Understanding Domestic Liberalism

One common bond connecting the different pieces of the liberal domestic agenda together is the belief that people must accept that they will be forever be paying more and more to the government to receive less and less. Consider the major domestic issues facing the United States right now…

  • Education: Liberals see nothing odd when continuing tax-increases greater than the rate of inflation are needed just to preserve the existing system (hello, Portsmouth, Cranston, and East Providence, for starters). Neither school choice as a more rational way for allocating resources, nor the weak correlation between education spending and education outcomes is worth discussion.
  • Healthcare: Liberals generally favor a government takeover of the healthcare system a) so they can provide universal coverage by increasing the price of healthcare without improving the breadth of services available to the people doing the paying and b) so they can use the power of government to control costs by limiting treatments.
  • Retirement security: Liberals do not believe that changes in the basic structure of social security should be considered. They believe that government will always be able to shore-up the existing system by raising taxes and/or reducing benefits by tinkering with cost-of-living adjustments and moving up the retirement age.
Besides too readily incorporating the idea that paying more to receive less is somehow the norm, the central ideas that comprise the domestic liberal agenda share a second feature in common. They are all based on an assumption that centralized, bureaucratic systems should be the first choice to solve a problem — if a strong, central bureaucracy can’t deliver a better solution than exists now, then it’s obvious (to liberals) that no system can!
The fact that contemporary liberalism, when addressing the three biggest domestic issues of the day, combines an affinity for centralized bureaucracy with an uncritical attitude towards social systems that deliver ever-diminishing returns is no coincidence. It is the natural result of the version of liberal ideology than came into being in the 1960s and 1970s…
  • Tenant #1: America is experiencing an inevitable historical decline. Sure, America had a good run for about 300 years or so, mostly because of favorable geography, a lack of hostile neighbors and good luck. But that part of history is now over. Paying more to receive less will be the norm for the foreseeable future.
  • Tenant #2: Average people can’t be trusted to deal with the ramifications of the great decline, so their lives need to be directly managed by government as much as is possible. It is only the elites within government who possess the necessary wisdom to properly cushion people from the effects of America’s shrinking role in history.
Once you understand this basis of contemporary liberalism, as an added bonus, you can also understand the core difference between liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans (now called “moderates”), a difference in belief about how you get people to follow the leadership elite…
  • Liberal Democrats tend to believe that people will not follow, unless they are directly paid off directly in some fashion. That’s why (historically), Democrats have tended to be more tolerant of corruption than Republicans.
  • Liberal Republicans, on the other hand, tend to believe in their own ability to convince people that they are the natural leaders of society. They believe they can make a compelling argument that they’re the managers who will make big government work for everyone.
That’s where we are right now. Is there anyone out there willing to make a case for an optimistic version of American liberalism — in their policy choices and not just their rhetoric?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim
Jim
14 years ago

Andrew,
Let’s call it what it is – it’s socialism.

Jim
Jim
14 years ago

Andrew,
Let’s call it what it is – it’s socialism.

klaus
klaus
14 years ago

Andrew, let’s call it what it is: wrong. The basis of modern liberalism is that, if monied interests are left to their own devices, those monied interests will not stop until serfdom is re-imposed. (That is what is known as, either, a ‘reductio ad absurdem,’ or ‘hyperbole.’) A free market may, initially, be efficient, but it will, eventually, be unfair. Modern liberalism was not created in a vacuum, based on someone’s theory. It came about as a direct response to real problems that came about when monied interests was left virtually unchecked. And, btw, monied interests will begin to interfere in the market as soon as they are able to get away with it. Think: monopoly, as in the Standard Oil Trust. Our schools are more segretated than they have been since attempts were imposed to de-segregate them. Why? Because of economic segregation. And then wealthier communities can afford better schools, and ones that do not have to face the problems attending on poverty. The result is a growing income inequality. And some of this is due to the Reagan tax cuts, which have eliminated a huge chunk of fed money that was available to schools. Hence, the current system where all of this has to be made up at the local level. So, if you voted for Reagan, and W, you voted to have your local taxes increased. A couple of observations: Unlike modern liberalism, which came about in reaction to specific societal problems, modern conservatism is wholly a theological construct. 20 years after Reagan said benefits would “trickle down,” they haven’t, and yet conservatives continue to insist, in the face of all evidence, that this will happen. Someday. And yet, the median wage has been stagnant since Reagan was in office. Explain that one. Second, I love the… Read more »

Justin Katz
14 years ago

Ummm, Klaus, I’m pretty sure that Andrew wrote that about liberal Republicans with something, let us say, other than approval and self-association.

