Restoring Liberty in America

Dear Fellow American,

What is liberty?  Many equate it to freedom.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms:  freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  The implication is that government provides these freedoms, which is an example of classical conservatism (more on this later).  This is not liberty.  American liberty is freedom, constrained by the rule of law, to do what one wants without harm to another.  This notion is consistent with language in our Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.  People through their state legislatures delegated specific, enumerated powers to a national government for this purpose.  Unfortunately, over time, our national government has gradually usurped this self-governing authority and as a consequence diminished individual liberty.

Language matters; yet, the concept of liberty means different things to different political factions.  In his book, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, F.A. Hayek devotes a chapter to this topic with the title, “Our Poisoned Language.”  He argues there has been a deliberate effort to inject ambiguity to blur distinction, such as justice versus social justice.  To drive home his point, he provides a list of over 160 nouns qualified by the adjective “social.”[1] Laws or regulations stemming from the notion of social justice promote egalitarianism over liberty—taking from some (such as progressive taxation) to give to others.  Social justice is not equivalent to charity.  The former is noblesse oblige.  The latter represents liberty in so far as an individual freely exercises his or her natural right to help another in need.

Today, in America, there is a desire to label people for political differentiation:  liberal, conservative, progressive, alt-right, and so forth.  Over time, the meaning of these terms has changed.  Today’s modern conservatives were originally known as classical liberals.  They believe in individual liberty, limited government, private property rights, and a free market.  They also believe in the rule of law and equality of justice for all.  Today’s modern liberals, or progressives, were originally known as classical conservatives.  They believe in collective liberty, a strong central government, noblesse oblige, and a government-controlled economy.  They also believe in conserving privilege based on notions of social justice (a form of nobles oblige).  Today, we see this differentiation and corresponding tension as the tug of war between capitalism and socialism.  The two major political parties generally align with these distinctions.  The Reagan revolution is often credited with the conservative movement in America.  In reality, the revolution was an attempt to “conserve” classical liberalism and its grounding in religious liberty tradition that provided the moral philosophy for civil behavior within the American society.

Progressive (modern liberal) thinking emerged in the late 1800s in response to industrialization and the rapid urbanization of America, with the notion that a central government can more easily solve problems through central planners and advance social and economic reform to improve the quality of life for citizens.  Teddy Roosevelt is generally recognized as our first progressive president as signaled by his Square Deal speech in 1905.[2]  The Protestant Social Gospel movement aligned with political progressives, giving the political movement legitimacy as a divinely inspired effort.  Woodrow Wilson began to institutionalize progressive thinking, especially with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and a massive expansion of federal agencies.  Then, the cultural revolution of the 1960s, notably spawned by the Port Huron Manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society,[3] moved modern liberals and progressives even further left, emphasizing socialism and secular humanism over capitalism and religious liberty.  Today, the consequences have been manifested in the multiculturalism and relative morality that has diminished the importance of a virtuous, civil society that Tocqueville observed as “habits of the heart.”  Ironically, Tocqueville realized America’s desire for liberty in general was advanced in parallel with a passion for religious liberty.  To the contrary, the promises of a better society stemming from the French Revolution were thwarted because a commitment to religious liberty was shunned (thanks to the Enlightened) in favor of political and economic freedom.

America is terribly divided.  One faction believes in the idea of America as championed by the classical liberal philosophy grounded in religious liberty.  The other faction wants to transform America in a socialistic direction, despite the damning historical evidence of its inevitable tyranny.  The latter faction stems from an educational system that no longer emphasizes the importance and essence of liberty and how self-governance contributes to its vitality in a free society.  Three generations of Americans have not been exposed to the principles and concepts that contribute to healthy “habits of the heart.”

We can recover this loss in a number of ways.  Tactically, by educating the public on the wisdom of Article V of the US Constitution and its means of correcting government corruption, we introduce or refresh in their minds the essence of liberty, checks and balances, and the moral obligation of self-governance.  We do this by arming them with the knowledge and arguments to persuade their State elected officials to return Tenth Amendment authority to the States.  More strategically, we do this through programs that provide classical education from K-12.  Hillsdale College has developed such a program called the Barney Charter School Initiative.[4]   There are now over 20 affiliate schools across the nation.  Finally, we do this one-person-at-a-time by exercising our moral obligation for self-governance through civil discussion and virtuous example, “making goodness fashionable.”[5]

Respectfully yours,

Old Gadfly

oldgadfly@gmail.com

---

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, Edited by W.W. Bartley, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 115-116.

[2] See Theodore Roosevelt, The Square Deal, speech delivered at a banquet in Dallas, Texas on April 5, 1905.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trsquaredealspeech.pdf  See also, The Square Deal—The Effects of Progressivism at http://independence.guhsdaz.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_759199/File/Lovell/APUSH/9%20-%20Gilded%20Age/The%20Square%20Deal-The%20Effects%20of%20Progressivism%20chart.pdf

[3] See Michael Kazin, The Port Huron Statement at Fifty, Dissent Magazine, Spring 2012.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-port-huron-statement-at-fifty

[4] See The Barney Charter School Initiative at https://www.hillsdale.edu/educational-outreach/barney-charter-school-initiative/. 

[5] See Eric Metaxas, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 2017), pp. 168-176.