But what do they REALLY think?

ATTENTION: Long post ahead.
Go get a cup of coffee, come back and get comfortable, then dive in.

Do you ever wonder if the Lefties really believe what they're saying? That is, do they have a rational, reasoned explanation for liberalism, or is it simply all about them acquiring and maintaining their own personal power using whatever sentences they can manage to get out of their mouths?

A while back I came across an article (probably by way of the brainiacs at Power Line, but I can't recall with certainty) that is an attempt at accomplishing the former. It's titled "Beyond the Vote: The Crisis of American Liberalism", and it's written by Michael J. Thompson. It seems Mr. Thompson actually . . . understands liberalism. Moreover, he tries to explain (rationally, mind you) its difficulties just a few days before the 2004 election. Moreover still, I think that he thinks he has a solution to the problem, although even after reading his article a few times I cannot be entirely certain of that fact. Suffice it to say, Mr. Thompson uses his brains, not his feelings, to explain liberalism (a rare and refreshing event). And in doing so, I believe he has pulled back the curtain to reveal a tired, old man trying his best to make the Wizard seem alive.

Here's a paragraph from Mr. Thompson's article that I found particularly interesting. First I'll present the whole paragraph, and then we'll analyze it line by line. (Yes, I told you this would be long.)

What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere. Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful. One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few. The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century. Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism. This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

Wow. That was something, wasn't it? (Are you still with me?)

Now let's look at this paragraph line by line. (Quit your whining; it's only six sentences.) In doing so, I think we'll be able to spot some foundational assumptions that will confirm common criticisms of liberalism. (How 'bout that alliteration?)

Sentence One
What the contemporary manifestation of liberalism has been unable to provide is an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market that have fragmented and reified the public life, alienated whole swaths of the middle class and working people from their most salient political interests, and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere.

Well, first of all, kudos to Thompson for admitting that there is something missing in today's liberalism. On that point, we can all agree. What's missing, however, is not "an ethical foundation for fighting the unrestrained dynamics of the market." Fighting something that's unrestrained is akin to removing freedoms. And removing freedoms is foundationally unethical. No, what's missing is a philosophy of government that does not have restraint and control at it's core. More on that a little later.

We see a further flawed assumption in this paragraph. According to Thompson, unrestrained market dynamics have "reified..., alienated..., and contributed to an overwhelming breakdown of the public sphere." Reified (which I had to look up) means "to regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence." However, Thompson is using a different meaning of this word. Here's his new definition from earlier in this same article:

The Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukács, as far back as 1923, called the phenomenon “reification.” The insight was that as market capitalism continued to develop, and deepen its impact, its mathematical, instrumental, and egoistic logic would increasingly shape all elements of culture and society. Relations between people would become akin to market relationships; the entire way that individuals approached their world would be caste in market form, defined by the matter-of-factness of the cash nexus. The individual would increasingly turn his or her back on political or moral obligations and concerns, and would be recast as a consumer facing an endless fabric of commodities in a world without meaning or spirit.

So according to Lukács, and in turn Thompson, increasing market capitalism causes reification—the transformation into a world where everything is a commodity and nothing has meaning. Again, free markets are antithetical to their way of thinking. And again, we'll see why below.

Another point here; what's so bad about commodities? Anyone like apples? Oranges? They're commodities. Neither do they cost an exorbitant amount nor do we stand in lines all day to purchase them because we have free market capitalism as our economy, not communism. Things that are commodities cost little and are plentiful. Things that are not commodities cost much and are rare. And it means something to you when you can purchase them or share their benefits. Ever heard of a Bentley?

Sentence Two
Social liberalism was the response to this same tendency in American life in the early 20th century, and looking back is useful.

I agree with that last thought; looking back is indeed useful, as long as it results in course correction.

Now, I'm not the smartest guy in town, but I think when Thompson says "social liberalism" in this sentence he's talking about the loosening (I would use the term "erosion") of moral values our country saw in the early 1900s; you know, when our country began to step out of that horrible Victorian Era. (And make sure you say the word "Victorian" with a sneer, much like you would call something "horrific" or "vile".) But I could be wrong. Onward.

Sentence Three
One thinks of the influential figures of the Progressive and New Deal eras—now sadly forgotten but, without doubt, just as relevant as ever in the current context—such as Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl, Thurman Arnold, Rexford Tugwell and Nathan Straus, to name only a few.

