Modern Liberalism: The great deception

I remember that it was during the early part of the Clinton presidency when I first heard of ‘political correctness.’  Although I was still in my early twenties, I instantly recognized the term represented something to be despised for its wickedness.  My first instinct—and fear—was that it originated from my side of the political spectrum as I could not imagine anyone who consciously considered themselves as being ‘liberal’ embracing it, much less developing this contemptible concept.

Yet, two decades later, the intolerant and illiberal ‘liberal’ reaction to a person expressing his personal opinion, as evidenced in the recent Dan Cathy/Chick-Fil-A uproar, did not surprise me at all.  

The difference in my reaction to these two events is that I have come to realize that what is termed ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberal at all and is one of the greatest deceptions perpetuated on the American electorate.

Before I can explain what I mean by this, we need to examine what real liberalism is.  

Real or true liberalism evolved out of the enlightenment period that swept Western Europe in the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries and is considered by many to be the zenith in the history of liberty and the governance of man.  It is based on the belief that the average man could rule or govern himself without the oversight of some aristocratic lord directing his behavior.  This belief found a welcome home among both the enlightened intellectuals and the common people of England.  Over those three centuries, the English developed a political system based on this conviction.  At the heart of this form of governance, which has been conveniently renamed ‘classical liberalism’ by leftist academics, are four basic principles.

• Limited Government
• Individual Rights
• Private Property
• Free Contract Economics

The first two preserved political freedom while the last two guarded economic freedom.  [I should note here that Free Contract Economics refer to the freedom that individuals have to willfully engage with each other without approval of an aristocratic overseer.  It is not a license to rob, cheat, swindle, defraud, or steal.]

It is this philosophy and these principles that are represented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and, especially, the Bill of Rights.  Hence, it is also referred to as ‘Jeffersonian Liberalism.’ It is also the version of liberalism that I understood when I first reacted to hearing of the non-liberal concept of ‘political correctness.’

[If you doubt this understanding of liberalism, then please read the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which, to their credit, has remained faithful to the principles of true liberalism.]

The Deception Begins

As I noted above, in the early part of the 20^th century true liberalism was renamed classical ‘liberalism.’ This allowed Marxist-based Progressivism to usurp the name and the great accomplishments of true or authentic liberalism.

Unfortunately, modern liberalism has none of the trust in the average man that true liberalism does.  In fact, at its core is the belief that the average man cannot be trusted to make the correct choices or decisions.  Like the serf of the Middle Ages, the average person must be guided, controlled, and tempered by the ‘wisdom’ of the more educated, cultured and civil members of society.  This is why Faux-Liberals (my term for illiberal modern liberals) can not only embrace but can also originate concepts that are, at their core, the anti-thesis to the principles of true liberalism. 

I do not make this accusation based on their words since the manipulation of the language is the basis of deception, and, as the redefining of liberalism illustrates, Faux Liberals are very competent in language manipulation.  It is their actions and the results of those actions that provide basis of my charge.  All one needs to do is to compare some of the core objectives and policies of Faux-liberalism to see that it has very little in common with being liberal and is more akin to ideologies that have lead to tyranny and despotism:

•  From the support and acceptance of ‘political correctness’ to the practice of silencing opposing opinion we see the disdain Faux Liberals have for the rights of the individual, including the freedoms of thought and expression.
• By using government as an instrument of change, often referred to as ‘social engineering,’ we see a complete disregard for the principle of limited government
• Through the redistribution of wealth schemes we witness complete contempt for private property. 
• The attempt to regulate all business and control economic activity violates the principle of Free Contract Economics

Now, I do not have a problem with people supporting or being in favor of these policies—after all, disagreement is the product of a free society—but I do take exception with people who are deceptive about their beliefs and ideology. This is exactly what Faux-liberalism does. It is an ideology claiming to be liberal when its actions are the complete opposite. Additionally, its adherents continue the deception by chastising others for lacking tolerance, understanding, and compassion when they continually fail demonstrate those values themselves.  This leads to some very interesting questions:

Why must a political ideology or movement use deception in order to gain support for its objectives?

