substantive changes are currently proposed.

A long term political project, a political project for the future, has to propose gradual reforms on all the major aspects affecting the social life. Here is one such project for the United States:

Beyond Clinton & Sanders: The Task of the Democratic Party

Roberto Mangabeira Unger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZg6Y-p3fug

Brassard--looks like an interesting paper!  Calloway, I agree not giving up on smaller markets is a good idea.  I think that would be best developed by 'socializing" health care.  Easier to have a small business--to take that risk--if you weren't also likely choosing to ignore one's (and one's family) health or risking everything you own if a big medical bill came along.  The growth of smaller farms for fresh foods is a good movement.  Even up on Lake Superior we get 5 months of locally grown food, sometimes a little longer.  I'm all for trust busting--let start with restoring small media.  Ted Lowi (I wish I still had the citation) once did a short piece on how govt and markets are symbiotic.  The bigger the market, the bigger the government in capitalistic states.  But pruning our military and the businesses that support it, would be good.  Huntington's the Soldier and the State has a nice history of US Civil-Military Relations.  Long, Long history on the danger of standing armies (and our preference for a Navy as a consequence until the Army Air Corps took the Navy argument after Pearl Harbor).

Brassard--that's the one I was thinking of, not Dionne.  I must have at least skimmed it in the APSA journal it was going into.  Thanks for it.  I could probably even use it in US Foreign Policy this fall.  I won't be teaching American govt.  I'm glad I'm not, as I did not have a field in American and just don't like elections the way my Americanist friends do.

Here's a good one on trusts in the US that erode both the political and economic bases of liberalism. https://newrepublic.com/article/131412/important-2016-issue-dont-know

Perhaps it would help to start by defining "liberalism," which used to mean belief in liberty but in some quarters has come to mean advocacy of equality.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hocutt,

Interesting comment. However, recall Jefferson in the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

One important argument, then, is that equality of rights was there from the start in the American context at least; and, one might add, that growing economic inequalities eventually render legal equality more or less moot. That is part of the argument for preserving the middle-class against constant erosion. What new economic division of powers might help keep the balance politically?

I think it won't do to build up "national champions" to fight the competitions of the globalized world. That sounds a bit too much like allowing the "friends of the king" to have the run of the empire--in another time, of course.

H.G. Callaway

1."Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter:

2. "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot

Liberalism means free. And the interpretation of liberalism runs parallel to one’s interpretation of freedom. Freedom may mean the opportunity to pursue his or her natural rights. Contemporary Liberalism emphasizes a combination of the first (arbitrary) type of freedom with the second (proactive) type of politics. Contemporary card-carrying liberal may cheerfully support:

1 supporting restrictions on speech, writings, and demonstrations that cast doubt on the arbitrary values espoused by the liberals themselves

2 removing “freedom of conscience” guidelines for doctors, pharmacists, and other medical professionals who have religious objections to some of these values