Thursday, January 29, 2009

Post No. 79: Rethinking the Role of Government (Part 2) – or the “Real” Definition of Liberalism



Previously in our Post No. 77, we provided you with excerpts of Nobel Economics Laureate Milton Friedman’s book published in 1962, “Capitalism and Freedom.” The following additional excerpts are taken from that work. We told you that you’d be surprised about the definition of “liberalism” addressed by Friedman. With all of the talk about stimulating the economy these days, we'd be interested in where you stand after reading this. (If you did not read Post No. 77, you should do so now before reading this one.) You should enjoy this.

“Government can never duplicate the variety and diversity of individual action. At any moment in time, by imposing uniform standards in housing, or nutrition, or clothing, government could undoubtedly improve the level of living of many individuals; by imposing uniform standards in schooling, road construction, or sanitation, central government could undoubtedly improve the level of performance in many local areas, and perhaps even on the average of all communities. But in the process, government would replace progress by stagnation, it would substitute uniform mediocrity for the variety essential for that experimentation which can bring tomorrow’s laggards above today’s mean.

“This book discusses some of these great issues. Its major theme is the role of competitive capitalism – the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market – as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom. Its minor theme is the role that government should play in a society dedicated to freedom and relying primarily on the market to organize economic activity.”

* * *

“It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. [Emphasis added.] Unfortunately, “As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label, [footnote omitted]” so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century or does today over much of the Continent of Europe.

“As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.

“Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom.

[Paragraph break added.] “The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!

“The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference.

[Paragraph break added.] “Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

“Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nineteenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be his modern heir.

[Paragraph break added.] “We do not wish to conserve the state interventions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though, of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it [.] Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative.

“Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to proponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties by using the word liberalism in its original sense-as the doctrines pertaining to a free man.”

25 comments:

  1. Perhaps some new term is needed. Or none at all. I tend toward conservative because that is my nature. I move cautiously, for the most part, judge slowly after studied deliberation. I question change to be sure it is not change for change's sake. Yet I believe strongly in individual rights and freedoms and the expansion of these. Few of us are all one or the other. Those that are, we call extremists. The problem, as I see it, is that calling yourself "conservative" or "liberal" tends to make you seem an extremist. Much too easy to use labels as weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me that societies will always have problems functioning and operating in a collaborative fashion if the sum total of who were are and what we think can be reduced to one single word, thus defining and thus limiting us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both posts, 77 and 79, comprise an excellent discourse on the "labels" used for the relationship between government and the individual. I found it difficult in the final analysis to care much about the labels. I understand how important it is to some folks to be able to catagorize their position for the sake of identification or as a basis for discussion. On the other hand, it seems to me that such labels do more to separate us and create defensiveness rather than truly for a base, not for discussion, but for action. I think that is more what Kennedy intended in his effort to urge Americans to DO SOMETHING! It is also easy to wait for government to TELL us what to do. Finally, is it not possible to think, discuss and act free of a labeled basis? Is it possible to simply start expressing/acting from where we are rather than establishing our plank" first? I am not sure I have an answer for this, but I do know I don't want to be labeled or held to a position once someone labels me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand both the sentiments and the conclusions of this gentleman and yet...we find that the all or nothing at all approach really doesn't work very well. I liked the term progressive because it had such a positive connotation but having been sullied by politics it has now joined the devalued ranks of words like liberal and conservative.

    Few of us would like to return to the days of the robber barons or the days before the advent of labor unions or consumer rights etc. Yet few would also like to see us over regulated and bogged down by governmental bureaucracy. The need to strike a balance is vital yet those who try to do exactly that are percieved as weak.

    What to do, what to do...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative."

    Perhaps it is the teacher in me, but I need clarity in discussions. So the above statement is an idea I have had to grapple with for some time. Liberals/Progressives are united and of the same mind set in that they want the central government to provide ALL and for ALL. At the same time they seem not to be aware of the fact that they are radical individualists and will not like what they get once their agenda is achieved.

    We who call ourselves Conservatives, or who fall into that faction’s mindset whether we choose to use a label or not, are so divided in our beliefs. For example I am certainly a conservative in my economic views and health care issues to mention just two, but I am also very much for abortion rights and believe strongly that man has polluted this planet and needs to change his ways and change them now before any more damage is done if life is to continue on this planet. Whether or not the pollution is causing Global Warming I am not sure tho I know the glaciers are melting back to the level of ten thousand and more years ago so something dire is happening. These two very divisive issues set me apart from the Conservative bloggers of Greensboro at least. But being kind people they all seem to forgive my defection in these areas however :)

    So admitting I feel it is not only prudent but necessary to first define, or clarify, our views in any given area before rational discussion can take place. And certainly before any actions for change can go forward, labels will always have to be applied. My problem, and apparently the author’s, is just what labels to apply. And if these labels are applied then how divisive will they be to the already fractured Republican Party which represents the most conservative views? This is what the Republican National Committee is discussing this week, and I hope they come to some pragmatic agreements on important issues to support as a party that most of us can get behind so that the Republican Party can continue to represent those of us who thus far have not fit the Conservative label exactly. If they can not then more and more Republicans will defect to the Independent Party and the Democrats will rule uninhibited.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems we have a love/hate relationship with labels. We don't like them when they are applied to us unfairly (determined by us, of course), we like them when they aid us in presenting our views. They can open doors and shut them. Start debate or end it.

    Fascinating things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Dan for taking the time to review both posts. I agree with you about the importance of labels. In fact, they can be distracting. (On another level, I thought long and hard about even putting my picture on my various sites out of concern that people would quickly assume that I was associated with a particular view or cause.)

    What I find fascinating is the following. Let's say that there are 25 different issues about which a citizen might have particular views, including abortion, welfare, war, the draft, public education / vouchers, race, gender, homosexuality, etc. I would like to think that someone would ask me for my view on each separate subject, than simply assume that because I am this or that, I must have a particular view on that side of the aisle. The same goes with folks who are always on one side of all issues.

    I tell you something which disappointed me about the recent economic stimulus bill in the House. The Republicans voted totally along party lines. The Democrats were not that much better, but at least 12 or so of them sided with the Republicans. How can every single Republican, or 95? of all Democrats feel similarly? That's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JUNE, JUNE, JUNE! You get the Institute of Applied Common Sense's Monthly Award for "Hitting the Nail on the Head." All or nothing rarely works in any setting, except the world of sex, and that's inherently problematic no matter what you do.

    We agree with you that striking a balance somehow is the key.

    Now, although we agree with you, we also acknowledge that a credible argument can be advanced to the effect that the execution of a plan ought to be all out, or not, depending on the details. Why? Because a middle of the road, tempered approach may not be strong enough "medicine" to correct the underlying problem. Let's say that Party A says that X on the scale is sufficient to address a problem. Party B counters that Y further along the scale is needed. Let's say that they compromise somewhere in the middle, but we have the foresight to look down the road and know that XY will not do it. Is compromise (i.e., a blending of approaches) necessarily the right thing to do the majority of the time?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Brenda. Before we forget, be sure to send more conservative bloggers this way. We do not have enough of them participating in our discussions. We need more of them to balance out the government interventionists from whom we hear so regularly. We want all views, even the anarchists and the revolutionaries.

    Whether rightly or wrongly, most groups or organizations take on a personality or develop a reputation which people use to summarily "define" its members. Both parties have significant problems with their message and their image, but for right now, it appears that the American voting public considered the Democrats to be the "lesser of two evils which we could tolerate," at least in the short term.

    Your enumeration of your views on various issues is somewhat similar to what we would expect of most "thinking people," namely not consistently down any one side of the aisle. That means that in a collaborative setting of people trying to accomplish mutually desired goals, we will agree with you on some principles, and not some others. However, the mere fact that you have such a worldview, consisting of various components, suggests that you are somewhat willing to compromise on the big picture.

