The Philosophy of Freedom
Page 18
[174]
She also offers a few tips on resisting pragmatism. First, is to identify it when you see it and name its failures, helping others to realize that Pragmatism is not actually practical.
Second, she encourages us to vigilantly police the meaning of words. Definitions are the first line of defense against irrationality.
Third, defend idealism and demonstrate the practical value and success of a devotion to ideals.
Smith also offers the counsel to avoid illegitimate compromise in the face of complexity. Do not give up trying to sort out a complex issue, but keep working to resolve it by using relevant principles.
PART 3: PROGRESSIVISM
“Government does not stop with the protection of life, liberty, and property, as some have suggested; it goes on to serve every convenience of society.”
[175] - Woodrow Wilson
Progressivism is a particularly virulent form of statism which appeared in America starting in the late 19th century and has been carried forward in varying degrees by most politicians since that time.
It is an outgrowth of Pragmatic philosophy. Historian Arthur Ekirch, Jr. identified Pragmatism as “the philosophy of the progressive movement,” and that “pragmatists and progressives alike looked to the national state as the means of attaining their goals.”
[176] Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, John Dewey, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, are just a few examples of political figures who have had Progressivism deeply rooted in their political philosophy. Both major political parties currently hold Progressivism as an ideal, the only difference being in degree.
Progressivism, with statism as its main premise, aims for particular roles for the government to be achieved progressively over time. In effect, modern Progressives are just really patient Communists.
Ekirch, in his book The Decline of American Liberalism, described the Progressive movement as “not primarily a liberal movement . . . . In contrast to former American efforts at reform, progressivism was based on a new philosophy . . . which emphasized collective action through the instrumentality of the government.” “Progressivism,” he goes on, “[sought] greater concentration and centralization of political and economic power in the Federal government.”
[177]
John Dewey described the aim behind these Progressive statist reforms. To him, freedom was “individuality operating in and for the end of the common interest.” He believed that everyone should be provided with equal opportunity, equipment, and resources to “enable him to put his powers thoroughly at the service of society . . . to give to society the full benefits of what is in him.”
[178] The professed aim of Progressive ideology is to create good citizens and productive members of society, i.e. good servants of the collective.
Progressive goals historically included the following:
· The direct election of U.S. Senators;
· Women’s Suffrage;
· Prohibition;
· Nationally directed “progressive” education;
· Trust busting;
· Child Labor Laws;
· Conservationism (National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, etc.);
· Work safety standards;
· Minimum Wage laws;
· Social Security;
· Unionization;
· Supervision and Regulation of Wall Street;
· Government-run health care;
· Amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants.
We can easily identify the explicit statism contained in Progressive theory. The following is an excerpt from a letter written to a friend by one of the titans of Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson: “Now the world is going to change radically, and I am satisfied that governments will have to do many things which are now left to individuals and corporations. I am satisfied for instance that the government will have to take over all the great natural resources . . . all the water power; all the coal mines; all the oil fields, etc. They will have to be government owned.”
[179]
Woodrow Wilson
[xiv]
Here are some statist principles from the Progressive Party platform of 1912:
“It is time to set the public welfare in the first place.”
[In first place over what? Individual welfare.]
“Up to the limit of the Constitution, and later by amendment of the Constitution, if found necessary, we advocate bringing under effective national jurisdiction those problems which have expanded beyond reach of the individual States.”
[The States are not guaranteed to be Progressive enough. Bump everything up to the national level, disregarding the 10th Amendment and Jefferson’s warning that we ought to “[support] the state governments in all their rights as the most competent administrations of domestic concerns.”]
[180]
“The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice.”
[Humans aren’t individuals; they are resources. See social justice under “Liberalism” later in this chapter.]
“We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefits conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes, and that the test of corporate efficiency shall be the ability better to serve the public; that those who profit by control of business affairs shall justify that profit and that control by sharing with the public the fruits thereof.”
[Serve better according to whose standards? Justify the profit to whom? This is a direct attack on the individual freedom of businessmen through vilification and confiscation of profits. The crucial issue evaded by Progressives is the difference between the earned and the unearned.]
