Liberalism And Freedom Essay, Research Paper
Liberalism and Freedom
Liberalism is a force that has produced change from the birth of this
nation to the politics of today. Liberal tenets have been a basis of thought
and action in American politics since well before the signing of the
Constitution. Certainly, liberalism has had to transform in order to remain a
legitimate force throughout the years. When considering this transformation,
one may ask whether or not the ideas and goals of classical liberalism have been
lost in the conversion into modern liberalism. In order to answer this, the
areas of freedom, the role of government, human nature, and the function of law
should be addressed. While this may not be a complete register of change in
liberalism, research into these subjects can provide strong indications toward
the nature of this transition. Objectively, the evidence suggests that many of
the ideas of classical liberalism were either abandoned or changed fundamentally
when America entered the modern era.
Freedom
The idea of freedom has been a paramount concern of liberalism
throughout history. Consider the classical ideas of religious freedom, the
right to resist and the inherent right of every individual to be independent.
These were some of the main focuses of classical liberalism in early America.
On religious freedom, seventeenth century minister Roger Williams wrote:
“All Civill States with their Officers of justice in their
respectiveconstitutions and administrations are proved essentially Civill, and
therefore not judges, governours or defendours of the spirituall or christian
state and worship.” (Volkomer, 50)
This quote is notable because it illustrates the early liberal ideas of
religious freedom by stating that government officials have no right to pass
judgment on religious practices. In furtherance of his views, Williams founded
a colony at Plymouth and contributed to the development of religious tolerance
in the new world. Religious tolerance meant that a nation with multiple
religions need no longer mean a country with internal strife and civil
insurrection due to intolerance (Volkomer, 1969). The notion of religious open-
mindedness helped pave the way for individual independence by suggesting that
people were able to determine their own fundamental beliefs.
The right of individuals to be independent is the cornerstone of
liberalism. This combined with the right to resist encroachments on this
independence make up the legitimacy behind the revolution. The Declaration of
Independence embodied these thoughts precisely and clearly. When Thomas
Jefferson wrote about the “inalienable rights… life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness” he was speaking of the inherent rights of man and went further to
declare that any government that chooses to dispel these rights is subject to
overthrow by the governed. In short Jefferson was saying that the right of the
government to rule is derived from the people’s ability to utilize and approve
of their level of independence.
Modern America embraces and reveres the ideals above. This leaves
modern liberalism with the chore of expanding these rights. The focus has now
shifted from the attainment of these rights to the perfection of them. In the
above statement I mean to show that liberal ideas of freedom and liberty have
changed considerably. This can be clarified by the following quote:
“A man who was poor, uneducated, ill-housed, and subject to the fluctuations
economic cycle could not be considered free though he lived in a nation whose
government abided by the tenets of laissez-faire. True liberty, liberals began
to contend, required the ability of man to use his talents and energies in a
constructive fashion-it meant the positive freedom to achieve and
accomplish.” (Volkomer, 4)
This quotation suggests that modern liberals now see it as the
government’s responsibility to level the playing field for individuals who would
otherwise be at a disadvantage. The freedom to achieve one’s own potential is
one of the prime objectives of modern liberalism (Merquior, 1991). This has led
to the development of affirmative action and other programs such as welfare.
The opportunity to reach one’s capacity has joined the other inalienable rights
as the desired outcome of a positive government. Ideally, people would derive
freedom and happiness from the satisfaction of achievement and inventiveness.
True freedom should be unfettered from poverty, oppression and inequality; this
liberty was considered the natural state of humanity.
Franklin Roosevelt made strides in the attainment of this natural state.
The “New Deal” of the thirties was not only a means to economic recovery but
also an attempt to move equality and liberty into their proper places in the
American system (Dunbar, 1991). Roosevelt’s “New Deal” is an example of an
action with two reactions, it prevailed over the great depression and changed
the government’s role in freedom. This assisted in the establishment of the
government as an aid to liberty instead of a hindrance to it.
The Role of Government
The role of government has always been an important issue to the
proponents (and detractors of) liberalism. Revolutionary America saw government
as an encroachment on liberty whereas most of us now see our government as the
guarantor of our liberty. In Thomas Paine’s persuasive pamphlet Common Sense,
he wrote the following lines:
“government, even in it’s best state is but a necessary evil; in it’s worst
state, an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government.