Oy. Certainly a well-schooled liberal would think of these figures. And here's why:

• Herbert Croly - co-founder of The New Republic


• Walter Weyl - co-founder of The New Republic


• Thurman Arnold - Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division in FDR's Department of Justice


• Rexford Tugwell - one of the chief intellectual contributors to FDR's New Deal


• Nathan Straus - I looked, but I couldn't find anything

But we commoners don't think of these people, anytime. Why? Because the vast majority of the New Deal was an awful thing. (World's largest, legalized Ponzi Scheme anyone?) And these are just some of the people who helped dream up that awful thing. I certainly don't want my kids thinking about these people, unless it's in response to Alex Trebek listing them, in which case their response should be "Who are people who helped dream up a bad thing? 'Liberal Vermin' for $400, Alex."

Another thing. While I do understand that mentioning key figures in a movement is appropriate, it's important (especially for not-too-well-known figures) to also speak about their principles: what they stood for and what they accomplished. Here's an example: Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century, stood for getting government off our backs and defeating Soviet Communism. In pursuing what he stood for, he lowered income tax rates which unleashed our national economy and advanced the principle of "peace through strength" which won the Cold War.

Sentence Four
The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct was one that emphasized the social nature of individual and political life as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century.

Wow. "The new interpretation of democracy and liberalism they set out to construct...." Sounds like someone got their handy-dandy Utopian Construction Permit™ in the mail and started hammering away. Tell me, exactly what was so wrong with Democracy before these people arrived that required their intervention?

"...the social nature of individual ... life." Oxymoron, anyone? They just can't seem to stomach self-sufficiency, and there's a reason. If the population were to ever become self-sufficient, they'd be out of a job.

"...as opposed to the laissez faire individualism of the 19th century." Why are these people so opposed to "laissez faire individualism"? Rugged Individualism is, after all, one of the traits that defines American Culture — that and personal responsibility. (Oops. If any liberals were reading this, they just ran screaming into the hills. You know how they hate responsibility.)

Sentence Five
Placing emphasis on the social dimensions of political life and the mythology of laissez faire capitalism meant that what Marx had called man’s “communal essence” became for thinkers like Dewey “social liberalism”: individuals were not autonomous entities, they were socially constituted; each of us relied on complex systems—from the division of labor to bureaucracy—to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism.

No, no, no, laissez faire capitalism is not a myth, it's a reality. A really big, unavoidable reality. See your nearest Mom & Pop eating establishment for a real-world example.

"Marx." Ah, there it is. You just knew it was coming, right? Could you feel it? This is what I referred to back at the first sentence—a philosophy of government with "restraint and control at it's core." Now you can see why Thompson has difficulty with such concepts as "free markets", "market capitalism", "laissez faire capitalism", and "laissez faire individualism". Communism/Socialism cannot endure talk of freedom.

"Each of us relied on complex systems...to survive and flourish under the conditions of modernity and especially under capitalism." Well, I will stipulate to a degree that we all rely on complex systems in capitalism. Sure, we must obey the law, maintain the law, and correct those disobedient to it. This is why governments are instituted among men—"to secure those liberties", so says The Declaration of Independence. Liberties. What we don't do is rely on complex systems so much that our liberties are transferred to the government. Well, some do. That's called welfare.

My overall point for this sentence: individuals ARE autonomous entities. They react within and among society and require both its guardrails and rules, but they are autonomous entities at their core.

Sentence Six
This was set against all previous understandings of liberalism, of “classical liberalism” specifically, which saw individualism in simplistic, atomistic terms more akin to Newtonian physics than to the complex realities of modern life.

Clearly, we are of two worlds. Thompson is saying here that "classical liberalism" thinks of individuals as, well, individuals. Notice the term "atomistic". Yes, in breaking down a structure to it's constituent parts, we find that molecules are made of atoms. Likewise, societies are made up of individuals. In Thompson's "social liberalism", individuals cannot be separated from the greater society. You must be considered as part of the greater oneness. (Everybody cross your legs and chant "ohm".) Well, this is America. And while we are unified in common causes, we are individual in our hopes and dreams. There's not enough liberalism in the world to change that.

Hey. We made it! Wasn't too painful, was it? Hopefully, we can get a little better glimpse of what motivates these people, at least the ones who think and speak altruistically and not just for acquiring and maintaining personal power.

Now surely (at least for those who read it) this post will generate some comments.