The Administration of Woodrow Wilson advanced Progressive changes in government faster and more radically than any President prior and most since. He said, “I am a progressive. I do not spell it with a capital P, but I think my pace is just as fast as those who do.”
[181]
Some of the radical actions during his administration included establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, passing Sixteenth Amendment authorizing direct income taxes, establishing the Federal Trade Commission to regulate business practices, the Espionage and Sedition Acts to suppress anti-war protests, establishing the propaganda and censorship Committee on Public Information, instituting the first military draft since the Civil War, and taking over the railroads.
Why did he do all this? His political philosophy was drastically different than that of the Founders. Wilson’s policies came to be known as the New Freedom. “New,” in this case, is used to identify the Progressive concept of freedom as different from that of the “Old,” or that of the Founders. Wilson described it this way, “[M]ust not government lay aside all timid scruple and boldly make itself an agency for social reform as well as for political control?”
[182]
Compare these views with Thomas Jefferson who described the “Old Freedom” in his first inaugural address: “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . . . Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.”
[183]
This is why Tara Smith urges us to protect the meaning of words. Notice how the concept of freedom is destroyed and how language is corrupted by Pragmatic Progressivism. Freedom is to be unhampered by the force of others, to make choices according to one’s own will. “New” freedom removes the ability to make one’s own decisions and instead imposes governmental force against citizens—the exact opposite of freedom. In other words, to quote George Orwell’s 1984, “Freedom is slavery.”
Ekirch also identified how Progressivism was deeply rooted in collectivism, explaining how “Progressives [argued that
] society in the future would have to be based more and more on an explicit subordination of the individual to a collectivist, or nationalized, political and social order.”
[184]
Such a subordination of the individual was also apparent in other Progressive administrations. Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” and “Square Deal” expressed the “need to rise above material desires in order to serve a transcendent national purpose.”
[185] FDR’s “New Deal” programs escalated these progressive experiments in a “planned economy.” Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” initiated major new spending across education, medical care, and other areas, allegedly aiming to eliminate poverty and racial injustice, but in fact increasing both.
Progressive ideas continue to permeate all major areas of today’s political arena.
PART 4: NATIONALISM
“An intimate coupling of nationalism and a sense of social justice must be implanted in the young heart.”
[186] - Adolf Hitler
This is the collectivism which holds that the nation, not mankind as a whole, or the majority, or the race, or the class, is the favored group and the standard of value. The individual is held as of no value, except in relation to his service to the nation-state. Theodore Roosevelt described his New Nationalism as putting “the national need before sectional or personal advantage,” and regarding the “executive power as steward of the public welfare.”
[187]
Nationalism has most notoriously been seen as a core belief of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—or Nazis. It was used by them as a counter to the Marxist view of an international socialism. In early days, the party was called the Nazis-Sozis, in reference to their belief in both Nationalism and Socialism. The Socialism was eventually dropped as redundant since, for the Nazis, Nationalism meant Socialism in practice. This nationalism, according to Hitler, meant the power of the nation over the individual in every aspect of life, including economics. It was also closely combined with racist and genocidal policies because of the view that the nation of Germany should only be composed of the race of Germans.
Nationalism can usefully be differentiated from patriotism. A patriot is proud of his country’s virtues and seeks to correct its faults. A nationalist claims his country to be the greatest, regardless of its deficiencies and is aggressively contemptuous towards other nations. The patriot recognizes what the nationalist does not: that a country need not be great, only good.
Endnotes
Part 4: Nationalism
1. Hitler, Mein Kampf, 427.
2. Roosevelt, Theodore. “The New Nationalism.” 31 Aug 1910. theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trnationalismspeech.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2011.
PART 5: POLITICAL PARTIES
“If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
[188] - Thomas Jefferson
Political parties encourage collectivism on a sweeping scale. A “party” is a group of individuals who decide to designate themselves as holding a particular set of ideas and principles about the philosophy of government, usually designated in a platform. This is all well and good and the right of free citizens.
However, the various parties take their strategy beyond the mark by advocating decisions based on membership and loyalty to a group—rather than encouraging the consideration of an individual candidate’s views and beliefs. “The good of the party” is touted as the highest good, and even a disagreeable candidate is supported as a “lesser evil” to the choice offered by a rival party.