    Moving to the big picture reasons that we thought hurt the Republicans this past election cycle, we think that there were 3:

    (a) Rightly or wrongly, Republicans were considered to be the party of exclusion, not inclusion. (Somewhat related to that, there was a perception that if asked 27 questions, a "true Republican" needed to answer darn close to all 27 along the straight party line.)

    (b) Rightly or wrongly, Republicans were perceived to be the party which exuded the message, "We've got ours, and we did it on our own through our hard work, without your assistance, so now you figure out how to get yours."

    (c) Finally, rightly or wrongly, a Republican captain was at the helm of the ship, and folks generally felt that we were being steered into troublesome waters. The derivative reasoning was that if your policies were so great while you were in charge, how did we end up in this mess? A substantial enough number of people apparently felt that something different needed to be done.

    Now, there are arguments which can be advanced back and forth, all with some degree of merit. However, most folks do not engage in debating contests and assess points. Unfortunately, very little, in most political discussions or discussions about societal issues, is purely analytical and objective. There is far too much subjectivity and emotion associated with the discussion, and that's where we all go wrong.

    In theory, a discussion about what is in the best interests of America should have absolutely nothing to do with what's best for the individual and his or her family. In theory, it should be about what’s best for the greatest number of families and citizens. One's personal, selfish interests ought to be discarded at the outset. Determine some objective criteria or measurable concepts, and go from there.

    There is way too much emotion out there. Just like most interpersonal relationships, we waste too much time debating personal crap.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just came on C-Span2 Book TV, discussion by author of "48 Liberal Lies about American History. http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9821&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is a program starting right now on C-Span2 Book TV about "How Our Governmental Institutions Fail Us and How to Fix Them," hosted by the Brookings Institution.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10049&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  12. Someone please help us understand something about the suggested tax cuts. We can well understand how tax cuts might stimulate the economy in a good economy, or even in a so-so one. However, we really do not understand how tax cuts stimulate the economy when the economy is in poor shape, and there is an abundance of economic uncertainty looking down the road. If we're a beneficiary of keeping more of our money as a result of cuts, we're going to keep that money safe and secure indefinitely, until we are satisfied that it is safe to do otherwise. Isn't that the prudent thing to do? Are we missing something here?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Earlier today, a group of GOP leaders came out with a list of items in the current Senate stimulus bill, which they consider to be "wasteful." Earlier today, a group of GOP leaders came out with a list of items in the current Senate stimulus bill, which they consider to be "wasteful."

    Although we could theoretically come up with an argument as to how at least half of the programs mentioned are not "wasteful" per se (although they admittedly might not stimulate the economy immediately), let's assume for purposes of argument that ALL of them are eliminated and are not needed, and will not provide immediate stimulation of the economy.

    We have raised the following issue repeatedly on many blogs about suggested tax reductions, and no one has chosen to respond to my inquiry. We seriously do not understand the tax cut argument advanced by the Republicans, in terms of its application DURING THE CURRENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.

    As former business owners, and even as individuals, if we were allowed to keep more of more income as a result of tax cuts, during decent or exuberant economic times, we would probably spend it or expand my business, thus admittedly stimulating the economy.

    However, during bad economic times, we would (a) contract our activity and reduce our spending, (b) put our new found money aside and save it, and (c) hold it cautiously until we felt, with some degree of reasonable certainty, that the economy had improved, and that the risks associated with spending or expansion were small.

    Please tell us why the people saving the money, through the proposed tax reductions, would decide to spend it during these economic times, with the possible exception of those spending it on things that they previously spent it on, but have not been able to do in recent months because of reduced gross income.

