A Better Liberalism.

The following is first of a three-part diary that explores liberalism’s current state and what can be done to once again transform it into the predominate American political philosophy.

****

If democracy is defined by a people being able to govern themselves, then liberalism is its natural progeny. Both democracy and liberalism require hard work and self-discipline to be successful. That is what President Kennedy meant when he boldly proclaimed, “We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.� Liberalism also demands courage, just as when FDR reminded an America in the middle of its worst economic depression that “…the only thing to fear is fear itself.� And liberalism is about distributive justice: Monsignor John A. Ryan’s call for a living wage and compensation consummate with each contributing individual’s contribution to a given profit.

But when these essential liberal elements are forgotten the forces of reaction have their golden opportunity to reassert themselves. This is what has happened to both American liberalism as well as American democracy since 1968.

With the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, jr. and of course, Robert F. Kennedy liberalism ceased being consistent and became increasingly identified with the less disciplined movements. Any sense of achievement and reward for merit had been seemingly thrown overboard for more emotional fixes that no longer emphasized a common American dream.

Many of liberalism’s adherents have become so undisciplined that their philosophy is now unneccesarily vulnerable to definition by her opponents. Pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have had a virtual free hand to falsely equate liberalism with Marxist socialism; it is not. If anything, liberalism is the heart of the non-Socialist Left just as mainstream libertarian conservatism is the heart of the non-fascist Right. Liberalism is not about the destruction of private property ownership, but instead concerns itself with extending private property ownership to a greater number of individuals through a more distributive just form of capitalism. Similarly liberalism does not call for the end of profit, only for its fairer distribution pursuant to individual contribution. Liberalism is all about commutative justice, not state ownership.

The primary purpose of contemporary liberalism is to serve the common good of all. This is the sacred responsibility of maintaining American institutions upon which all citizens rely upon for individual self-development, the very mechanisms that encourage and enable every citizen to achieve the dignity of self-sufficiency that is found in living a reasonable life--civil rights, a sound public school system, basic old-age and disability insurance. This is the concept of an affirmatively active government that prevents the economically powerful from using freedom as a license to acquire wealth in a reckless manner. It is a check against a recklessness that would needlessly harm both the small business owner as well his individual laborers.

As Reinhold Niebuhr observed, man is neither totally virtuous nor totally corrupt. Will-to-power self-interest when left unchecked by a countervailing force of justice will however, lead to the corruption of the individual. For example, poverty and racism alone do not cause crime. To accept that concept on its face denigrates the working poor who consistently practice good citizenship. But it is true that poverty and racism provides more fertile ground for evil to take root. The temptation to exert one’s unrestrained will-to-power becomes greater when its exercise becomes one of the few avenues of escape from a bleak situation. Liberalism’s task is to be that effective countervailing force of good by both lending a helping, but a firm hand to those who cannot yet create wealth while preserving order based upon true justice.

Thirty-five years after FDR’s ascendancy liberalism needed a shake-up. Robert F. Kennedy in particular had recognized that many of the hallowed institutions of the New Deal era needed to be made more relevant to contemporary issues. Many federal programs needed increased local control in order to respond more effectively to problems not even imagined during the 1930s. Issues such as the environment and feminism had come to the forefront, each with its own economic implications.

Liberals who remember Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign often tell stories about knowing people who were staunchly supporting RFK but who, after his assassination wound up voting for Richard Nixon or even George Wallace. Each recollection almost always ends with a sense of bewilderment as to how anyone who initially would support Kennedy could eventually cast his vote for either a Nixon or a Wallace.

But the answer to this enigmatic question is not so much about Kennedy’s specific policies as much it was about which candidates were giving an impression of demanding responsibility and contribution. Clearly, none of the presidential candidates who remained after June 6, 1968 could speak as earnestly as Kennedy on the reciprocal relationship of rights and responsibilities. Vice-President Humphrey actually came the closest, but with the Vietnam War raging with no end in sight, American wanted change. Both Nixon and Wallace gave the illusion of speaking about duty and order, albeit, without the necessary sense of social justice and thus, Nixon, just barely, carried the day.

From that point forward American politics became more about receipt and less about contribution. Gone from both the Right and the Left agendas was any sense of a self-disciplined long-term vision. Liberalism began to focus more heavily upon what was owed to the disenfranchised individual, sometimes based upon attenuated liberty interests. Not that such focus was unjustified, but it was often done while seemingly putting the well being of the middle-class on the backburner. Consequently, many of these folks who played by the rules and paid the bulk of federal taxes began to feel forgotten, increasingly believing that they were only to be called upon to fund social programs that would exclude them as beneficiaries. Liberalism must return to Robert F. Kenndy’s standard of consistency, where, paraphrasing Dr. King, the poor are given the boots to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, liberty is balanced against both order and justice and all Americans have the ability to create honest wealth.

Neither conservatism nor Radical neoconservatism truly advances the freedom of either the average individual or of the small business enterprise. Furthermore, the Right has an innate problem in presenting themselves as the guardians of the common good. Instead conservatism, especially the current socially radical form openly embraces an ethic of undisciplined economic self-interest that on its face is at odds with an objectively defined common good---maintaining institutions that benefit all members of society. Too many of the superfluously wealthy do not understand that commutative profit, not the ability to disregard the rules is the proper reward for a well run entrepreneurial enterprise. Their egotism is now allowed to run amok in an unmitigated pursuit of profit that often has adverse consequences on those less powerful.

And it is for that very reason today’s patrons of the radical New Right are vulnerable on issues of social justice. They have a natural tendency to empathize only with the mighty and privileged few who seek to further increase their existing fortunes. And while they all talk about “rugged individualism� in truth they worship the sloth of the overpaid CEO who is paid up to 450 times the salary of one of his average workers.

Conversely liberalism empathizes with the courage and compassion of the individual whose goal is to attain a more modest level of personal economic security. And while might and privilege often gravitates to the wealthiest and most powerful members of our society, courage and compassion reaches into all economic strata, all races and all communities. Courage and compassion, unlike might and wealth are the more common American attributes. It is the combination of this conservative vulnerability and this liberal strength that makes liberalism, not conservatism the truer centrist philosophy.

Whether liberals realize it or not, they have the very power to derail the current radical New Right’s agenda. There is much dissension and hypocrisy on the Right waiting to be exploited. Libertarians and neoconservatives fight over the same foundation funds, atheistic neoconservatives use the Religious Right to impose their orthodox society on us all—including upon less powerful atheists and agnostics.

And that is where a reinvigorated centrist liberalism would be devastatingly effective. As liberals we must revisit what liberalism stood for when it consistently won elections from 1932 through 1968. We must emphasize a liberalism that rewards merit and requires contribution to the common good. With rights come responsibilities. This is a mantra liberals should not run from, but embrace as rightfully belonging to them. The notion that America is someone else’s society or that her problems are someone else’s responsibility must be shunned; America is our society, her problems are our problems and our responsibility to resolve them. And when we solve such problems by focusing on our common dreams and our common aspirations, America’s glory then becomes our collective glory, earned through hard work and mutually shouldered responsibility.