By Selwyn Duke

Writers such as myself devote a lot of ink to the species known
as liberals. And when you carry your banners openly on the field of
battle, you define yourself and relinquish any pretense at that most
illusory quality, impartiality. This places you in the crosshairs,
although you can take solace in knowing that your adversaries will
always miss left.

Some of the liberals who contact me spew callow vitriol, at
times peppered with language that would make a guttersnipe blush. But
there’s another type of “liberal” respondent. This person is almost
always civil, even when indignant. He’ll query me and wonder how I
could ascribe all the qualities I do to liberalism, mystified that I
would impugn an ideology possessed of but the most ethereal of virtues.
Then, either confused or fancying me so, he’ll provide a dictionary
definition, something always to the effect of:

“lib-er-al-ism . . . a political philosophy based on belief in
progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the
individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual
from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life.”(1)

Well, I’ll be. Only Darth Vader would oppose such pristine
philosophy. The problem here, though, is that using a dictionary to
understand your politics is much like using one to try to understand
your religion. “C’mon, Duke, aren’t you just a conservative trying to
rationalize away inconvenient facts?” ask the naysayers. Well, read on.

Okay, so you’ve read the above definition and it sounds like
what you would like to be. So you’ve got it all figured out. Are you
sure?

First, understand that the meaning of the word liberal is fluid.  In the World Book Online Reference Center, 2006 it states:

The exact meaning of liberalism varies with
time, place, and circumstance, and with who is using the term. The term
can apply to government, social behavior, religion, economics, or other
areas. It can refer to a set of personal values or to a system of
political beliefs. Ideas regarded as liberal in some cultures may not
be considered liberal in others.

In fact, it even varies on the same page of a dictionary. While
Dictionary.com does have a definition equivalent to the aforementioned,
it also has,

“a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom
from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to
scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.”

In fairness, that’s also similar to the first definition, but then there’s this,

“A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political
democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.”

Now, today’s liberals don’t exactly cotton to theological
orthodoxy, so we’re starting to see separation. “But this isn’t the
1800s,” you say? True enough. Of course, though, the real world isn’t a
dictionary, either. But let’s take the next definition.

“An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.”

Well, hell’s bells, what have we here? I, oft-described as a
wingnut by some of my un-fans, embrace this principle enthusiastically.
Yet, those liberal critics eschew it. Hmm, are they the true liberals
or am I?

Are you still sure you know what liberalism is?  I’m not done yet.

Truly ironic is when you find that in real life, in keeping with
the World Book quotation, the definition of liberalism varies depending
on location. For instance, while conservatives in cold war America were
ardently anti-communist, their philosophical soulmates in the Soviet
Union were known as liberals. Behind the iron curtain, the
conservatives were the communists.

The reason for this is as simple as the issue it raises is
complex. More constant definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”
inform that, simply put, a conservative believes in “maintaining the
status quo” while a liberal believes in changing it. Thus, Joseph
Stalin and Joseph McCarthy both were conservatives – in their
respective environments, that is. Moreover, each one had liberal
opponents in his country and liberal allies elsewhere.

But this raises very interesting questions. If a liberal
succeeds in implementing his changes to the point where they become the
status quo, doesn’t he, by definition, become a conservative? And
doesn’t the erstwhile conservative, after losing this cultural war and
assuming that he endeavors to change the new status quo, in a way
become a liberal?

And this phenomenon can be seen clearly if we examine our
political history. The ideology that animated the hands of the Founding
Fathers and became prevalent in the young United States was known as
“Classical Liberalism.” Embraced by Thomas Jefferson and the other
signatories to the Declaration of Independence, it espoused limited
government, property rights, laissez-faire economics and freedom from
government intrusion. And inherent in it was the belief that man
derived his rights not from government but from God.

What’s important to realize, however, is that the designation
“classical” was only added to this original liberalism upon the
subsequent emergence of modern liberalism. This was to distinguish it
from the latter, which had become a different ideology altogether.

Much different. 

Today’s liberalism prescribes government action – in the form of
a law, mandate, regulation or program – in every sphere of life, from
child-rearing (anti-spanking laws) to hiring (EEOC) to school
admissions (quotas) to sports (Casey Martin in golf, Title IX) to diet
(banning trans-fats). Its adherents on the Supreme Court gave us the
Kelo decision, an attack on property rights. It preaches that
government has a place in religion (forcing Catholic hospitals to
provide contraception), but religion has no place in government, quite
the opposite of Jefferson’s conception of the separation of church and
state. Now its minions have gone so far as to attack freedom of speech
with hate crime/hate speech laws and even seek to redefine marriage and
allow homosexuals to adopt children.

