The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

Jamal asked the question, Why should I be a liberal? How do we answer that question?

I think "liberal" in the context of American politics is a bit different from what "liberal" means for the rest of the world. In most of the world liberalism means the idea that the principal purpose of government is to safeguard individual liberty, however one may define the word "liberty". In the US context "liberals" seems to just mean people who are politically on the central-left, mainly left-leaning liberals and social democrats.

What political philosophy can one subscribe to other than liberalism? Are there any viable alternatives to liberalism in today's world?

When I think of "conservative," the most conservative thing I know is science. So I have to laugh a bit at the so-called "conservative" Republican candidates who cannot even come to terms with things like evolution, the age of the earth, or climate change. The word seems twisted. In the sense that I believe in science, I am conservative.

IMHO an issue of the American conservatism is that it sometimes contradicts itself. It champions Christian value yet overlooks the biblical teachings on non-violence and economic justice, it supports "family value" yet destroys families through the war on drugs, and it is all for small government unless it involves policing other countries or so-called "moral" issues.

Ugg the dreaded conversation liberalism. Honestly I think both parties could use a brush up on the terminology.
Here is what I recall Adam Smith first uses the term liberal system to apply international trade policies to domestic trade policies. Smith was quit the opponent of labor market restrictions so his agenda was all about favoring freedom of contracts and free trade. As you can imagine this is a problem to the common man because now trade can override individual freedoms. So another guy whose name escapes me takes up for the common man and argues we – the common man need protections and this begins the baseline for the debate which has grown and never been solved. IMO the question becomes how do we devise a system of government that gives enough power to protect individual liberty but also restrict power from concentrating so others do not abuse it.

Moving into modern day times it seems the both parties still agree with the concept of liberalism but we disagree on which path to take. Those we call liberals today seem to desire the removal of obstacles which prevent individual people from realizing their potential which takes more government oversight vs the conservative idea that the government should promote freedom which is different from protecting it.

To me the split between liberalism and conservatism shows up in the 1970’s. The prosperity of WWII was starting to stagnate and slow economic growth meant we could not continue with New Deal policies and well lets ace it Keynesian economics failed – programs and funding designed to stimulate the economy would ultimately increase inflation with fluctuations in unemployment. Then we get a crop of economists I think it was Milton Freeman (don’t quote me on that) who basically says the problem is that the markets do a better job distributing wealth than government fiscal policy which brings in a conservative movement, enter Ronald Reagan stage left.

For a really good explanation check out this website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lib...

Xdyj wrote: "IMHO an issue of the American conservatism is that it sometimes contradicts itself. It champions Christian value yet overlooks the biblical teachings on equality and economic justice, it supports "..."

Honestly they are both full of it. I hate this idea that you have to be in all or none. No room for moderation. On the conservative side it is ok to give trillions of dollars to the military for defense but give a billion for food security and you become a socialist. On the flip side why do liberals think government oversight is the answer to everything? Case in point prisons should be for punishment then reform yet we find they do neither they are just a holding place until someone says so and government oversight has failed miserably to the tune of human rights violations.
Really it feels like a cluster.

Dawn wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "IMHO an issue of the American conservatism is that it sometimes contradicts itself. It champions Christian value yet overlooks the biblical teachings on equality and economic justice, ..."

I don't know much about prisons though I've heard that they're often underfunded and ineffective. Liberal politicians, when in power, do have a history of human rights abuse both domestically and abroad, and they do throw minorities under the bus when they feel they have to. However, I'm not sure if there is any viable alternative to liberalism today. Personally I'm sympathetic to liberalism but I don't know if I believe in it.

Can anyone give a summary of American liberals' view on morality? Are they mostly relativists?

I think the focus on classical liberalism over the common understanding of modern political liberalism is a bit of a red herring, so I'll leave that aside and discuss liberalism as we use it in American discourse. That said ...

I don't think being liberal is a choice, per se. It's a label attached to a set of assumptions and beliefs that make up a specific worldview. It's not in of itself a policy prescription that you can research and choose to support or oppose.

Those assumptions would be to prioritize collective action over individual freedom on the basis that unfettered individualism leads to an intolerable level of suffering. This doesn't mean liberals believe "government oversight is the answer to everything," but that government action, expressed as the coming together of the society to protect its weakest, can ameliorate poverty and increase equality of opportunity for all members of society.

Under the same theory that government action is best used to increase equality of opportunity for the members of society, liberals reject the top-down imposition of moral norms on those who don't agree with them. This is superficially a contrast -- in favor of government intervention to assure economic goals but against it to assure certain moral or religious behaviors -- but I would argue both positions aim to enhance the equality and agency of the individual within a system that naturally seeks to reward the few at the expense of the many. I think the conservative emphasis on individualism over collectivism has the self-defeating result of degrading the individual's ability to achieve equality because a society without the intervention of individuals collectively organized for the common good results in the suppression of many in favor of the whims of the powerful few.

Are liberals moral relativists? Absolutely not. There is a moral aspect to economics, of course, and liberals certainly would argue for the immorality of the powerful few using their wealth to sustain and expand their power. There is a strong liberal tradition in Christianity, which played major roles in the abolitionist, suffrage and Progressive movements. The liberal opposition to capital punishment, imperialism and wars of choice, the liberal support of prison reform, comprehensive immigration reform, campaign finance reform, civil rights and gay rights are grounded in the morality of equality under the law -- the same morality that undergirds the support of an active government that protects the poorest, even though they not only have less money to donate in a money-mad system, but tend not to vote at all.

In short, modern American liberalism for the last 150 years ago, with its roots in abolitionism and Progressivism, is idealistic and collectivist, supporting the wise use of government power to protect those with the least voice and the least representation in a system that too often tends to reward individuals who already hold the money and the power.

I love your description, Paul.