    Seems to us that at least an argument can be made that SOMEONE OR SOME ENTITY has to spend on something, perhaps short-term infrastructure projects, to provide some stimulus. Even there, we do not think that our government has the money to spend and this may have long range negative ramifications. When you spend what you do not have, there's going to be a problem down the road at some point.

    Help us out here. Are we just plain stupid? We like to think of ourselves as exercising common sense.

    By the way, has anyone ever considered laying off elected officials?

    ReplyDelete
  14. As we type this, Matt Miller, a columnist for Fortune Magazine, is appearing on a book discussion on C-Span2 Book TV about his book, "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity."

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10174&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  15. At this moment, C-Span2 Book TV is airing a program where the author of a book contends that FDR damaged America through the New Deal.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10094&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  16. Later this afternoon at 4pm EST, C-Span2 Book TV will air a program discussing a book written by an author who provides a roadmap for the end of the American era.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10223&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is a book discussion being aired right now by C-Span2 Book TV, where the authors contend that a great majority of the wealth created in our country is the result of inherited social knowledge. The book claims that the rich are taking our common inheritance.

    http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10096&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  18. At 3:00 pm EDST, C-Span2 Book TV will air a book discussion in which the authors contend that FDR's New Deal Prolonged the Depression.

    http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=4176&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  19. At 2pm EDST today, C-Span2 Book TV will air a book discussion involving author Robert Samuelson. The presentation took place before the World Bank. He discusses the rise in inflation from 1960 through 1979, and the impact that it has had on Americans today.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10164&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  20. At 3:15 pm EDST today, C-Span2 Book TV will air a book discussion involving author David Korten. Mr. Korten contends that Wall Street can not be fixed because it is based on phantom wealth.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10164&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  21. Later this afternoon at 4pm EST, C-Span2 Book TV will air a program discussing a book written by an author who provides a roadmap for the end of the American era.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10223&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is a program starting right now on C-Span2 Book TV about "How Our Governmental Institutions Fail Us and How to Fix Them," hosted by the Brookings Institution.

    http://booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10049&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=No

    ReplyDelete
  23. "in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative."

    Perhaps it is the teacher in me, but I need clarity in discussions. So the above statement is an idea I have had to grapple with for some time. Liberals/Progressives are united and of the same mind set in that they want the central government to provide ALL and for ALL. At the same time they seem not to be aware of the fact that they are radical individualists and will not like what they get once their agenda is achieved.

    We who call ourselves Conservatives, or who fall into that faction’s mindset whether we choose to use a label or not, are so divided in our beliefs. For example I am certainly a conservative in my economic views and health care issues to mention just two, but I am also very much for abortion rights and believe strongly that man has polluted this planet and needs to change his ways and change them now before any more damage is done if life is to continue on this planet. Whether or not the pollution is causing Global Warming I am not sure tho I know the glaciers are melting back to the level of ten thousand and more years ago so something dire is happening. These two very divisive issues set me apart from the Conservative bloggers of Greensboro at least. But being kind people they all seem to forgive my defection in these areas however :)

    So admitting I feel it is not only prudent but necessary to first define, or clarify, our views in any given area before rational discussion can take place. And certainly before any actions for change can go forward, labels will always have to be applied. My problem, and apparently the author’s, is just what labels to apply. And if these labels are applied then how divisive will they be to the already fractured Republican Party which represents the most conservative views? This is what the Republican National Committee is discussing this week, and I hope they come to some pragmatic agreements on important issues to support as a party that most of us can get behind so that the Republican Party can continue to represent those of us who thus far have not fit the Conservative label exactly. If they can not then more and more Republicans will defect to the Independent Party and the Democrats will rule uninhibited.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Later this evening, at 10:00 pm EDST, there will be a book discussion on CSpan2 Book TV addressing the merits of the free market versus government intervention. It should be an interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete

"There Are More Than 2 Or 3 Ways To View Any Issue; There Are At Least 27"™

"Experience Isn't Expensive; It's Priceless"™

"Common Sense Should be a Way of Life"™