The Lie at the Heart of American Liberalism (Or, Why I Finally Decided to Vote for Bush)

Original essay | Paul E. Scates

[pescates]

The Lie at the Heart of Modern American Liberalism By Paul E. Scates October 25, 2004 Though it may sound strange to say so, considering the months of campaign rhetoric we’ve endured from both, this presidential election is not about George W. Bush and John Kerry. It is about us, the American people. Of course that’s always the case, but I believe the leftward shift of the entire political spectrum these past fifty years, and the erosion of our Founding moral, economic and political principles that has resulted, makes this a watershed moment in American history.

This election will reveal whether the American people still believe in the Founding principles of individual liberty and responsibility, self-government and traditional Biblical standards of morality, or if we have finally succumbed to the liberal deceit that only government can ensure the protection of our rights, our material well-being and the fair treatment of every citizen. In short, will we remain a free and independent people or accept the socialism of modern American liberalism?

That’s right, I said modern American liberalism is nothing but socialism in disguise. Not a novel idea, of course, but in my forthcoming book (Politics of Deceit: How Liberals Lie…and Why They Have To) I use the writing of the foremost authority on political Liberalism, Austrian-born economist Ludwig von Mises, to support my own research and observations proving that assertion beyond doubt. This excerpt will provide the context for my assessment about the upcoming crucial election, and the conclusion I’ve reached – (liberal and liberalism are in quotes to denote its false characterization of the Left’s politics)

In political parlance, liberalism (from the Latin liber meaning "free") originally referred to the 18th century political and intellectual movement that replaced feudalism with free enterprise and a market economy, substituted constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies, and made individual liberty and economic opportunity available to all people in society. If those ideas are familiar, it’s because this [classical] Liberalism was the primary philosophical influence on our Founding Fathers.

Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian-born American economist, wrote the definitive work on this political philosophy, entitled Liberalismus, originally published in Europe in 1927. In 1956, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote, “The American political tradition is essentially based on a Liberal consensus.” He was referring to the classical Liberalism of free markets, individual liberty and limited government.

Von Mises noted, however, that modern American ‘liberalism’ is from outside that tradition. It proposes regulation of the economy and the de facto abandonment of individual liberty (never expressed in such terms, of course) to an all-powerful government. Modern ‘liberals’ claim non-existent rights for atheists, convicted felons, feminists and homosexuals, and have used government to impose false interpretations of the Bill of Rights to promote those rights. Though these actions are clearly at odds with the classically Liberal, and Constitutional, emphasis on equality and liberty for all, ‘liberals’ claim their ideas are the politics of our Founding.

Schlesinger explains the reason for their deceit: “Even those Americans who privately reject the [classical] Liberal tradition – like the Communists of the '30's and '40's or the McCarthyites of the '50's – can succeed only as they profess a relationship to [classical] Liberalism.” (Italics mine) Thus despite the clear evidence refuting their claim, ‘liberals’ must claim their political philosophy is that of our Founding in order to fool the American people into accepting it.

By 1962, however, in a foreword to the first English-language version of his book, von Mises wrote: “Today the tenets of…Liberalism are almost forgotten. In continental Europe it is remembered only by a few…In the United States ‘liberal’ means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that Liberalism meant to the preceding generations.”

Modern American ‘liberalism’, in von Mises words, “aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.” In fact, because modern ‘liberalism’ is so completely different, the term “classical Liberalism” was coined to distinguish the original philosophy from the modern counterfeit version.

Because the great majority of Americans are willfully ignorant politically, this deceit has been alarmingly successful. We have turned government over to “hired gun” political elites – lifelong bureaucrats and career politicians, lobbyists, political consultants and campaign professionals, commentators and analysts – almost all of whom are removed by economic status, education or personal sentiment from the mainstream of American life. They have little affinity for, or commitment to, the traditional moral and political beliefs that are held by the majority of ordinary Americans.

Since LBJ’s Great Society in the 1960s, liberals have been very successful in their deceitful task of converting Americans, subconsciously, to an unquestioning acceptance of the premises of their de facto socialism. The actor Christopher Reeve, who believed that embryonic stem-cell research offered hope of curing his paralysis, revealed this subconscious acceptance a few years before his death. Demanding government support of that research, Reeves commented, “Government is supposed to be concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number.” Though that sounds right on an emotional level, this view of government’s role is pure, unadulterated socialism.

Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, rightly responded to Reeves’ comment: “Our government is not supposed to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Totalitarian governments are supposed to do that. Our government is supposed to protect the vulnerable individual from the rich and powerful...” (Italics mine)

In the recent presidential debates, John Kerry openly displayed his socialist belief that government can better decide our future than individual Americans with every accusation that the Bush administration had failed to do enough in the area under discussion, or had done nothing at all. Those are great sins to a socialist, who believes the government must dictate every detail of our lives in order to ensure that “greatest good for the greatest number.” On an endless number of issues, Kerry claims he has “a plan,” and I don’t doubt it…but the U.S. Constitution was written precisely to strictly limit the power and authority of the federal government! Economist and columnist Walter Williams (among others) notes that the federal government already has no Constitutional authority for at least 80% of what it does today, yet Kerry and the liberals want even more government encroachment and control.

To his shame, President Bush simply defended what he has done or offered his own plans in all those areas. When a nominal Conservative can go toe-to-toe with the most liberal senator in prescribing government encroachment and “solutions” in every area of our lives, it’s clear that the socialist mentality – that government, not the American people, should be in charge – now permeates the American political consciousness. Practically speaking, that means the choice you and I have between Republicans and Democrats today is often merely one of pace, the speed at which we’ll become just another socialist cesspool like those in Western Europe, rather than a choice between fundamentally opposing principles.

The importance of this election derives from that fact. Modern liberalism has so undermined our Founding moral, economic and political foundations that another liberal presidency may push us beyond the point where those principles can be restored.

Though I once shared Kerry’s liberal faith, I eventually rejected liberalism for the lie that it is. In 1990, disgusted with the elitism of family and wealth in politics and considering him an unprincipled, opportunistic political chameleon, I voted against the elder President Bush. I knew very little about Clinton at the time, except that he wasn’t Bush. It was a brutal way to learn that the casual assumption “He couldn’t be any worse” can be a damnable lie. Those who today subscribe to the “anyone but Bush” stupidity should take note.

I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 (Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party) and until just a few days ago I was adamant about not voting for him this year, either (too much so-called “compassion,” too little Conservatism). However, he has shown that he at least will fight to defend us (the president’s primary responsibility), and that he has the moral clarity we need in our president in the face of an implacable foe. He will not trust our security to the whims of a corrupt UN, or discard our Founding principles for a foreign and deadly ideology, the socialism disguised as modern liberalism. Our Founding principles will remain intact under Bush, making it possible for us to awaken and reclaim our government from the political elites in both parties that now control it.

So, to help preserve those principles so future generations will have the same freedoms and opportunities I’ve enjoyed, I will cast my ballot, although grudgingly, for President Bush. Even with his flaws, this nation and its Founding principles are safe in his hands. And even with its flaws, I still choose America and those principles over Kerry’s internationalism and his deadly socialist fantasy. What about you?

[pescates]

The upcoming presidential election is more a referendum on the American people -- our character, our understanding of the sources of our liberty and prosperity and our commitment to those foundations -- than a choice between the two candidates.

The attached essay examines the critical nature of this election, and why I recently realized that, though I did not support him in 2000 (Howard Phillips, Constitution Party), this time I must vote for President Bush. Though he is far more "compassionate" than Conservative, he at least respects and largely upholds those Founding principles, which cannot reasonably be said of John Kerry.

Part of the essay is an excerpt from my recently completed book (Politics of Deceit: How Liberals Lie...And Why They Have To), in which I use the writings of Ludwig von Mises to prove the assertion that modern American liberalism is nothing but socialism in intent, methods and results, and therefore worthy of our resounding rejection this November.

[highflight]

You write: "Our Founding principles will remain intact under Bush, making it possible for us to awaken and reclaim our government from the political elites in both parties that now control it".

Agreed. We need two parties to keep each party honest and comprised of decent citizen legislators. IMHO the current crop of Democrats view elective office as permanent, lifetime appointments and therein lies their arrogance and sense of entitlement, not to mention their nastiness.

How do we replace Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin etc..? if not with Republicans, then with more decent Democrats, that's how.

Yes to freedom and the robust marketplace of ideas.........no to socialism.

[Mojave Mark]

Eventually we have to reform education by going nationwide with vouchers. 40 million dead from abortion, mostly of what would now be living liberals, is making a huge dent in the past monopoly once enjoyed by the Democrat party. Any long term change will be made in the educational system.