Our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we
suffer.”(Volkomer, 50)
Paine’s writings exhibit the fear and suspicion that the early
Americans felt about government. The early liberals saw the central
government’s role in international relations. Domestic legislation, they argued,
is best left to the governments closest to the people: the state and local
governments (Volkomer, 1969). The goal of a limited government was to allow the
people an opportunity to explore and learn in order to improve their character
without government restriction. This exploration, liberals maintain, would lead
to a higher level of human nature. When liberal methods fell short of attaining
these results, defenders of liberalism were compelled to accept the function of
government as a mechanism to assist the development of liberal ideals. Human
nature had to be nourished by way of a humane economic and social living
environment. In furtherance, the public needed some instruction on how to
express and enjoy their individuality. From this point the state became a way to
reassemble society and educate citizens in the responsibility of leading an
intelligent, meaningful life (Gerstle, 1994). At this time the world was facing
many changes, among these are the industrial revolution and world war one. John
Dewey elaborates on the feeling of the time in the following quotation:
“The fact of change has been so continual and so intense that it overwhelms our
minds. We are bewildered by the spectacle of it’s rapidity, scope and
intensity.”(Volkomer,303)
Human Nature
The conception of human nature had been the basis of classical
liberalism. The ideas of generally virtuous and rational human nature were
essential to the image of an enlightened public. Liberals adhered to an
optimistic view of the nature of man. While man may not have been fully
rational and good, he was certainly more rational and virtuous than irrational
and bad. These virtues were supposed to be very strong in America’s large rural
base. Let us discuss the following passage from Jefferson’s Query 19:
“the chosen people of god[farmers], if ever he had a chosen people who’s breasts
he made his particular deposit for substantial and genuine virtue?Corruption of
morals in the mass of cultiva-tors is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation
has furnished an example.”
Thomas Jefferson believed that the cradle of goodness resided chiefly in an
agrarian people. Jefferson states that there is no example of widespread
corruption of morals in the society of cultivators. Jefferson accurately shows
the view of a morally superior agrarian society that was held at the time.
According to this view, the satisfaction of hard work and individual production
could lead to a stronger moral character for the American citizen. This in turn
could lead to an ongoing escalation of man’s moral constitution. Men who agreed
with Jefferson held strong to this tenet for years until a series of occurrences
shattered this theory.
The industrial revolution, better communications, and World War I all
combined in a synergistic effect that changed this philosophy forever. The
industrial revolution made the idea of a predominantly agricultural society in
America little more than a dream. World War I showed the world the atrocities
that man was capable of and improved means of communications spread this message
to more and more Americans. These new and complex problems fostered a new
cynicism of human nature. For a time President Woodrow Wilson tried to unite
America under the idea that not only was this a world war, but it was a moral
war fought in benefit of the democratic way (Volkomer, 1969). The liberals
asserted that the democracy was the best means of government available to reach
a heightened state of morality. This “War to End All Wars” resulted in an end to
the sanguine view of human nature that the liberals held. While the more cynical
view of man’s character replaced the “unrealistic” optimistic view, human natur
e has since become less relevant in liberal thought. In an attempt to explain
the new “irrational” tendencies of man, liberal thinkers such as John Dewey
sought some of the answers in the study of humans from a scientific standpoint
(Gerstle,1994). Psychiatry and Psychology offered answers in instinct, habit
and other new observations of the human manner of thinking. While liberalism
has always been somewhat secular and pragmatic, the advent of psychological
study enhanced these properties.
Liberalism and the Law of Man
Early legal theorists felt that man’s laws were extensions of a higher
and greater set of standards. While Charles Louis Montesquieu is not an American
philosopher, his classical theories on law are some of the most indicative of
the liberal movement. Montesquieu states that liberty lies in adherence to
natural and positive laws. This is supported by Merquior in his paraphrase of
Montesquieu’s writings on positive law:
“Law in general is human reason in as much as it governs all the inhabitants of
the earth and that the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only
particular applications of human reason: Diverse as positive laws may be, they
are part of a uniform law that existed prior to positive law.” (Merquior, p.66)
When Montesquieu speaks of the “uniform law”, he is addressing the
concept of the higher set of rules namely natural law, these rules are the
driving force behind morality, society, and ultimately the law of man itself.
The link between manmade law and a enigmatic higher set of universal
dictums was weakened substantially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. Oliver Wendell Holmes made a distinct separation between morality and
the law. According to Holmes, we fall into “fallacy” when we take terms such as
malice, intent, and negligence and apply them in a moral context to legal issues
(Holmes, 1896). This separation of the law and morality signaled the centering
of the society as the root of law. The thought that law should reflect the
emotions and needs of the citizens is important when reflecting upon the
evolution of liberal law. Progressing from this point we can consider a
quotation from Roscoe Pound regarding the focus of law:
“Attention was turned from the nature of law to it’s purpose, and a functional
attitude, a tendency to measure legal rules and doctrines and institutions by
the extent to which they further or achieve the ends for which the law exists,
began to replace the older method of judging law by the criteria drawn from
itself.” (Volkomer, 267)
With the emphasis having shifted from the beliefs behind the laws to the
effectiveness of the outcome, American legal theory had made a departure from
the original “spirit” of the law. A system of laws aimed at being more
productive instead of in harmony with natural law and morality testifies to the
more contemporary and practical nature of liberalism.
