Liberalism: Old and New

The Norman Transcript

April 22, 2006 12:15 am

— For The Transcript

In varying degrees disorder seems to beset everything. The causes are endless, but one sure source of
confusion is careless use of words -- those artificial symbols we use to manipulate ideas and to communicate.
Political words are often demons. In contemporary American politics we use terms like "liberal" and
"conservative" with slipshod abandon. Sometimes we use them with derogatory intent, sometimes with
complimentary intent, but our casual attention to precision and clarity can result in limited understanding and
increased befuddlement.
One of the oldest uses of the word "liberal" carries us back to classical Greece. Aristotle used it when
analyzing education. For him there was a difference between the education we need for leisure and the
education needed for practical affairs. Since reason is superior to utility, he argued, what we need is education
that "is liberal ... something good in itself." Therefore, the most valuable education is that which cultivates the
mind, which promotes thinking, has no immediate practical application, frees us from the narrow concerns of
the physical and is, in short, a "liberal education." The power of such ideas is forcefully illustrated by the fact
that they have come down to us through the centuries and still have a divisive influence among institutions of
higher learning and within individual colleges and universities.
From the decline of classical Greece to the modern period education in the West has been dominated by the
Church, theology and the intellectual studies derived from Greece and Rome. For many centuries clerical
authoritarianism was the paramount educational and political power. Words like "liberal" and "conservative"
play little role in the literature of these years, although their meanings are expressed in the struggles for
dominance, struggles for and against clerical authority and the desire for intellectual and religious freedom.
The growth of "capitalism" is entwined with the words "liberal" and "conservative." All three of these words
are not only interrelated, they are also mixed in the rise of modern "nationalism" and the ideals of the English,
American and French revolutions. One reason we stumble over meanings is the fact that many uncritically see
"democracy" and "capitalism" as synonymous, and in our early history labeled them as "liberal." Proponents
wanted government to be free of monarchy, oligarchy and other vested interests and the economy to be free of
mercantilism and other restraints upon business enterprise. The democratic revolutions and the growth of the
Classical School of Economics -- typified by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Mill and his son John Stuart
Mill -- were powerful forces in shaping emerging "liberalism." These were some of the finest minds in the
history of economic thought. There were, however, continental members of the Classical School, but it was
the English who exerted the most influence.
Thoughtful people understand that everything changes including ideas and institutions. "Liberalism" as it
evolved in the modern period emphasized freedom for the development of individuals, freedom from
government, laws and restrictive institutions and has been growing and changing for centuries. It reached
fruition in the 19th century, and is well summed up in American constitutional government, the Bill of Rights,
checks and balances and in economies as "free enterprise."
We have much to learn from historians, philosophers and sociologists. They show us how institutions change,
how ideas both grow and erode and how they influence one another. Also the industrial revolution has
revolutionized the world forcing us to think differently. And social change, especially evident in the Great
Depression, the rise of Communism and Fascism and the shattering influence of World War II and "The
Bomb" have changed how we think about institutions and the language we use to consider our condition.
All these disorders have shifted the meaning of "liberalism." Especially FDR and the New Deal helped us
think of this principle as one emphasizing the use of government to relieve human suffering, to use
government to promote employment, to use government to relieve unemployed workers and farmers suffering
from a deranged market place. In short they helped return hope to an ailing society and a faltering market
place. In short they helped return hope to an ailing society and a faltering economy. One of the greatest
ironies in American history is the hostility of the business community, and its "conservative" allies, to FDR
and efforts to use government financial aid for public welfare. In the 1930s the economic choice for America
was rapidly narrowing to Fascism or Communism. Roosevelt's "liberalism" saved the American capitalist
system. The fruits of honorable intention are sometimes bitter, for following World War II the political far
right has increasingly used the New Deal gains and Roosevelt's "liberalism" as the target for their hostility,
but tragically, their contribution to American politics is anxiety, confusion and stalling efforts to solve
pressing problems. A "liberal" is one who wants to use government to solve social problems and relieve
human distress. Clear definitions always contribute to clear thought, and clear thought contributes to prudent
behavior.
America seems to have reached its pinnacle of eminence at the end of World War II. Since then we appear to
have been slipping. Whether that tendency will continue or be reversed is conjectural. Certainly prudent and
lucid political discourse -- necessarily based on clear understanding of the words we use -- will help us
successfully navigate the future. What may "save" us is twofold: we have time, albeit diminishing, and we
have an abundance of intelligence. The problem is to use them promptly and wisely.
Lloyd Williams is a retired educator. His column runs in The Transcript every other Saturday.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.