Oi. I write a lot. I probably have as much unpublished stuff as exists on both my published sites combined. I just found this today, having forgotten writing it. Since it does no good where it is, here is a cut and paste:
One of the primary political sins—perhaps the defining sin of would-be autocrats—is the abuse of language. George Orwell argued this clearly enough. In our supposedly “post historical” age, I think it worth dilating for a few moments on some key terms in what would be our political debates, if anyone still debated.
Edmund Burke, in coining the word Conservative, meant to contrast it with the excesses of the French Revolutionaries. Since the word “leftist” itself (referring to their physical seating in the Assembly) originates with the French Revolution, we can I think accurately oppose them to Conservatives.
In Burke’s arguments, he refers to the English Revolutions–and in particular the “Glorious Revolution”, in which Parliament gained once and for all the right to make Kings—and contrasts them with the French Revolution. More on the latter later. For now, let’s follow what happened in England.
The accession of William of Orange concluded a very bloody period of history, in which ambiguity with respect to succession—and the proper role of the King–had caused a great many Englishmen to lose their lives in internecine fighting. This transition, which was quite peaceful, simultaneously improved the English political process in a lasting, sustainable way, while retaining much of the traditional order of the system, which did so much to stabilize it.
They retained the office of the Monarch, while limiting his or her power of action steadily. They instituted a tradition of peaceful transition. They retained British legal traditions. They retained, of course, Parliament. In sum, they kept what was working, and rejected only what was not working.
Now, as the French were to do, the English had killed a King. This was in some respect a sacriligious act, since the King embodied the will of God. Thus, this was also a revolutionary act. But rather than reject the whole structure of their society, they turned back, and had their Restoration. Viewed in the abstract, and from the perspective of time, one can see a slow, gradual progression—done in fits and starts–from an autocratic order to the liberal order from which emerged the ideals which informed much of our own Constitution.
Now, the word liberal refers to someone who prefers the growth and expansion of freedom of action and belief, relative to someone who prefers an order based SOLELY upon traditional modes of power, and conformity of belief and practice. Liberalism, in this sense, has as its best exponents men like Adam Smith in the economic realm (who opposed the concentration of capital of Mercantilism, which paralleled monetarily the concentration of power enshrined in non-Constitutional Monarchy), and John Steward Mill in the political realm.
The American Constitution is a liberal document. It is perhaps the DEFINING liberal document of human history thus far. What was crafted was precisely a means by which power could be disbursed in an orderly and progressive manner. In the original formulation, of course, only men of property were allowed to vote. But the foundation was there, self evidently, for that right to be expanded, as indeed it was, first to men, then to women, then universally. That this process was, with the exception of the Civil War—itself an almost inevitable result of the necessary pact with the Devil made at the original Constitutional Convention—peaceful, is generally unremarked upon.
As George Washington commented: “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
Peaceful, organic evolution in the direction of inclusion on the basis of demonstrated personal responsibility was the point. Even though he himself was a slave-owner—something quite unremarkable in his time, or anywhere else on Earth—he has prefigured Martin Luther King, Jr. People, he argued, were to be judged by the content of their characters, and as they showed readiness, were to be included in our order as full equals in all respects.
Liberalism—true liberalism—is conservative. It keeps what is good, while slowly over time—again, in fits and starts—reforming the State as Society reforms itself. In conception, it is an idealistic, perfectionistic doctrine. The City on the Hill is an ineluctable element of true liberal culture.
The method of Liberalism is an open ended legal structure. Our system of government, formally, has no content. It depends on no religious convictions. It refers to no immanent, sacralized social order which is inviolable. It neither compels nor rejects religious belief.
In the simplest possible formulation, it is a system by means of which differences between races and people can be managed peacefully, within the framework of law. ALL are equal before the law. This part is crucial. No one gets any special legal privileges. Our system, itself, is what we hold sacred.
Yet, at the same time, the conception of moral growth is essential. Clearly, our Founding Fathers—even, perhaps especially, the Masons—believed that what they were gifting to us was a political system conducive to moral perfectibility. A system by means of which men could live out their lives in their own way, unmolested by their neighbors and the State, and in so doing pursue their own religious and moral ends in complete freedom.
It was well understood, as evidenced by the relatively recent Reformation, that religious belief untempered by a mediating secular authority, could readily become autocratic and create violence and death. At the same time, the most basic element of a belief in God, and belief in moral growth, was considered sufficient for a self governing nation to survive. Our freedom was the freedom to choose our own form of virtue, and self perfection.
George Washington again: “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our nation”.
Even though the details might differ, in other words, the basic outline of how to be a decent person was plain enough that there was no need for State coercion. It should be added in that regard that Jefferson’s much-debated substitution of “pursuit of happiness” for Locke’s much more concrete “property” is not a call for hedonism. Rather, Jefferson had in mind Aristotle, and his conception of Eudaemonia, which amounted to the pleasure of accomplishment, of mastering your spirits, of virtue.
In one sense, then, Conservatism is simply liberalism that is not in a rush. Burke, himself, the paradigmatic “Conservative”, was a principled, early, and very articulate supporter of American independence for this reason. He understood, and agreed with our arguments about the necessity of inclusion in the political process, and that failure to include us was equivalent to tyranny, under which no self respecting man could be expected to live. He was a liberal.
Barry Goldwater, two centuries later, founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. This is a coherent liberal position—a commitment to gradualistic social improvement within the framework of a shared political culture and sense of social understandings–as indeed the rejection of slavery on the part of Republicans a century earlier was as well.
Yet there is another history of this word, another trajectory, and another set of assumptions about human life in general, and politics in particular, to which I will turn in my next segment, which presents the alternative to true liberalism: autocracy based on “the Lie”.