Findings
As I stated at the beginning of my paper I felt that the evidence
suggested that man of the ideas of classical liberalism had either been
abandoned or changed beyond recognition. Further research into four key aspects
of liberalism has led me to a final conclusion. Before discussing this
conclusion, perhaps a summarization would help clarify and support my deductions.
First we explored the liberal concept of freedom. In this section I
found that classical liberalism’s conception of freedom was a more fundamental
one, freedom from oppression and intolerance. In support of this argument, I
quoted early American liberals Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. In order to
show the nature of freedom to contemporary liberals, I drew from the work of
Franklin Roosevelt. The outcome of this section’s research was that freedom
itself had taken on a new form to liberal thinking. Freedom came to include the
freedom of opportunity and the ability to reach one’s potential.
In the portion of my paper dedicated to freedom, I stated that the
government had taken on a new role in the attainment of liberty. From this
point, I moved into this new role of the government. I showed the reasoning
behind this by borrowing a passage from Common Sense by Thomas Paine. In
finding the modern liberal’s views on the role of government I gained a better
understanding through expanding on the ideas expressed by Dewey and Gerstle.
The transformation of liberalism and the role of government lay in the initial
fear and suspicion of government turning into trust and the need of government
to aid in and help guide us in the development of our character.
The nature of the character of man was the object of inquiry in the
subsequent segment. In this section, I suggested that the classical optimism
concerning human nature had given way to a more skeptical viewpoint. In order
to uphold this statement, I pointed to the assessments of Thomas Jefferson’s
Query XIX and the Volkomer’s writings within the book The Liberal Tradition in
American Thought.
Finally I looked to the nature of manmade law. The works of Montesquieu,
Pound, and Holmes led me to the conclusion that the liberal concept of law had
shifted focus from the driving force behind law to the twentieth century outcome
oriented vision of the law.
In considering all of these factors and through development of my own
insights, I have come to the conclusion that American liberalism has not
abandoned it’s classical ideals. Rather than abandonment, study has shown me
that American liberalism is a general progression of goals, events, outcomes,
and reactive changes. An example of this is the first section (Freedom), on the
surface it had originally appeared that liberalism had gone from anti-government
to big government, a 180 degree turn. While this statement is not entirely
false, it does leave out various particulars. I find that when the original
goals such as religious freedom and liberation from oppression had been attained,
the liberal school of thought moved to further expand these objectives. I
believe the character of this expansion can be explained by the following
inference that I reached: As some goals of liberalism came to fruition, the
nature of government changed and it became an institution that remained
imperfect, but capable of aiding in the “polishing” of these liberties. The end
result being a government nothing like anything the classical liberals had
experienced and in turn the ideas of classical liberalism were modified to
better use this organization to the advantage of man.
In conclusion, let me say that through research and the periodic
insertion of personal thought, I reached my findings and found it surprising
that I had not confirmed my hypothesis. In addition to this I realized that in a
dynamic political ideology such as liberalism is difficult to define because
it’s goals are especially reactive to change. It is this reactive nature that
provides liberalism with change. The constant endeavor to perfect liberty
produces change that liberalism in turn reacts to. This interrelationship helps
ensure liberalism’s role in bringing about change in the future.
Bibliography
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law: New Haven; Yale University Press, 1922
The Relevence of Liberalism; Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 1978
Beiner, Ronald: What’s the Matter With Liberlism? University of California Press,
Los Angeles, 1992
De Tocqueville, Alexis: Democracy in America; Penguin Books Ltd., Middlesex,
England, 1984
Dewey, John: Liberalism and Social Action; New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1935
Dietze, Gottfried: Liberalism Proper and Proper Liberalism, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 1985
Dunbar, Leslie: Reclaiming Liberalism, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1991
Gerstle, Gary: “The Protean Nature of American Liberalism”, The American
Historical Review, October 10, 1994, American Historical Review, New York, New
York
Kotkin, Joel: “What’s Wrong With Liberalism”; The American Enterprise, Jan/Feb
1996 Vol. 7 No. 1, The American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.
Lewis, Edward: A History Of Political Thought, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1937
Mansfield, Harvey: The Spirit of Liberalism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
1978