Jim
Jim
14 years ago

klaus,
That which you espouse is called socialism. It is a proven failure.
Cloak it however you want, that is all it is.

robert
robert
14 years ago

Klaus,
You’re wrong on several points.
1st, the GOP haven’t “run things” in this state since 1934, not the 50s and 60s like you said.
2nd, income hasn’t stagnated over the last 20 years. in fact, on average, wages more than doubled over the period of 1980-1990 and nearly doubled again between 1990 and 2000. by comparison, the period between 1950 – 1970 saw wages increase at a slightly lower rate. further, over the last 20 years, home ownership has increased to its highest level ever, more people (of all races) are attending college than at any other time, and thirdly, reagan wasn’t the first to use tax cuts to stimulate the economy. less than twenty years before him, jfk did the same thing. in fact, we might as well mark on our calendars the birth of modern liberalism as the day jfk died.
but everything in my mind goes back to education. unless we have a thriving education system, “economic segregation” and personal wealth are not going to improve. andrew made a very sound point in this regard which you seemed to have ignored. that is, in order for us to improve our education system, money is not the be-all end-all. rather, we need to think outside of the union box. we need to get creative with our solutions. the fact that you reverted back to reduced federal spending as being responsible for our failing schools shows that you cannot move beyond the money=success equation even though among 25 developed nations, the US spends more per pupil than anyone else.
me? i tend to think of conservatism as being defined by personal responsibility: over one’s decisions, livelihood, and community responsibilities, whereas liberalism is defined by transference: of one’s decisions, livelihood, and community responsibilities to the government.

Frank
Frank
14 years ago

>> Our schools are more segretated than they have been since attempts were imposed to de-segregate them. Why? Because of economic segregation. And then wealthier communities can afford better schools, and ones that do not have to face the problems attending on poverty. The result is a growing income inequality. And some of this is due to the Reagan tax cuts, which have eliminated a huge chunk of fed money that was available to schools. Hence, the current system where all of this has to be made up at the local level.
Our schools are not more segregated, they are more integrated than ever. Wealthier communities do not “afford” better schools. The schools in wealthier districts tend to have parents that reinforce their kid’s education and may themselves be better educated, thus the students perform better in these districts. It’s not a money or a teacher issue at all. Per pupil spending in RI bears no correlation to the wealthier vs. poorer districts or to high vs. low performing districts . The wealthier towns already subsidize the school systems in the poorer districts. You could increase education spending substantially (haven’t we done this already in all districts) in the poorer districts and see little change. As long as there are poor attendance rates, inadequate emphasis on schoolwork by parents, little respect for authority, and disruptive classmates, these students will always perform less well than others. No amount of education funding is going to change that.
Liberalism’s premise of economical equality is absurd. It has never existed and never will exist unless you manage to stagnate the entire economy to the point that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy an equally low standard of living. Think Communist Russia.

Jim
Jim
14 years ago

The big fallacy with Liberalism lies in its’ insistance on focusing on the symptoms, and not the disease.
Liberals talk about “income equality”, “equality of opportunity”, etc. The problem is, there is no “equality of responsibility”, or “equality of desire” amongst those they wish to bestow all these other “equalities” upon.
Liberals refuse to acknowledge that all men are not created equally, when it comes to drive, desire, motivation, etc.
Liberalism (socialism), at its very core, requires one to consistently defy human nature to hold any truth, meaning or success. It will never happen.

Frank
Frank
14 years ago

Jim, very well said.

Bobby Oliveira
14 years ago

Dear Jim,
Unless you can show where the government has taken over the means of production of goods and services, it’s not Socialism. Nice try though. (I know – a Conservative types Socialism and thinks they automatically win the argument – so sad. Don’t fret, Liberals pull the same BS when they describe you as having no heart or being uncaring.)
What’s really disturbing about this thread, and American politics in general, is the need to seek extremes. All of us should be Liberal/Progressive regarding some issues and Conservative regarding others.
The idea that you take a stand on an issue without thinking it through is rather alarming. Even worse that you would put your faith in a brand, or even worse, a “label”.
No one set of thinking or philosophy has all the answers. If that were true, we would have discovered what it was by now. A good deal of both philosophies present tenents that are self-contradictory and therefore impossible to follow.
I would much rather hear someone argue that “Government has no place on X issue because . . . .” rather than “Anyone who belives government has a place here must be a Liberal (Socialist) and you know what that means . . . . .”
Acoording to the results of the last election cycle, the rest of the country seems to agree with me.

klaus
klaus
14 years ago

So many lapses in logic, so little time… All “-isms” are based on a particular theory of human nature. Liberallism, on the other hand, recognizes that monied interests have always expanded their power at the expense of the poor. As a result, the rich get richer, unless there is a method of income redistribution. As evidence, I cite 5,000 years of recorded history. And no, the liberal view of things has never existed. It’s a recent invention that has been fought tooth and nail by monied interests since its inception, which I would date to the New Deal. As someone astutely pointed out, Socialism advocates gov’t control of the means of production. I don’t advocate that. Labels are crude; there needs to be a combination of economic incentives and a social safety net. As someone else pointed out, not everyone is created equal. There will always be losers in the race to riches, and people who cannot seem even to compete. What do we do with them? Free market principles say we should throw them to the wolves. I disagree. Sorry, but there have been any number of articles in the past dozen about school re-segregation. I know that doesn’t fit with your ideology, but that’s the way it is. The whole personal responsibility thing is a canard. It’s a throwback to the belief that the poor are wicked or lazy, and their poverty is a visitation of God. Talk to people in the Rust Belt states about that. Companies started offshoring and thousands and thousands of people saw their standard of living collapse. That’s the Market for you. Oh–wages HAVE stagnated. Sorry, forgot I’m talking to economic illiterates. I should have specified REAL wages, not nominal wages. If your wage goes up 10%, but inflation has gone up 12%,… Read more »

klaus
klaus
14 years ago

Oh–but what about the “Natural Leaders of Society” thing?
I wanted to hear your defense of that one.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.