There are two principal meanings of the word “liberal.” On the one hand, there is classical liberalism — the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, etc., and which is reflected in the Declaration of Independence. Then there is modern liberalism, which rejects virtually all of classical liberalism, except perhaps in the civil liberties realm.
Independence Day presents a problem for modern liberals. This is the day when we are supposed to celebrate the signing of our founding document. So what do you do if you’re an editorial writer or a columnist and you have to write something about July 4th when you don’t really believe in July 4th?
Imagine a tribute to America that:
- Says the founding fathers were hypocrites because many of them owned slaves.
- Pretends that the phrase “all men are created equal” means equality of material condition (or at least equality of opportunity) rather than its actual meaning: equality before the law.
- Applauds our nation for declaring that “all men have rights,” but manages to mention only one of them (the right to vote), even though that one was not in the Declaration of Independence or in the original Constitution.
- Implies that anyone who believes that voters should produce the same identification we all have to produce to fly on an airplane or enter a government building is secretly intent on voter suppression.
- Spends four full paragraphs taking a swipe at Sarah Palin’s view of “real America” by pointing out that most Americans live in cities, and large cities at that, rather than in places like Mayberry.
- Spends another two paragraphs announcing that although the original colonists were mainly WASPS, “we’re no longer an Anglo-Saxon nation; we’re only around half-Protestant; and we’re increasingly nonwhite.”
- Says the most significant feature of our system is that we have survived as a “democracy,” even though the founders called it a “republic.”
Hmm…Maybe this guy should go back to grade school. Except that I’m afraid that what you just read is what kids are probably learning in school these days. Writer’s identity revealed below the fold.
I’m sure you guessed it. The writer of this column is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who provides us at this blog with a steady stream of opportunities to correct factual and logical mistakes.
Let’s take the last point first, because it’s probably the most important error here. The founders actually feared democracy. And because of that fact, the American system of government makes it very hard for the majority to impose its will on a minority. Also, the founders clearly did not believe in a “right to vote.” Seeing voting as a procedural opportunity rather than the exercise of a fundamental liberty, the colonists not only limited who could vote, they limited what people could vote for. Under the original Constitution, for example, only House members were to be popularly elected. People were to vote for electors, not presidents. Senators were to be appointed by state governments. And the Supreme Court Justices were all to be appointed, not elected.
This is not the design you would choose if you wanted government to efficiently reflect majority preferences. But the founders didn’t want efficient government. They wanted the private sector to be efficient; and to get that done, government must be held at bay. That’s why any new legislation must move slowly and methodically, facing checks and balances along the way.
It’s easy to see why the founders feared the popular will. Under pure democratic voting, the lower 50% on the income ladder plus one could seize the income and assets of the upper 50%. Or the upper 50% plus one could devastate the bottom. Or western states could plunder eastern states. Or the South could plunder the North. Or vice versa.
Pure democracy is a potential threat to individual rights, not a reliable defender of those rights.
What about the fact that many of the founders were slave holders? I hear about this from students all the time, as though it somehow delegitimizes the entire American system of government.
In 1776, the vast majority of all the people in the world did not believe that anyone had natural rights. What was striking about the Declaration of Independence was not that it didn’t apply to everyone; it’s that the idea of natural rights applied to anyone. And once it was widely accepted that white men had rights, it was inevitable that people would come to see that women, blacks and everyone else also had rights. As I wrote in Classical Liberalism versus Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism:
Classical liberalism is based on a belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in the Declaration of Independence. In 1776, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they had only such rights as government elected to give them. But following British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it’s the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can both form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century — more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined.
All forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected the classical liberal notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state.
Yet, the ideas of liberty survived. Indeed, almost everything that is good about modern liberalism (mainly its defense of civil liberties) comes from classical liberalism. And almost everything that is good about modern conservatism (mainly its defense of economic liberties) also comes from classical liberalism.