Joe Miller at Bellum et Mores graciously and directly answers my challenge to propose a positive definition of liberalism. I must admit to being caught off guard. Not only did it never occur to me that my criticism would be answered, but I really wrote my post within a left libertarian framework and mindset that didn't anticipate an ideologically wider audience. Therefore, my post probably made some unmentioned assumptions: chief among them, assuming the reader was familiar with my long-running exploration of leftism. After all, I only expected my article would be read by the bloggers in my little marginal corner of the internet. Not that I am ungrateful for the opportunity to engage the wider political blogosphere; but I think Miller misunderstood my point (through no fault of his own), and so I find myself in the same position as he: going back and clarifying what I meant.
This whole issue of leftism vs. liberalism mirrors a larger terminological debate within the libertarian world (libertarians often see themselves as the "true" liberals), and my original post was written in that context. Specifically, part of the agenda of the left libertarian movement is to unbundle statist ideas from concept of "the free market" and "socialism". The conversations are pregnant with the possibility of new priorities within the pro-freedom movement, since they force an audit of old "package deal" terms, clearing out unuseful connotations of agendas. In many cases, I think these bundled ideas do not communicate sufficient stances on what one actually opposes and supports in a thoroughgoing, consistent fashion. However, some do: what I mean is that the full implications of all facets of a given term can and should be rediscovered and reconsidered. Because I believe liberalism is one of these legitimate comprehensive concepts that integrates a variety of values, agendas, and conclusions - where the bundle of concepts follow from one another logically - I see it as an error to "pick and choose" the liberal ideas to incorporate. Indeed, this was the true nature of my critique of Miller's argument.
Let's examine Miller's answer to my challenge. How does he distinguish liberalism from the Left?
So if I'm not really a slow-moving leftist, then what am I? That's a bit harder to say. Indeed, this is a part of Jeremy's challenge: if I want to distinguish liberalism from leftism, then I really ought to start by explaining what I take liberalism to be. Roughly, then, I take liberalism to consist of three main theses:
What these theses boil down to is that I have to allow people the freedom to choose for themselves how they will live their lives (that is, allow each person to determine her own conception of the good), treat each person equally regardless of those choices, and not use the state to privilege some conceptions of the good over others. Pretty straightforward, right?
- Respect for individual autonomy.
- A commitment to equality of opportunity.
- State neutrality.
Actually, though he claims that it is probably not so simple, I would say that it is - and it's because of this willingness to fudge the basics that we have a big disagreement. Because in my view, Miller didn't distinguish liberalism from leftism at all - he simply appropriated some leftist concepts for his own definition of liberalism. Now that's fine, but it doesn't really distinguish your goals sufficiently to show such derision towards leftists. Indeed, it appears that liberalism is a leftist idea at it's core - with the only distinction that it seeks to reform rather than abolish the status quo. And that is precisely what I meant by incrementalism.
However, I agree with Miller when he objects to this characterization, insofar as he defines liberalism as "what he believes" first and a set of principles second.
I don't, for example, view the welfare state as a small step on the way toward some eventual socialist utopia. I don't think that socialism works...unless what you want is for everyone to be poor together. Hell, I think that the welfare state lowers overall wealth; I just think that we are a rich enough society that we can sacrifice some rate of growth to help out the poor sods who currently are struggling. Incidentally, this is a still-developing view on my part. I've been slowly moving from a sort-of Rawlsian liberal to what I guess one might call a Clintonite neo-liberal.
Now we're getting to the true heart of the matter. Miller finally puts his cards on the table, and I don't think he has the hand he thinks he does.
I'd like to see some sort of representation of Clintonite neoliberalism that is vaguely liberal in the classical, historical sense. Need I list the ways the Clinton administration thwarted each every one of the three theses Miller claims to advocate? Perhaps he's strong enough to live with the contradictions, but I prefer terminological clarity. I think it's fair to call his politics "neoliberal", or rather, un-classical liberalism: statist, interventionist, discriminatory, collectivist, and corporatist. There's nothing liberal about any of that, current political wisdom nonwithstanding. And that was really what I was getting at: it's not that Miller's liberalism can be equated with incremental lefitsm, but rather that Miller's "Clintonite neoliberalism" is not liberalism at all.
Now, that may sound harsh, and I realize I'm not the final arbiter of terminology. That said, I think it would be prudent for us to consider this as the political landscape changes and ideological alliances are shuffled about. Liberalism has got to mean something once more. It cannot be a kinder, more gentle version of the conservative, all-powerful state. It has to be something that draws on the truth and profundity of the liberal tradition: anti-status quo, anti-establishment, anti-class warfare, pro-liberty, pro-individual. In other words, you have to demonstrate some measure of consistency with your historical forbears in order to be a liberal. To the extent you do, you are also a leftist - whether or not that is politically or personally convenient. You can't take one without taking the other unless you break the definitions.
I'm sure that part of what prompted Miller's original musings on the left and liberals was the seeming inability for Democrats and the nominally liberal left to take charge of this country and move it in a new and different direction - something about which people can get excited. But I think "his side" has lost touch with what distinguished them from the right wing of this country. You can't lead if you can't even get clear about what direction to go in, and the disarray of the establishment liberal left should not be surprising. If you want people to respect the liberal tradition, you have to act as if it means more than a different shade of the same old same.
But there's more at stake here: the establishment liberals and the radical left represent two distinct movements, both drawing on the same tradition. They can't both have it and maintain the meaning of liberalism. That's why it's important that all sides clean house and figure out what it is for which they really stand for. If that shakes things up, so much the better - after all, agitating for authentic change is what makes the liberal, leftist ideology matter. If Democrats and the liberal left want politics to matter to voters again, they have to give them a truly new deal - not another managerial, interventionist, lowest-common-denominator state.
Read this article