Because of this transformation, today’s rough equivalent of
classical liberalism is Goldwater conservatism. (Note: I believe it is
a myth that these ideologies are the equivalent of today’s
libertarianism, as is commonly held.) And it should surprise no one
that individuals of the latter stripe have long embraced the former’s
principles. Once the founders’ liberalism became the status quo, it was
no longer revolutionary. Then its proponents quite naturally became
known as the protectors of the status quo, or, conservatives.

Of course, some liberals would say they’re evolving. But as I
have demonstrated, both liberals and conservatives evolve; the question
is, how are they evolving and is some atavistic adjustment in order?
Let’s examine this with a parable.

Imagine America as a ship. The people aboard are a motley crew,
liking different positions and forever arguing over whether it’s best
to place the helm in the right, middle or left portion of the vessel.
Now, in this tug-of-war, the helm shifts left and right as the strength
of one side or another waxes and wanes. Of course, a passenger can
occupy any area he wishes. But the further you stray to either side,
the lonelier you become, so most stay within earshot of the band and
buffet table. Overlooked by virtually all, however, is that the ship is
off course and steadily drifting left because engineers working below,
out of plain sight, are manipulating the rudder.

What this means is that those who wanted to be on the left
still do, oblivious to the fact that the “left” is now further left
than before the ship left its previous position. And those who wanted
to be on the right are still happy to be there, not realizing that the
“right” is now also further left than before. For each group to be
closer to where it initially thought prudent, the left would have to
move to the right side, and the right would have to untether a life
boat and go over the side.

This explains the so-called “neo-cons” and “compassionate
conservatives.” On the starboard side of a boat whose latitude and
longitude have changed, they’re just the liberals of twenty-five years
ago.

And this is why I’m ever more reluctant to brand myself a
conservative. Conservatives are satisfied to occupy the “right” side of
the political spectrum, not realizing the spectrum has been positioned
by the “positioned” (Antonio Gramsci). Liberals are never happy unless
they’re on the left side of the spectrum, even though, had they lived a
generation before, arrival at society’s present center would have been
their greatest ambition. In other words, conservatives tend to be
defined by a defense of liberals’ previous conquests, while liberals
are defined simply by a desire to change what conservatives are
defending.

And this is the problem with modern liberalism: It is an
ideology bereft of principle. Because nothing is sacred to liberalism,
not even its own provisional principles, it may change society but then
is changed by it. When will liberals ever say we have enough laws,
regulations, mandates, taxation, bureaucracies, programs, and rending
of tradition? Conservatism’s limitations are obvious. Even if it sought
to, it couldn’t reduce government to less than nothing. But liberalism
in our time has no fixed platform, no end game. It forever seeks to
alter the status quo but is always defined by its opposition to it. It
is not an ideology as much as it is a process, one by which change is
effected but never cemented. It is a rebel without a cause, having long
ago forgotten that change is meant to be a means to an end, not an end
in and of itself. Thus, it is perennially in flux, with its only
constant being change itself.

So, if you would tell me you’re a liberal, I would ask what I
did of a kind-hearted but credulous soul who uttered the same
proclamation to me many years ago: By birth or by choice?

Party affiliation or ideological orientation is not synonymous
with ethnicity. Some people are so wedded to the word liberal that they
behave as if being so labeled is an immutable characteristic. Often
very traditional, it’s as if these folks are saying, “Ma’ pappy was a
liberal, and ma’ gran’-pappy was a liberal, and ma’ great-gran’-pappy
was a liberal. . . .”

But being married to liberalism is to be with a woman who
changes with the fashions. One year she’s an alabaster complected
flower holding a parasol, then she’s burning her bra. Later still she’s
dressing like a pop-tart with her midriff exposed. Then she’s
frequenting a workout gym, a tanning salon and a martial arts dojo.
Finally you receive divorce papers and learn she’s living with her
friend “Rosie” in San Francisco. In the end, as you wonder what
happened to the lady you married, you realize that she was never really
a lady at all, but a chameleon.

Now, if you are a person this piece is aimed at, don’t
misunderstand me. You don’t have to abandon your ideology – it
abandoned you a long time ago. This is not your grandfather’s
liberalism.

Of course, you may not listen to me. But just know that if you
misunderstand what liberalism has come to represent and are loyal to
the designation, you may vote for a candidate billed as liberal in the
thinking that he is one of your number. But invariably this means
voting for leftist politicians who you may, quite correctly, associate
with liberalism. Your mistake is that you don’t associate “liberalism”
with liberalism.

The end result, however, is that you find yourself ruled by leaders who don’t truly reflect your values.

As for me, I will echo the sentiments of late Archbishop Fulton
J. Sheen, “He who marries the spirit of the age will be a widower in
the next.” One thing you can be sure of is that the next age’s
liberalism will be different yet again, an imposter that cannot boast
any consanguinity with Jefferson’s brand, which still exists but bears
a different name. Perhaps it’s time to say, its name is my name too?

Protected by Copyright

1.  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary