Posted on 07/02/2002 1:55:12 PM PDT by tpaine
This is an excerpt from a much longer article at Frontpage Magazine, titled:
-- What Are Leftists? --
-- And also posted under the same title here at FR. -- This excerpt below is the only mention of libertarianism in the entire article, -- but the authors opinions on what he calls 'neo-liberalism', and what we at FR call libertarianism, deserves a thread of its own, imo, separate from his equally valid opinions on leftists.
FrontPageMagazine.com | June, 20 2002 | John J. Ray
Neo-Liberalism: The Past Revived
What North Americans now call "liberal" is a long way from what was called "liberal" in the 19th century and earlier. Liberal ideas were once those ideas that sought to elevate individual rights above the claims of State and community power and hark back at least as far as the writings of Adam Smith (1776). The writings of J.S. Mill (1859) are, however, most quoted as a comprehensive development of such ideas. Classical liberal ideas had considerable influence in the 19th century -- particularly via Britain and the British Liberal party -- but were very much eclipsed in the early 20th century (as was the British Liberal party) by the rise to prominence of Statist ideas -- particularly Marxist, Fabian and Fascist ideas.
Late in the 20th century, however, under the influence of writings by Hayek (1944), Ayn Rand (1977) and many others, these ideas were powerfully revived and extended -- when they came to be known among the cognoscenti as "neo-liberalism" or "Libertarianism".
They are perhaps best known to the world at large, however, as "Reaganomics" or "Thatcherism" -- from their most prominent and successful political proponents.
Surprisingly, however, modern-day North American "liberals" and their ilk generally seem to view neo-liberalism as anathema. And in fact Neo-liberalism has found its home entirely on the political Right in recent times. Why?
The explanations of Leftist motivation given above would appear to be very helpful in explaining why.
Why "liberals" Hate Neo-liberalism
But the reason why is not initially obvious.
Neo-Liberalism of course is very pro-change, particularly in the economic sphere, and aims principally to break down, wherever possible, government-imposed restrictions on what people can do. Its application has led to all sorts of economic reorganization, some of which has been very disruptive to the employment (and hence the lives) of many people. Globalization is just one of its manifestations. So how in heaven's name did such a revolutionary doctrine find its home on the Right rather than among the normally pro-change Leftists?
The answer becomes obvious if we posit that Leftists really have no concern at all about what they are advocating, that they do not really care about human advancement at all, that their "concern" for the poor etc. is a sham. What they really want they want now -- and that is power, simple causes that will win them praise and drama in which they can star as the good guys. That really is about all. And neo-liberalism meets none of those needs. The policies advocated by Neo-liberals do demonstrably lead to slow but steady human economic advancement and do increase prosperity for all to levels once undreamt of in human history. But such policies also diffuse power, are far from simple and are very undramatic. It is hard work just to understand neo-liberalism and there are no immediate rewards inbuilt.
One could, for instance, try going onto the streets and demonstrating in favour of "comparative advantage" (one of the essential ideas underpinning advocacy of free trade) but that would almost certainly lead to total incomprehension rather than win kudos.
So neo-liberalism suffers from the huge handicap that it is a highly intellectual body of ideas that requires considerable study and knowledge of economics -- something that Leftists normally seem to avoid like the plague -- in order to understand it fully. It originated with an economist (Smith), it could even be seen as the practical application of modern economics and some of its most prominent proponents have won Nobel prizes for economics (Friedman, Hayek etc.).
It is certainly much harder to explain and communicate to laymen than are such simple ideas as "all men are equal" or "get the government to pass a law". And the heroes and villains of neo-liberalism do not suit the Leftist either. The neo-liberal hero (the business entrepreneur) normally has to work long and hard to achieve his status. Storming the Winter Palace (as the Bolsheviks did in October, 1917) or vandalizing Seattle (as the anti-globalization protestors did in December, 1999) are heaps quicker, simpler and easier. And the neo-liberal villain is government!
The solitary proposal that Leftists have for solving social ills is snatched away from under them!
No wonder Leftists do not like neo-liberalism!
And just as Liberal as Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank on social issues. No wonder the GOP has wriiten off a challenger to Mr. Heinz(John Kerry) in this years Massachusetts Senate race.
The Libertarian will get maybe 15% of the vote without a Pubbie in the race.
Says a lot about Massachusetts these days and Libertarians, IMHO.
I believe he was contrasting libertarians to liberals.
And they(Libertarians) would basically give the finger to a concerned person who doesn't want a heroin addict in the gutter in their neighborhood.
I respect a man who doesn't have his hand in my pocket and doesn't give me the finger and talk to me in a drug hazed prose about how George Washington was a druggie.
The major difference is that the classic liberal wanted to equalize wealth and the modern libertarians want to allow for self-reliance and responsibility.
Alas, the liberals of my youth are long in the grave and we are forced to listen to the knee-jerk mantra of the proto-socialists like Teddy and Cynthia...who like to claim the 'Liberal' mystique but are only interested in telling everyone how to run their lives.
By the way, most 'classic liberals' and the mainstream of the Democratic Party are far more conservative now than any of the leadership.
Errrr, its more about the humor of their silly ideas.
P.S. I'm honored to be included among such hall of famers, CJ, Roscoe and Reagan Man. Kevin's really minor league but I guess we can include him as a write in.
Does that mean a liberal still in the womb? Liberals abort those, you know.
Funny, we didn't really have a serious drug problem in this country until jackasses like you made them illegal.
L
IOW, Individualism vs collectivism.
Look at the number of dependants America has right now. Imagine them all free to do anything they please, with no moral challenge.
There'd be homelessness, drunkards, AIDs riddled child abusers, scabby people all over the place. Plagues will run rampant. Trash would line the streets.
Without a concept of right and wrong, libertarianism would never work. God has been removed, and satan would rule. This country would die a horrable death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.