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)
Feelings su
the workers,
farmers, and consumers. (Gerstle, 1994). While these advances may seem to be made in the
name of fostering freedom unencumbered by economic domination, it also serves a second
purpose: the protection of the government. The progressives believed that the government
had to be protected from powerful "interests" that could hinder it's ability to guard the
development of individual liberty.
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 nature 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
Manning, D.J.: Liberalism, Saint Martin's press, New
|