Origin Of Liberalism

King Features ^ | November 18, 2002 | Charlie Reese

[stainlessbanner]

What we call today "liberalism" was born in New England. In 1864, Orestes Brownson, a New Englander himself, wrote an essay contrasting Southern and Northern societies. His description of the New Englander describes exactly the modern liberal.

"The New Englander," Brownson wrote, "has excellent points, but is restless in body and mind, always scheming, always in motion, never satisfied with what he has, and always seeking to make all the world like himself, or as uneasy as himself."

This desire to make everyone like himself is a major characteristic of the modern liberal. This is what paradoxically leads him to be anti-democratic, for the desire to make others conform to his opinion causes him to cast dissidents into the outer darkness. He is so self-righteous that he honestly believes that anyone with a different set of opinions must be either stupid or evil.

Brownson continues his description of the New Englander: "He is smart, seldom great; educated, but seldom learned; active in mind, but rarely a profound thinker; religious, but thoroughly materialistic: His worship is rendered in a temple founded on Mammon ... he is philanthropic but makes his philanthropy his excuse for meddling with everybody's business as if it were his own, and under pretense of promoting religion and morality, he wars against every generous and natural instinct and aggravates the very evils he seeks to cure."

We can certainly agree with that. Five trillion dollars spent to eliminate poverty has, of course, not eliminated it, and if you look at the great liberal cities of the North, where every conceivable liberal social scheme has been enacted and funded, what do you find? Slums, crime, high taxes, less freedom. Alas, the liberal nirvana continues to elude its busybody seekers.

Some old-time Southern preachers say the New Englander became a busybody meddler after he lost his faith in God. No longer believing in a heaven after death, he was compelled to create a heaven on earth. As Brother Dave Gardner used to put it, a Northern Baptist says there ain't no hell, and a Southern Baptist says, "The hell there ain't!" I have read learned papers from high-toned academics making this same point, so if you want to investigate the proposition, the information is out there.

Liberalism, new or old, fails for the same reason that its logical conclusion, socialism, fails. It flies in the face of human nature, and human nature can't be changed. Some years ago, on a visit to a kibbutz in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin's sister told me that the kibbutz — theoretically a perfect communist society — hadn't changed anything. There were natural leaders and natural followers and a certain percentage of folks who were just parasites. A few people did most of the work. They were equal according to the rules, but in little else. And so it is in every society and country. Even socialist countries develop a rich elite.

Coming from a conservative Southern family, there were three phrases I heard extremely often — phrases one almost never hears today in our liberal society. They were: "Mind your own business"; "It's none of your business"; and "Don't stick your nose in other people's business." The chief characteristic of the true conservative is a willingness to let other people be what they are, for good or ill, just as the chief characteristic of the modern liberal is the compulsion to make others conform to his ideas of what's good for them.

It should be obvious which of the two is the friend of liberty. We are enormously less free today than when I was a boy, and in every instance, the loss of freedom has been justified as "good for us." It's too bad more people aren't concerned about that loss of freedom. They will find that security will prove to be illusory, but the loss of freedom will be quite real.

[steve50]

This is what paradoxically leads him to be anti-democratic,

Good piece, I question this assumption tho. Liberals, and all authoritarians, are always attempting to claim the will of the majority. It avoids the Constitutional argument

[harpseal]

I for one do not suscribe to this vision of the New Englander. New Hampshire Maine and Vermont used to be populated with people who were certainly not involved in other people's business. The influx from the New York and Boston areas has changed the character of most of New England.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[bandleader]

That's funny,I could have sworn that"Liberalism"had it's origins in the writings of Karl Marx!!

[wideawake]

One American political philosopher, Richard Weaver, placed the blame for liberalism on the writings of William of Ockham (1280-1349).

[pollwatcher]

"Liberalism," and other aspects of PC Compassion Fascism, are the decadent end products of White Protestantism. You'll find it where-ever such folks are long established, prosperous, industrious and well-fed. Eventually, their spoiled off-spring become guilt-complexed over their own success and rebel.

[CapedCrusader]

This desire to make everyone like himself is a major characteristic of the modern liberal. This is what paradoxically leads him to be anti-democratic, for the desire to make others conform to his opinion causes him to cast dissidents into the outer darkness. He is so self-righteous that he honestly believes that anyone with a different set of opinions must be either stupid or evil.

This is not just an illness of the left. It's a symptom of the dogmatic and totalitarian "anti-democratic" breed in general. A creature found on both sides of the political spectrum.

Coming from a conservative Southern family, there were three phrases I heard extremely often — phrases one almost never hears today in our liberal society. They were: "Mind your own business"; "It's none of your business";

Disagree. I've heard these in "liberal society", too.

The chief characteristic of the true conservative is a willingness to let other people be what they are, for good or ill,

I think self-proclaimed "true conservatives" could debate this one but good for a while....

....just as the chief characteristic of the modern liberal is the compulsion to make others conform to his ideas of what's good for them.

Again, applicable to dogmatists of all stripes.

We are enormously less free today than when I was a boy, and in every instance, the loss of freedom has been justified as "good for us."

"Enormously"? Way overstated. We are freer, I believe. Just freer in different areas, less free in others.

It's too bad more people aren't concerned about that loss of freedom. They will find that security will prove to be illusory, but the loss of freedom will be quite real.

Hammer, nail.

[pollwatcher]

I believe it was Methodist founder John Wesley(?)who said something like that the very characteristics of righteous living (thrift, industry, self-restraint, etc.) would eventually create enough wealth and leisure time to give birth to the opposite (sloth, greed, decadence, leisure).

The New England Busy-bodies are fallen Puritans. Just look at the UK and the Anglicans. Once the Brits became a success, they became guilty-feeling.

[The FRugitive]

The chief characteristic of the true conservative is a willingness to let other people be what they are, for good or ill, just as the chief characteristic of the modern liberal is the compulsion to make others conform to his ideas of what's good for them.

Well said! And you'll note he said TRUE conservatives, not the liberal nanny state loveing neo-cons that seem to have developed as the mainstream around here.

[The FRugitive]

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government *is* the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves." - Ronald Reagan

"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism .... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Ronald Reagan

[The FRugitive]

ping

[hosepipe]

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Regan

[weikel]

Funny then how statistically white protestants are the least liberal group.

[Katya]

"What we call today "liberalism" was born in New England. In 1864, Orestes Brownson, a New Englander himself, wrote an essay contrasting Southern and Northern societies. His description of the New Englander describes exactly the modern liberal."

Note....he says what "we" call liberalism....this is NOT the origin of the term or it's correct useage. The word has been bastardized by those on the left who choose to dwindle our liberties and disguise these attempts by portraying themselves as "liberals". Recall that our founding fathers were what we now call "classic liberals". The term conservative has its roots in reactionism....which would describe the left and it's continued desire to rely on the state.

It is so depressing when those on the right, follow along with the lefts linguistic manipulations...and to think that most of us read Orwell in High School.
At any rate, I will continue to call myself a proud classic Liberal.