Why must it feel compelled to usurp the title of a political philosophy that is the anti-thesis of everything it stands for?

Why did its adherents not choose a label that properly reflected the ideology’s true values and principles?

Why must it resort to language manipulation to get people to support its causes?

And, more importantly,

Why the deception?

What is it hiding?

I know at this point you may be thinking, “Well, conservatives are no better” and to a degree you are right since both sides have done an exceptional job of eliminating true liberalism from America’s political landscape. The difference is that conservatives did not take the term and redefine it to suit their needs or to mislead people. On the contrary, conservatives tend to use phrases, such as traditional values, American values, free market economics, etc to accurately reflect their ideology and beliefs. This is what makes modern or faux-liberalism the greater of the two evils.  Its use of language manipulation, which is designed to deceive a well-intentioned, although not well-informed, electorate, is by any measure loathsome and should generate the feeling of revulsion in anybody who truly values freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

References:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
http://www.whatisliberalism.com/
http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-Beliefs.aspx#FederalDirector

Countdown to Independence Day: #6 Respect individual sovereignty

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers step number #6.  I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 5.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.
 

6. Respect individual sovereignty

In his book The 5000 Year Leap Skousen explains that respect for individual rights has two parts. The first is that an individual receives those rights and the second is that other individuals are obligated not to trample on the rights of others.  It is one thing to complain that the government is trampling on your individual rights and freedoms but we need to recognize that we as individuals can sometimes step on the rights of other individuals. Therefore, I recommend that you practice the philosophy of share but respect. In other words, feel free to share your opinions and your views with others but be respectful of their views and opinions. If we believe in the freedom of speech then we must allow those who have opposing opinions the same freedom. If we believe in freedom of religion then we must allow those who practice different religions the same freedom. If we believe in private property we must allow others to enjoy their private property. Whatever we demand for ourselves we must allow for others. 

Unfortunately too many of us remember the first part but forget the second. Where I live I have seen Christian churches that demand the freedom of religion for themselves while simultaneously attempting to stop the establishment of a mosque in their area. Likewise, progressives who demand the freedom of speech and expression often fall short on tolerance when that same freedom of speech and expression is extended to views they disagree with. Individuals who claim to support private property are sometimes the first ones to tell someone else what to do with their property. In my opinion, the biggest threat to private property is not imminent domain but the self-appointed busybodies who go around telling other people what to do with their property. Yes, these actions may be done with good intentions but the more that we accept them the more we allow our freedoms to be eroded. As John Stuart Mills put it:

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

So if we want our rights as individuals to be respected then we must also respect the rights of other individuals.

Since the writing of this part of the book several disturbing events has transpired.  One of the most shocking was the recent assault on Christians by Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan.  The fact that the police, whose first priority should be the preservation of one's rights, gave into the unprovoked aggression being committed by the Muslims makes the whole episode even more disturbing.  At one point a young Iraqi man angrily preached about the freedom of religion while, ironically, supporting the suppression of a religion that he does not agree with.  This is the prime reason I came up with point number six.  If we only demand rights for ourselves while using government to suppress the rights of those we disagree with, then we are as guilty of tyranny as the police officials who, in Dearborn, turned a blind eye to the violation of a fundamental American right.  


Although guilty of denying the Christians their freedom of speech I will give the Dearborn police the benefit of the doubt and accept that they erred on the side of safety,  But I cannot emphasis strongly enough how essential the principle of respecting individual sovereignty is.  It needs to be preserved at all cost and any attempt to suppress it should be met with the full force of the law. 

Above I mention that I am in disagreement with the automatic anti-Muslim response some have to the establishing of a Mosque in their community.  I also respect the right of the Arabs/Muslims to have a fair.  But they must show the same tolerance to those they disagree with.  To do otherwise crosses that line and any individual that does so needs to be prosecuted.   

As I state in the Liberty Inherited (and restate in Step 2 of this series) it is not race, religion, or even country of origin that makes someone an American.  It is the belief in certain core values and the value at the core of America's exceptionalism is respecting the rights of others.  

Anyone doing otherwise, regardless of where they were born or what papers they have, is, in my estimation, being un-American.