“Vote for me,” we are often told. “Not for who I am and what I believe, but because I have a (D) or an (R) next to my name.” The power of a political party, as Hitler pointed out, is not found “in the greatest possible independent intellect of the individual members, but rather in the disciplined obedience with which its members follow the intellectual leadership.”
[189]
The next major problem is that there is no standard for membership. Anyone can claim to be from any party, regardless of how many of their personal beliefs and actions contradict or violate the party platform. This means that a membership claim to a party is absolutely empty and meaningless.
To correct this, to get past the false two-party system that is handed to us, requires something very simple—vote your conscience. Vote for principles, not party; donate to people, not party; don’t ever vote for the lesser of two evils—it is still a vote for evil. Vote for a third party or write in another candidate if you must, even if you think it will change nothing. Never vote for an increase in political power, only for an increase in character and principle.
Endnotes
Part 5: Political Parties
1. Peterson, Merrill, ed. The Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Annapolis Junction, Maryland: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1993), 88-89.
2. Hitler, Mein Kampf, 457.
PART 6: LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a broad term with an interesting history. As its name implies, it is an idea founded in liberty and equality. It can best be understood in America today if divided into two distinct categories—classical liberalism and social liberalism.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
This is a political ideology that developed over the course of several centuries in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of liberty of individuals and limited government, and includes freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets. Classical liberals included John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Frederick Bastiat. This theory was revived in the 20th century by such people as Ronald Reagan, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.
In the latter part of the 19th century, however, and in the early decades of the 20th century, the term “liberalism” came to mean something else entirely. In America today, “liberalism” most often means Social Liberalism.
SOCIAL LIBERALISM
This is the belief that liberalism should include “social justice.” It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a role for government in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding government-granted privileges.
Social liberalism is a self-contradictory ideology which takes the root of liberalism—the liberty of individuals—and bastardizes it as a spawn of collectivism. To understand this claim we must examine the concept of “social justice.”
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, natural law, and equity; it is granting that which has been earned. America was founded on the implicit concept of “equal justice”—which means equal rights, protections, and treatments under the law for all individuals. Men are created equal and are thus guaranteed equal protection of their rights.
What happens when we add collectivist theory to the mix? Then we consider men as not having merely the right of life, liberty, and property, but the right to various other things. Men must be provided with health care, housing, swimming pools, and internet service. Essentially, men are not sovereign individuals, but ignorant cattle to be taken care of as resources of the nation—as a rancher would care for his herd. Therefore, men must have the right to employment, medication, education, housing, a living wage, retirement income, etc. This means the role of government—under social justice—is to provide those rights.
This is a violation of principle. Remember, there is no such thing as a right which must be provided by someone else. Here is where the advocates of social liberalism and social justice reach a mental wall—a blank-out. The government must provide those “rights,” which means someone must be forced to provide them. This is contradictory to the historical root of liberalism which is equal individual rights. “Social justice” is a gross perversion of the concept of justice. It is, in fact, the exact opposite.
The concept of social justice assumes one of two things. First, these rights are to be provided miraculously out of a vacuum from the all-powerful, magical forc
e of Government. Second, it asserts that the rights of some groups are more important and supersede the rights of other groups. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Sometimes, the term social justice is used to describe the movement towards a “socially just” world. It is a movement to create not a level playing field, but the complete equality of players, and this is done by draining the resources of one to give to another. In this context, social justice is achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. Justice, in this perverted sense, is only achieved when all people have equal things, not equal rights.
Modern liberals differ from socialists not in theory, but in degree of practice, as they will likely try to limit government actions at the point where they feel a decent quality of life is guaranteed for the poor. A major problem here, though, is that the more their policies are put into effect, the greater the hardships that the poor experience, so they are always advocating for more “fixes” to the ever-escalating difficulties. Modern liberals are less likely to approve of the nationalization of industry than are socialists. Liberals tend to favor statist, or even fascist solutions to issues (terms we will discuss), looking to government to provide their desires rather than innovation, persuasion, and cooperation.