Defending Liberalism

In an uncertain time, the case for the liberal cause must be reiterated—and reinforced.

Andrew Garib, Turn Left | It has taken sixty years for the American government to swing wholly towards the Republican right, with both houses of Congress and the Oval Office dominated not only by Republicans, but by through-and-through fiscal and often social conservatives. Much to the chagrin of liberal America, the swing to the right happened at the least opportune time – under a hawkish, ideological and backwards conservative administration with its awkward but effective mix of old-school- and neo-rightists.

This is a time when all the fundamentals of liberal democracy are under attack in America – civil, economic and democratic rights are under both fiscal and political pressure, pressure driven by Orwellian war-fever and ironic and misplaced patriotism that has only now begun to wane. This is a time of change in the American left, and a time to restate just what makes our cause so important and great.

This is not to say that change in the American liberal spectrum is revolutionary. We on the political left must certainly re-evaluate our goals and values when it comes to particular political decisions (the War in Iraq, for example challenged progressives with the opportunity to do what has been desired for decades, the removal of the most illiberal dictators, through means that undermine both our democracy and America’s place in the international community of nations) – but be not afraid that our fundamental values as social democrats have changed. For the formula for government and society which best serves all involved has clearly been established, at least in general. There are examples both within America and in social democratic capitalist nations elsewhere which are beacons for all dynamic, multicultural, sympathetic and above all progressive societies yearning for humanity to rise above the base realist worldview.

The variety of so-called progressive opinion is rather large in this country. Take the Democratic primary race, for example. Viewpoints range from the irrational left to the pretty-much-right – from Sharpton to Leiberman. Protectionists and free-marketers, gay-rights boosters and vacillating bigots, tax cutters and quiet tax hikers all profess Democratic allegiance. And the move towards the right or to the simply ignorant is staggering – anyone can see this from the passage of the Medicare bill, allowed by the slimiest of Dems gorging at the trough of Republican wheeling and dealing. Even moderate Republicans are responsible – for only the unconscious, the uncaring or the unscrupulous could have voted for such an abominable bill.

The Democratic party is not the model for progressive ideals. The Dems are institutional politics, caught up in the same system of graft, gerrymandering, and special- interest pandering that their fellows the Republicans have become well known for in the past three years. While there is still much hope for strong and intelligent and truly progressive Democratic leader to ascend to the nation’s highest office, it is up to us to change the rest of the scheme – to bring progressive ideology back to the forefront, and to battle the ideas and legislation we find inane, impractical or immoral.

America is ‘Liberal’

Americans among the most liberal bunch in the world. By liberal, of course, I mean republican and democratic (with small r’s and d’s) and not necessarily progressive. Our ideology is an ever-shifting balance between civil liberties and social and economic equality, coupled with a fundamental belief and faith in the democratic process to promote the general will of a people. Our fundamental ideology can be summed up in three parts.

Firstly, there are democratic rights. Like the other two, these are thoroughly taken for granted. Low voter turnout and indifference to electoral scandals makes one wonder just how important democracy is to our country. But make no mistake – it is a fundamental right and function of liberal society. And democracy is possible if and only if the following two are also upheld.

Individual rights are our so-called ‘negative freedom’ – a given in any progressive state and bitterly held by government opposition and civil liberties groups. My religion, who I associate with, what I own and who I trade with, where I go and what I do with my life are none of yours or the government’s business.

Whereas the negative freedoms are fundamental givens to even the most conservative policy-makers (although not all in government seem to agree: Take the Patriot Acts as an example of government reneging on their agreement to protect our civil liberties), the so-called ‘positive freedoms’ are more contentious. That’s where the American left and right depart sharply in their analysis of government’s role in our lives and how we organize society.

Positive freedoms are social and economic rights. They are rights that respect the disparity between rich and poor, and espouse a wish to shorten that gap through reforms in education, health, social security, and pension among other things. These rights are stressed by left liberals as essential to the functioning of the negative freedoms and democratic rights – and fundamentally separate the progressive from the conservative in American politics.

The War of Attrition

Although we all agree that the negative freedoms are fundamental, they are hardly complete in this country. Gays and lesbians suffer from an inequality in marriage laws, entrenched by so-called ‘defence of marriage’ laws which define marriage exclusively as the union of a man and woman. The Patriot Acts (a name Big Brother himself coined) are a profound intrusion into our privacy and make some of our constitutional rights into two-hundred year old jokes. Of course, governments don’t always need Patriot Acts to commit the worst crimes against civil liberties – take America’s internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. And it’s both progressives and conservatives who wish to assail our fundamental rights for their political gains: a national Defence of Marriage bill was signed by none other than Bill Clinton in 1996.

There has been a steady encroachment upon our religious freedoms as well, as the separation between government function and religious moralizing has become smaller. In 1954 the words ‘under God’ were added to a previously very secular Pledge of Allegiance (which, ironically, was created in the 1890’s by a socialist Baptist minister). Religious imploring has pushed our current government discernibly to the right on issues such as gay and reproductive rights.

But these tides of civil liberties infringements are only transient. The general trend is towards a more open society where God, Big Brother and homophobia, among other things, are flushed without a trace from our law and political discourse. Slowly but surely, America will become a more open society. Negative freedoms are so fundamental that political regression in this area can only be temporary.

