This is a very promising start. I look forward to the next installment.

Hoppy in Sacramento

In the space cleared out by the classical liberalism of the free market conservative philosophy, government loses most of its power and legitimacy to regulate human behavior.

First, conservative philosophy, as practiced in the US, is not free market, not at all. Trade pacts, huge Pentagon budgets, wars, anti-union policies, and other "conservative" policies all serve to be corporate welfare programs, not free market.

Secondly, while the conservatives profess to be strict constitutional constuctionists, they fail to consider that one of the principal purposes of the republic is not to fatten corporate profits, but to promote the general welfare. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, . . ." It's better to read the Constitution than to read Locke.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com

John Locke's Second Treatise is not about economic policy or taxation but about the origin of government, how civil society differs from other ways that humans live, and what makes a government legitimate or illegitimate. Locke's overarching point is not that your money is yours but that your government is yours.

With respect to property Locke is arguing against other writers who claimed that all property comes from the king or from God or that there couldn't be property before government b/c all goods were held in common. Locke claims instead (almost incidently to the overall argument BTW) that property derives from what we might call sweat equity--as you have a right to your body, so you have a right to the output of your body's labor. His point is, as I said, not about taxation but about origins of government. He's saying Native Americans forming confederations like the Powhattans or the Iroquois, or frontiersmen forming towns in the American West, or the medieval islanders who banded together to build Venice created governments not just to keep from being killed and/or enslaved but also to keep from being robbed.

While one might, after a few beers, decide Locke proves that inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes are more legitmate than income taxes, one might just as well decide he's saying that if you work forty years in a company you rightfully own part of the company. In any case Locke certainly never argues that taxes or government are bad. Obviously, just as we accept limits on our freedom, so we must accept taxation of our property.

Anyway, if we're going to drag poor John Locke from his grave to be interrogated in the case of the missing liberal principles, let's let him have an attorney. Thomas Jefferson was an admirer (in many ways a disciple) of Locke. Here's some of the 'essential principles of our government' that he lists in his first inaugural address. I've cut the points I thought Locke might not agree wtih.

1. equal and exact justice to all
2. peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations
3. a jealous care of the right of election by the people
4. the supremacy of the civil over the military authority
5. economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened
6. the honest payment of our debts
7. encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid
8. the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason
9. freedom of religion
10. freedom of the press
11. freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus
12. trial by juries impartially selected.

That all sounds pretty liberal to me.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a reader and I love the intellectual exploration of ideas and philosophy, but so what?

We don't need more books, we don't need more philosophy about what it is to be a liberal or how to be a liberal. Intellectuals love this kind of thing, but Americans by and large do not for many reasons but one big one is that they aren't intellectuals and don't really give a crap about all that stuff. What Americans are interested in more than anything else is can liberals deliver? Can they deliver what I need and what my family needs? Will they keep the country strong, safe from our enemies and at peace with other nations? This is a practical, bottom line approach that drives intellectuals crazy because they want to wax eloquent about their principles and philosophy and they want people to read their glorious books and articles.

The reason liberalism waned was not due to a lack of philosophical framework or the right books. Liberalism collapsed as a result of failed leadership and cowardly, craven political choices made by those leaders. For nearly 40 years now most elected Democrats---especially in DC have been mouthing mildly liberal Democratic rhetoric to the voters while abandoning a damn good set of principles that are still good today, abandoning organized labor, abandoning efforts to grow the middle class (otherwise known as anti-poverty programs), growing cozy and indebted to rapacious business interests and in general being cowards and pushovers in the face of entirely illegitimate right wing Republican attaks.

Liberalism was popular when it fought conservatism and right wing bullshit: when it called a spade a spade. Harry Truman won in 48 because he fought, not because he made nice with those who tried to politically tar and feather him at every turn. He told farmers, for example, that if they voted Republican in 1948 they were "the most ungrateful people in the world" and they "didnt know which side their bread was buttered on" after all the prosperity the liberals and the Democratic Party had made possible. He didn't try to adopt more Republican-leaning positions. He condemned the Republican immigration bill as anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic--which it was--he used feisty, strong language not genteel and polite words. He talked the people's language and spoke to their concerns in a way they related to. He was smart enough to know that you don't try and make the people understand intricate, uninteresting policies because it's good for them. He focused himself on the bedrock issues that impact average Americans on a daily basis. He didn't write a book or discuss theory or philosophy with folks. I strongly recommend his 1948 acceptance speech to anyone who hasn't heard it or read it. Truman was never known as a very liberal Democrat. Listen to that speech and see how far we have strayed from what liberalism is supposed to be. Were he to give the same speech today, Truman would be tagged as a hotheaded extreme left liberal. Go listen to it. It is remarkable to hear a politician talking the way he does in that speech. We need to get back to that. Why? Because we still need national health care in this country, because we still need a real and effective housing policy in this ountry that is for the people and not just the developers and landlors, we need an immigration policy that works, we need to improve educational outcomes for all but the most priveleged of our young people, we need to adopt policies that once again reward American workers for their ever increasing productivity as opposed to seeing the wealthy take all the increased profits for themselves, etc...

