"End of Classical Liberalism?"

Sydney M. Williams

swstotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“End of Classical Liberalism?”

September 16, 2019

“A free society cherishes nonconformity. It knows that from the

nonconformist, from the eccentric, have come many of the great 

ideas of freedom. A free society fertilizes the soil in which 

nonconformity and dissent and individuals can grow.”

                                                                                    Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998)

                                                                                    American historian

Anarchy, war and despotism are the natural states of man, not freedom, democracy and classical liberalism. (I use the term “classical liberalism,” which speaks to the advocacy of civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on individual economic freedom, to differentiate from today’s use of “liberalism,” which is defined as a compassionate but intrusive, all-powerful state. Thomas Sowell was more direct when he declared“liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” 

Anarchy is at one end of the spectrum, with totalitarianism at the other. In his 1927 book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, a book in which he uses the word “liberalism” as I do “classical liberalism,” Ludwig von Mises wrote: “Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism.The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whoseobservance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.” It is to provide justice, not social justice.

Totalitarianism represents the other extreme. In harsh, dictatorial nations blemishes are obvious. But in a state where, over time, one is seduced by offerings of free services, like food stamps, help with housing, health and college, life can be comfortable. All that is asked in return is allegiance to a political party. Beware apathy, warned Baron de Montesquieu: “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”  Like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, despots build their power bases slowly, deliberately, much like the lobster dropped into tepid water, with the heat gradually increased, so that when the water boils the lobster has already succumbed. The best antidote to tyranny is education, which is why citizens should be concerned by the attack on meritocratic public schools in big cities like New York. The slogan for Sy Syms’ one-time company was “an educated consumer is our best customer.” Classical liberalisms’ best defense is an educated citizen.

Classically liberal societies are difficult – difficult to create and even harder to maintain. They rely on the people, not the state, as the ultimate source of power. But a pure democracy carries its own risks. “In a democracy, the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority,” wrote Edmund Burke in 1790. It is why our founders created a government that combines republicanism with democracy. Besides being wary of despotic rulers, they were concerned about mob rule, so designed a government based on rule of law, with a legislature composed of representatives of the people and a separation of power across three branches. Inefficiency is a (not-always-wanted) consequence. It is only in times of war when certain basic rights become temporarily suspended, and efficiency returns.

A free and independent press should be the first line of defense. Unfortunately, our media has become compromised, so that fact and opinion are indistinguishable. The narrative, not the news, has become the story. The internet, while freeing people to more easily express opinions, has anarchical traits, leading to what our founders feared about an unrestrained democracy. Politicians who ignore history and who seek office only for the power it affords or for the private wealth it can create should be viewed with suspicion.

However, it is not anarchy that threatens society today, or even the prospect of a “strong man,” which detractors of Donald Trump toss up as a red herring; it is the promise by social justice warriors of a more “woke,” equitable, compassionate state.  They use “victimization” and “identity politics” to further their cause. A rich society, advocates claim, can afford to offer free healthcare, free college and a guaranteed income for all. Why, they ask, should some people be billionaires and others live in poverty? In their desire for power, these demigods choose to ignore the positive attributes that led to wealth and success – aspiration, industry, intelligence, a sense of personal responsibility, diligence, creativity and a willingness to take risk – the uniqueness of the individual. Why and how did the society or country become wealthy? What led to innovation? How were ideas in a dreamers’ mind transformed into cash-generating businesses? How were natural resources converted to income? How many failures preceded each success? Why are big-city mayors afraid of competition in public schools? Why did growth, led by a few, give us an economy that boosted the well-being of most? Why is it, we should ask ourselves, that an emphasis on equality of outcomes never produces the wealth that an emphasis on equality of opportunity does?    

One should be skeptical of all political leaders, for they have the potential to destroy what classical liberalism has produced. But the leaders of which one should be most wary are those who want to extend the reach of government, either through taxation, regulation or executive reach. We must also keep in mind that when a government consumes an ever-greater proportion of a nation’s gross national product, the private sector – the fuel that fires the engine – shrinks as a percentage, hurting all.

We are a nation of 330 million individuals. We have myriad opinions. When colleges and universities blackball conservative speakers they place classical liberalism at risk. The late Henry Steele Commager, who taught history at Amherst College for over forty years was not a man with whom I always agreed, but he wrote wise words that provide the rubric for this essay. He also wrote, “The fact is censorship always defeats its own purpose…In the long run it will create a generation incapable of appreciating the difference between independence of thought and subservience.” What is needed is intelligent debate among those who aspire to political office, which is listened to and opined on by citizens educated in civics and history. For it is the political compromises that emerge from conflicting values that allow self-government to succeed. Have we reached the end of classical Liberalism? I pray we have not, but I worry.