The ‘Third Freedom’

Franklin Delano Roosevelt described his ‘third freedom’ as ‘freedom from want’ – recognition of economic disparities and the poverty and diminished opportunity that is a result of our economic system. It’s no surprise that the president under which the New Deal was implemented included positive freedoms in his 1941 ‘Four Freedoms’ speech. And since the New Deal, the ideological battle between the Left and Right over this very set of rights has defined American domestic politics, especially in the past 20 years.

The question of the third freedom is undoubtedly ideological. The positive rights are interpreted by the Left to mean government intervention into the social lives of Americans, including the administration of unemployment insurance (welfare), medical care, public services and education, and government-administered pension. It’s clear that in our economy – indeed, all economies – poverty and lack of opportunity are inevitable for some. It’s no secret that those living with lower incomes have less opportunities for education, government participation and personal progress – it simply makes sense that governments have the opportunity to aid the poor in their ability to better participate in society.

Conservatives disagree. They point to welfare dependence and the high taxation (for social services are expensive) of the rich and middle classes whose investments into our economy drive the nation. They point (ironically) to skyrocketing budgets and inefficiency and complication in government. They point to loss of personal responsibility and the intrusion of government into the lives of the people. They point to a supposed loss of incentive to excel. Their point, however, is lost in both practical and moral terms.

The Moral and the Practical

Progressive measures such as public education and healthcare, welfare and others are practical matters. They are needed so that all, in theory, may participate in government and have the opportunity to push through economic barriers against advancement. Social programs allow for social mobility. They also help keep many from moving down the economic ladder past a level where the streets and food banks are the only options.

Social intervention can also prevent many of our social ills, especially in low- income high-density urban settings and run-down suburbs of America’s great cities. Ghettos and hoods are not simply functions of culture and ethnicity. They are a function of economics, and the violence and degenerative social behaviour we see in our country’s worst neighbourhoods has much to do with economic degeneration. It simply makes sense for governments to invest in programs which can on average help heal the social costs and foundations of bad neighbourhoods. Public school education and welfare are key. Social programs can help stop drug dependency, sexual health resources can stop teen pregnancy, and nutrition programs can help children develop and do better in school. For those at the bottom of the economic ladder, these aren’t so much ideological as practical.

But what drives the rest of America to support social spending? The answer involves both the moral and the practical. No one wants degenerate neighbourhoods – where crime and hard drugs and gang culture dominate – in their cities. No one wants to pay for hundred-billion dollar mass-prison systems which only perpetuate violence, drugs and poverty. No one wants to continue to pay for welfare programs which keep families merely afloat, and offer no opportunity for progress and self-sufficiency – welfare is clearly not enough.

Ideas that social spending robs individuals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are nonsense: Governments are only interested in aggregate gains. Where money can be invested into communities which can be used to fight poverty, crime, drug abuse and disease, the government has every practical right to do so for the good of society at large. It is always up to individuals to take or leave government handouts, but when the going gets tough, it is essential that government assistance is there to avoid the streets and hunger.

We also have a moral obligation to our fellow citizens and people. It’s not always foregrounded by purveyors of progressive legislation (and when it is, it’s almost always for political gain), but the moral principles behind New Deal-type liberalism and social spending are most importantly moral. Compassionate conservatism is a farce. Anyone in control of the richest institution on the planet – the US government – who stands against government intervention into the lives of common people for the sake of communities and families and individuals is both myopic in terms of pragmatism and blatantly indifferent to the plight of fellow Americans. Equality under the law cannot mean equality in society for the poor. The poor do not occupy the great halls of power, and we need to give them every opportunity to do so in the long term, and every chance to avoid poverty in the short term.

Worse are the cries for government minimalism and efficiency. Some claim that government has only the responsibility to keep the peace – fend off invading redcoats, lock-up criminals and eradicate terrorists. This is an appalling attack on the morality of empathy for fellow men and women. Efficiency and minimalism are secondary concerns – both practically and morally – to human welfare. Undue faith in the market can only lead to more and more entrenched poverty and a widening gap between rich and poor. Conservative views on social spending are without foundation, save greed, ignorance, intolerance, or all three. Both practicality and morality drive us to accept a model of society where all three sets of freedoms – democratic, positive and negative, interdependent and essential – are upheld by the only institutions that can be sufficiently funded and widely effective and representative: governments.

In a time when all our freedoms are at stake, it is important to keep our ideology in perspective, and our pragmatic conscious as sharp as ever. Liberals will freely admit that security concerns and negative freedoms come first in priority, but it is unconscionable to ignore our other fundamental rights, especially at a time of unprecedented power and wealth. Whether or not you are Paul Wolfowitz, the 21st century is indeed an American Century – but we must decide how that leadership, responsibility and privilege can translate into prosperity and happiness not only for our people but for the rest of humanity. We have a chance to serve as leader and example, not as bully and hegemon. For the good produced by our Third Freedom is fundamental, universal, pragmatic and moral. It is only right that we may enjoy it ourselves, and show the rest of the world how they can enjoy liberal society to its fullest as well. End.