Liberalism fell out of favor when it lost it's nerve and began accomodating and appeasing the far right in ever-increasing efforts to prove they were not liberals but "moderates."

We are now on the verge of ushering in (unless they blow it in 08 and with Democrats you can never underesitmate their ability to blow it)a Democratic administration and Congress in 2009. We know what concerns people and we know what needs to be done. The President and Congress will need to agree in advance on the major pieces of legialtion and what they will do and push them through quickly. Dem members of Congress will need to support that effort and not bog it down or do the work of the Republicans by watering down those efforts. And when the Republicans begin to obstruct and object, they need to be slapped down by a resolute and strong Democratic leadership instead of the anemic crap we've seen from Pelosi and Reid.

In my view the real problem is that it appears the Democrats are going to nominate a Republican for President who will not end the war, who will not pledge to refrain from attacking Iran, who will essentially compromise away our chance at regaining real political momentum for liberalism. And yes, I'm talking about Senator Clinton. Bill's moderate style Presidency was appropriate for the 90's, but is not what we need now. If anything, she is less liberal than he was and on the most important issue, the war, she has never condemned it as a bad idea--only that it was mismanaged. We need real, muscular, unabashed and unafraid liberal Democrats running the show because we now have the advantage and the Republicans are totally discredited. If we fail to strike now we may never have another opportunity to turn things around. Another right wing administration will plunge our nation into more wars, bankrupt us, isolate us, and make us even more hated around the world. If Hillary gets elected, instead of creating momentum for liberal Democratic policies she will suppress it because she wants to govern from the center. She wants to serve business as much as labor if not more. But sadly, you cannot serve both business interests and the American people's interest.

No, we dont need any further philosophical treatises or discussion. We need to do something that people can see is having a positive impact on their lives and probably several somethings and ending the war would be a damn good place to start. Without being able to deliver the goods, all the books on earth will not bring America back to the place it should be in the world and it sure won't bring liberalism back.

That's a ten. Exceptional. I copied it.

they aren't intellectuals and don't really give a crap about all that stuff

Come to think of it, the whole wonkish blog sphere ... how much does it owe to the example Clinton's crew set? Or Carter's? Or Kennedy's?

Well, congratulations on your pristine ancestry.

Now, I'll just go back to 1941 with Americans sitting around the family radio.

We had a guy then who could sum up just about everything you needed to know about liberalism, national character and, yes, even national security.

If I could get every Democrat running for office to sit down and read FDR's 4 freedom's speech every night before bed, I wouldn't care if we came up with a single "progressive" idea in this century.

It's all there. The need for national defense. The need for social justice. The need for health care, education, a secure retirement. And yes, children, the need for taxes to pay for it, taxes justly imposed on those who can afford to pay them.

We don't need new ideas nearly as much as we need to relearn the old ideas we've abandoned.

FYI---here's a link to Truman's 1948 accetance speech. You can listen to it or read it. I recommend you listen to it.  You can't really absorb the full impact without hearing it.  It's lengthy by today's standards but well worth it.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/educ/1948.htm

You make a very good point.

I would say that good is a function of the middle class, as is most morality.

Poor people can't afford it, and rich people don't need it.

I think when you look at history, the emergence of the abolition movement in America was a function of the growth of a large mass of middle class across the northern United States from Iowa to New Hampshire.

If you want the better angels of our nature to emerge, as a widespread norm, then it is best that there be a widespread middle class. In America from 1950 to 1980, where everyone from plumbers to doctors considered themselves middle class, vice was at it's greatest scarcity and in general we treated each other with the greatest consideration.

I often wonder if the rise of moralism in politics isn't in fact, people's reaction to the retreat of the middle class. When the middle class is growing and healthy, people don't worry about the politics of morality. When the middle class is shrinking they howl at the moon over the decline of morality.

What they are howling at and over is the decline of the middle class. They protect their values like they would protect their property - and maybe they are doing the same thing. The odditing then being, the more they pursue Republican morality politics, the more they undermine the middle class, the more they howl about morality. It's the classic case of the self inflicted wound.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

Hello Tim:

‘If you want the better angels of our nature to emerge, as a widespread norm, then it is best that there be a widespread middle class.’

In some cases, I’d have to agree. Certainly, the decline of the German middle class was the major factor in the creation of Nazi Germany.

I would have to say that good, however, has existed for millennia before the creation of the middle class. Linda Hirshman’s conservative religious philosopher, Richard M. Weaver, an adherent of doctrines 2,000 years old, believed so strongly in inequality because he also believed that Human Nature was evil, thus morally inferior groups should be below his own group: white, male, Christian, blah, blah, blah.

Also, it's my opinion that increasing progressive power, or, in other words, increasing faith in Human Nature, doesn't always happen when the middle class is strong. For example, while certain aspects of liberalism were ascendant in the 1950’s ( e.g. labor unions ), in other ways, such as McCarthyism and race relations, the ‘50’s were extremely conservative. Also, arguably the most liberal president ever, FDR, was elected at a time of great damage to the (then) middle class. In addition, the retreat of the modern middle class began in the 1970’s, which was as ‘liberal’ a decade as was the 1960’s.

I think that moralism, which is presently on the retreat, was due more to the exhaustion of cultural liberalism at the beginning of the 1980’s. One might say that as of January 1st 1980, the party was over. This decade would be a time when conservative values were predominant and moral imperialism was widespread in entertainment.

Well, if no one else will I am willing to open that closet and let everyone see what is really hidden in there.

The Republicans are in power, and the Democrats are leaning hard to the center for one single reason. That reason is that the Democrats finally lived up to their liberalism when Lyndon Johnson got some very good laws passed that greatly displeased southern voters. Those southern voters then were wooed, with code words, but wooed in any case, by the Republicans. They switched from voting solidly Democratic to solidly Republican.

So, today the Republican Party continues to wink at the racists in the south and use code words to assure them that Republicans share their "values". That gives the Republicans a huge advantage due to our non-democratic method of electing a president and congress. To date we have not found a way around that problem.

Okay, you can close the closet door again and resume the discussion about philosophy, liberal platforms, moralism, etc. and how if only we find the magic words we can once again reclaim our rightful place as "the" party in America. But, many of us know about that closet.

Hoppy in Sacramento

There's nothing wrong with being a true conservative, nor is there anything wrong with
being a true liberal. How-ever, that's not
what we've got these days, if you catch the Congresscritters on C-SPAN, all that has been
washed away in the Big Race For The Next Government Donut. Representation? Pshaw.
Not when there's Gummit Chex to be had!
And, as long as this administration has the
keys to the vault, they're going to keep
shoveling money out the door into a waiting
dark-colored van, and that's about the long
and short of it. Money talks, all else walks,
that's their motto, so liberal? Conservative?
Ok, whatever...

John, liberty and equality are values expressed by many conservatives. They might say "economic" liberty and "political" equality where (some) liberals say "political" liberty and "economic" equality, but they still support those values.

As for me, I explicitly identify as a liberal, but I just don't believe in human nature. There is no such thing.

Reece, what you say then, is the basic ideological difference between liberals and conservatives? If it's not about the moral disposition of Human Nature, then what is it?

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support, including rights to life, liberty, and property. "

I would argue that the above originates from an optimistic view of Human Nature.

How about this:

Conservatives help themselves while liberals help each other.

I really wish left-leaning Democrats could get over the infatuation with the term "liberalism". Why is there such an insistence on using a label which has classically been used to refer to what most Americans think of as one school of "conservatism", and which is still used across the world, and even here in America, for a very broad spectrum of enlightenment-based outlooks, many of which have little discernible leftward element? What we need is clear thinking, and the term "liberalism" invites confusion and intolerable ambiguity.

Just think what we'd be arguing about if the Liberals controlled the government

How much to tax the wealthy, how hard to come down on the polluters, how much jail time for white collar crooks, what kind of universal health care we should have

how much we should cut the pentagon, how quick should we end Star Wars, what to do with our armed forces

how better to help the working people, students, the elderly, and the poor; how much the minimum wage should be

how quick we should repeal the Patriot Act, how we should show the "christians' the value of the Beatitudes.

what we could do about obscene compensation packages for Corp executives

I am responding to your comment that philosphy is one thing, but that action is more necessary now. Forgive my paraphrase.

What I would like to see is the people who think and ponder and discuss add a good mix of activism into their repertoire. Things are in such a state it is going to take all of us putting pressure on the system and the players, to try to get it straightened out. It is not going to straighten out itself, and passivity only allows the wrongdoers and criminals to continue their activities with impunity.

And it shouldn't or doesn't have to be just liberals. There are a lot of ticked off moderates and even some conservatives out there as well. I believe we've all had enough.

GFS

Well, looks like New York Times columnist David Brooks is following our discussion, too. "The Republican Collapse" [How philosophical drift led to political decline] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin.  His solution to the failure of the conservative cause is that they should go back to the social solidarity of the aristocratic English landowners, circa 1790, when no one else could vote or stand for Parliament and other great arrangements. By Wednesday, I am going to try to posit a somewhat more up to date vision for the Democrats. I will doubtless leave things out and say things wrong, as I try to do so. But Brooks is dead on about philosophy mattering. And it's about time we had this conversation.

Quote from a friend: "Never take a rubberband to a gun fight."

Pardon me, but I kind of thought that negotiating with other countries was exactly what we Democrats/Liberal Leaners have been arguing for for the past 6 years? web design nyc

This is what I was looking for, quality content, thanks for sharing.
birthday messages