Indeed this is the case. The Authentic Liberal position that emerged in the British Isles during the Age and Reason and the Scottish Enlightenment and greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States was largely associated with the left of the political spectrum.
It stood against an absolute monarchy and took a dim view in opposition to the hierarchies of entitlement that dominated the political, social and economic strata of the time. What Liberalism valued was the right of the individual to equal protection before the law and the ownership of private property. Freedom of speech and a respect for practical empiricism, suffused with necessary rationalism were essential ingredients of the Liberal model. It abhorred tyranny and stood firmly against both coercion from the elites above and indeed the mobs elsewhere. At its core the political philosophy is consistent with civil liberties and stands in opposition to state overreach.
Liberalism correctly rejected the abhorrent and bloodthirsty Jacobin terror that saw a great deal of horror perpetrated in its name during the French Revolution, in favour of a system that valued market forces and the maintenance of a framework that allowed the individual to chart their own life pathway.
Today most of these view points are seen as being part of the conservative or the libertarian right portion of the political axis.
So what happened? What bought about this so-called classification change in the United States in particular?
To answer this we need to go back across the Atlantic to the old world of Europe where various collectivist radical ideologies espoused by Proudhon, Marx and others were gaining traction. While such radicalisms failed to topple permanently existing regimes (although not for a lack of trying in 1848 and 1871) they did enjoy tremendous success in forcing the establishment orders to incorporate a great deal of collectivist thinking in their new governing policy.
An accelerating momentum emerged that fused Rousseau’s popular will of the people with the growth of bigger government. By a cleverly worked sleight of hand the establishment won over the masses and buttressed themselves against an inevitable power challenge from an emerging middle class. It was 4-D chess at its finest.
The Gotha program in Germany was a typical example as were the reforms of Benjamin Disraeli in the United Kingdom. Otto von Bismarck effectively established the welfare state in Germany as a way of solidifying the nationalistic impulse in the newly unified Deutschland. In doing so he deliberately undercut his opponents to the far left and at the same time dealt a blow to the fledgling forms of English Liberalism that existed on the continent itself.
Others countries followed suit on the continent with many of Bismarck’s policies being re-branded and incorporated into the Progressive Movement in the United States as well. This influenced both of the Big Two parties.
The elites had the answer and if they used the tools of science and social transformation properly the necessary progress and march to a realized Hegelian ideal was possible. What it required though was for everyone to get with the program...oops progress and place themselves on the ‘correct side of history’. The powers that be understood what change was necessary. All too often the end justifies the means.
Sounds familiar? Well it should. The same cliches are in ubiquitous use today. They frame many a mainstream media narrative.
However the horse fly in the ointment (it is that big) is that Progressivism had to come up against a political philosophy that had made the United States unique as a nation, a philosophy that was the bedrock of the rapid growth and development of the country since its founding: This was of course Liberalism.
As mentioned, Liberalism at its very core is individualistic. It eschews political identity politics and has no time for such easily corruptible ideals as the will of the people or the collective. Distrust of elitism was part of its lifeblood. It also stood on a far stronger footing in the United States than it did in continental Europe. A different strategy was needed.
The populace had to be convinced that Progressivism was not threatening to their cherished freedoms (after all we are the government and we are here to help) and how better to do that then by redefining their statism as a benevolent form of ‘liberalism’?
It is easier to score goals when you widen the posts and tamper the hard change that smacks you over the head, with what looks to be a soft sell. Coating the population in veil of ignorance, as you march through the institutions helps.
It is all effective and part of a Progressive end game that no self respecting Hegelian should leave home without.
Remember to many a Progressive their ideals are the truth. Their opinions are fact and therefore opposition by its very nature is reactionary and dangerous. Contradicting narratives must be misinformation.
This of course requires control over the institutions of education and academia. Winning the culture wars is critical and unfortunately it appears to be working.
But there is more to all of this. Beachheads gained must be strengthened by the national crisis of the day: WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, Racial Disharmony, the Vietnam War, Climate Change and now the Covid-19 Pandemic. No opportunity would and should ever go to waste.
Progressivism pivots on a forward motion that cannot afford to abate and allow for deconstruction of its obvious weaknesses.
But what to do about those pesky Big L Liberals not to mention the social conservatives, Burkeans and others who won’t play nicely? The answer is to drive them to the periphery, re-frame their ideas as outdated conservatism, gaslight counter-concerns, de-platform opposition voices, weaponize the surveillance state and lump all opposition into a catch bag of right wing ideology that must be deplored.
Oh you can allow for a controlled opposition…you can’t have the illusion of democracy slip…for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment