No need.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/classwar.jpgb16032.jpg

I'd just like to know where the liberals are.

The Indymedia crowd says it is not liberal, but rather is leftist, progressive, and anarchist.

No kidding.

I just finished Roy Jenkins' long biography of Churchill. One can't help but be struck after reading it that WSC himself was consistently anti-socialist, but inconsistently liberal. I regard him as a genuine hero -- one of the towering figures of the last century. But notwithstanding his American-born mother, the respect in which he struck me as being least like most Americans was in his persistent embrace of British imperialism, which was sometimes quite ill-liberal.

As imperialism went, the British version of the first half of the twentieth century was pretty benign, and arguably constructive in many respects. But the British attitude toward Iraq after WW-I, for instance, was very, very different than, say, the American attitude toward the Philippines at the same time. And by the time of the Suez Crisis (during which Churchill was no longer Prime Minister, but merely an elder statesman of the Conservative Party that engineered the fiasco under Anthony Eden), the difference between Churchill's reaction and Eisenhower's was simply vast.

This difference is instructive and, frankly, reassuring when I contemplate those who accuse America of imperialism now in our foreign affairs. We can rightly be accused of some degree of unilateralism (although I don't regard that as always a bad thing). We certainly are usually guilty of pride, and will always occasionally be stupid. But I genuinely think that what is motivating our policy in Iraq now is a self-interested liberalism (in the sense that term is used in WSC's quote, not in its current American political sense). You only need to study the life of Churchill to see how different that is from genuine (even benign) imperialism.

I assume that Sir Winston was speaking of classic liberalism, not what passes for it today.

But in reality, most liberals today understand that classic socialism is a failure so they try to adopt certain of its ideals onto a market and private property based economy.

This is probably more akin to economic fascism, shall we say compassionate fascism.

"Liberalism attacks monopoly"

Absurd. I think not when it comes to government (public) schools. All monopolies are created equal, however, some monopolies are more equal than others.

Did I mention labor unions....?

Well, if you mean by "Socialism" the kind of thing that was practiced in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, then obviously no, Liberalism is not Socialism.

But if you mean by "Socialism" the kind of thing that is practiced in, say, Sweden, then it's not at all clear to me that Socialism isn't just a variation of Liberalism. In fact, it might be a more liberal form of Liberalism than what we've got (although we're not really different in kind from Sweden, just in scale).

If Liberalism can be expressed, as I think it can, with this principle,

The role of the state is to maximize liberty (in all its forms) for the most citizens possible.

then it's certainly plausible that Socialism (in its Sweden form, not its USSR form) is an attempt to achieve the goal of Liberalism.

Methink Mace to be on target. There are many examples of Liberals CREATING monopolies (at least I think they are Liberals, but maybe they are Leftists, or maybe they are both, like the mammalian and marsupian oppossum.

Whatever.

Many Democrats want to turn our health care industry into a monopoly. The fight against school choice just jumps out.

Michael,

You say "discuss", and I say how can I top Churchill?

Nuff said.

Beldar,

Your comments about Churchill are spot on. As much as I admire Churchill, he was not a liberal by contemporary or even classical standards. He may have been a liberal-imperialist, but he was still an imperialist. That fact is often forgotten. He could also be characterized as a conservative who conserved liberalism.

The political categories we use are completely inadequate, especially for the likes of Churchill.

Mace,

Did I mention labor unions....?

I would make a distinction between private and public sector unions. Unions are a natural outcome of a liberal-capitalist society as individuals exercise their freedom of association.

Unfortunately, unions tend toward corruption. Private sector unions tend to decline as they become corrupt. Public sector unions go on forever...

tallan,

This is probably more akin to economic fascism, shall we say compassionate fascism.

That's a great point. The left likes to characterize fascism as its diamatric opposite with capitalism somewhere in between. The truth is that fascism is a blend of socialism and capitalism and usually ends up being a transition state between the two.

Hitler gave fascism a worse name than it would have otherwise had. Socialism has been much more malignant.

Hmm. I'm puzzled, I've found a few definitions of liberal and liberalism online and I don't think any are what you are speaking of.
According to relavent sections on dictionary.com, my comments are in parenthesis.

lib·er·al

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
(it's defining what your not, bigoted. However a simple negative shouldn't define an individuals entire worldview)

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
(Although I'm a relatively new reader of Michaels I don't really think this applies to what I've read by him. Lately most of what I've read is about his support of the War and problems with those on the left who disagree. A) On this issue he is clearly not advocating reform, he supports the current policy in Iraq. B) I've seen little tolerance or even understanding of the issues of the anti-war community. Irregardless of what ones opinion threatening to abandon a political party because some in it don't hold the same opinion as you do is clearly not "tolerant of ideas")

3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
(which calls for another definition)

Liberalism
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
(If these sound like a description of your philosophy perhaps you should consider being a Libertarian before you become an Independent)

( The definitions I found most applicable to what your opinions might be are descriptions of 19th century Liberalist movements.)

1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

Perhaps its time for a new word, or at least a better definition. The Churchill quote was great, but it contrasts two terms rather than define either of them. What, specifically, IS your definition of a liberal?

The problem is that what we now call liberalism isn't liberalism.

Liberalism in the classical sense is exemplified by the works of John Locke, J.S. Mill, and Montesquieu as well as others. It is philosophy of limiting the power of the state and maximizing the power of the individual. It is a philosophy rooted in the Enlightenment backlash against the power of monarchy and a system in which the state had complete dominance over nearly every aspect of life from religion to economics.

Modern "liberalism" rejects the limitation of state. They argue that the state should have a greater role in everyone's lives, actively redistribute income, and create a system of social welfare from cradle to grave.

In order to do this you necessarily have to limit the freedom of certain individuals. Because you can't simply fund social welfare programs by pulling money out of the air, you have to get it from somewhere.

So liberals attack "the rich", a category that includes a large chunk of the middle class.

Because these programs are viewed as a right by recipients, the chances of actually reforming these programs becomes almost nil without explosive social ramifications. Even if the programs fail, one cannot cut or reform them without being called "insensitive" at best and a Nazi, facist, or the like at worst.

In the end, you have a system that is usually broken, always inflexible, and must constantly take more from some to give to others. Even if you assume that government can provide a certain standard of living (which is arguable) that doesn't answer the question of should the government do so? Even if it can, you have to assume that some people have fewer economic (and usually political) rights, and once you start taking rights from one to give to another you've discarded the very concept of "equal justice under law".

The fundamental problem with liberalism is that liberalism can't meet liberal goals, and usually makes things worse than they are. It's that reason why I cannot support liberalism even if I have sympathy with liberal objectives.

If we could get some real liberals back, Churchill would be right on. Instead we have "liberals" who have forgotten that they are supposed to care about people in other countries.

Remember, it was the liberal FDR who was trying to get us into WWII. He was the type of liberal Churchill was talking about. The kind of liberal who created things like the CCC. But somewhere along the way, the CCC turned into Welfare and liberals moved towards socialism.

I wish I could find the quote, but I remember hearing about it after the 00 elections. It was by the Socialists cantidate complaining that the democrats were stealing all his ideas and he was forced to keep going further and further left.

Michael, you're not the type of liberal who pushs for socialism. Lots of others who claim the title of liberal.... I would say a lot of them are. Especially in the blogosphere. It seems to be a breeding ground for rabid socialists.

But it really comes down to definitions. Is Sweden a socialist state? France? I would say that both are heading that way if they're not already.

Court,

Sweden and France are not socialist. They are overly centralized and bureaucratic, but they have capitalist market economies. The state does not own the means of production. They have far more in common with the United States than with Cuba.

Micah,

I see no contradiction whatsoever in your posted definitions of liberalism and how Churchill defined liberalism. I combine all of that into what I consider "liberal." And when I call myself liberal, these are the definitions I have in my head.

Liberalism to me has nothing whatsoever to do with Political Correctness, a fetish for bureaucracy, or pacifism. Those are all totally separate issues, and are to varying degrees in conflict with liberalism in all senses of the word. Hence, my drift toward the more genuinely liberal center.

You guys are simply trotting out all the Conservative chestnuts about Liberalism. You are allowing the opponents of a movement to define it. Hearkening back to some of the many definitions in (corporate) Websters/Dictionary.com is more of the same. The correct definitions are around, even on those sites, but you have to look for them.

Accepting the caricature of Liberalism promulgated from the 50’s on does us all a disservice. That portrayal of Liberalism as Socialism was meant to bring the paranoia of the Cold War into the service of the Republican Party. And it failed to be accurate to either term. Socialism is not a political ideology, but an economic system… literally it is State ownership of the factories, while Liberalism is a political theory and cares nothing about economics. So there is no way that it can be useful to commingle these terms in the 21st century discussion of politics and society

Jay began to touch on this and then appears to have backed off… Liberalism was a reaction to the reign of Louis and the power of the Pope. It rejected these traditional and unearned authority figures in favor of rational individualism. Liberalism did accept the age-old belief that individual rights are best protected in a larger society, and that to do so will naturally require the members to give up some freedoms; but the payback for giving up some liberty is the Social Contract, which is a list of services and protections that society guarantees to its members. Importantly, Liberals insist that this bargain be made voluntarily, that it can be modified by its members, and even overthrown if need be.

However, every year people add something to the list of services and protections. But this movement is not Liberalism; it is simply the product of natural human avarice, and the added pressures of an increasingly crowded world, both inside and outside the society in question. What we all really need to do is sit down and discuss exactly how thick we want our Social Contract to be and how much we are willing to pay for it in limiting our freedoms, in taxes paid, and in services rendered.

As for state run medical services, insurance, or education… whether it be a government run matter or a monopoly, is NOT Socialism… it is that thick social contract grown to maximum size. So long as the rest of the economic system is not State-owned you do not have Socialism, and so long as the people can vote to repeal it you can still have Democracy, and if people can freely discuss changes and question the authorities, it can even be Liberal.

It matters how we define words because words express ideas… lose the words and you lose the ideas and stifle discussion, conflict resolution, and problem solving. I have a strict political dictionary on by own blog’s sidebar. I realize that other people use these terms in many different ways, but I try to stick to the original, idea-based, definitions myself, as best I can.

/friendly jab on

Oh, and Micah, please desist from using the “word” irregardless. You might have meant irrespective. Regardless, you are obviously a smart guy.

/friendly jab off

"The Indymedia crowd says it is not liberal, but rather is leftist, progressive, and anarchist."

Back in the good ole days (Roger Simon will probably bear me out on this) righteous New Left radicals hated liberals. They respected right-wing conservatives, who were as ideological as they were. But liberals weren't cool. Liberals would go to some party with lots of glowering Black Power dudes and try too hard to be liked. Liberals were wishy-washy, part of the Establishment, trying to have it both ways. Clinging to privilege while protesting they too had righteous radical ideals. Liberals tried to work within the system, instead of understanding (as did the righteous New Left dudes) that the system was corrupt and must be uprooted. Hubert Humphrey was a liberal.

I always liked liberals precisely because they tried to work within the system, which in many ways was more difficult and demanded more maturity than striking an anarchist pose and chanting slogans. Or setting up a commune in the woods and pretending you had rejected the system when you were still buying its clothes and tools, and had no idea how many centuries of technology and management skills and legal systems made it possible for you to have them.

Nothing has changed.

Yehudit,

I had the dubious privilege of watching late sixties liberalism's transition to leftism destroy my father's faith in God. My father was raised with the absolute conviction that you never talked about other's criminal failures. Keeping the faith became an open wound on people in the "movement" that parasites and scavengers dined upon without the slightest consideration for the host. The stench of the vultures who preyed upon the corpse of sixties liberalism was certainly disgusting, and it might be excusable as a lesson if it were not still putrifying the world today. Or if there was an indication that the lesson had been learned.

I welcome a definition of liberalism that did not describe a willing host for the worst of carrion eaters. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.

In the late 1960s, radical revolutionary leftists called themselves "liberals" as a way of infiltrating the ranks of the mainstream left. And it worked.

Today they are publicly and pointedly rejecting the liberal label for themselves. What was done in 1968 is becoming undone.

The left-liberal alliance is coming apart. They are temporarily uniting in Bush hatred, but it won't last. The differences are irreconcilable. Some liberals are relieved when I point this out. Others get mad, but it's worth noting that they won't defend the leftists. Even defensive anti-war liberals have epithets to hurl at the leftists. They use the words "kooks," "wackos," and "loons" themselves.

sblafren,

As for state run medical services, insurance, or education… whether it be a government run matter or a monopoly, is NOT Socialism… it is that thick social contract grown to maximum size.

At one point does a recreational drug user become a junkie? When that person becomes dependent on drugs and alters his/her lifestyle in order to obtain them.

Likewise with the "social contract." At what point does the social contract become socialism? When a critical mass of the citizenry become dependent on government programs so that government becomes a giant coercive Ponzi scheme with confiscatory taxes and massive borrowing in order to finance it.

I think we have crossed that line. We are now sacrificing our children's future in order to finance current consumption.

And instead of cutting back, we have a Republican president proposing new entitlements to pay for new miracle drugs that didn't exist 10-20 years ago! Drugs that wouldn't have existed if the Democrats had their way and crushed the pharmaceutical industry. Such are the contradictions of socialism.

"The Indymedia crowd says it is not liberal, but rather is leftist, progressive, and anarchist.

No kidding."

Then why is the Democratic party, the party of liberals, letting them set the tone and direction? The right took a justified beating in the 80s and 90s for letting the Christian fundamentalists set too much of the political tone. The left has fallen to the same problem. Yes, the guys holding the sign may be Indymedia loonies; but they are the ones speaking for the Democrats. If the liberals in the party won't stand up to them, why should I believe they exist or matter?

Michael,

Here is why I left the party that abandoned its FDR, Truman and JFK tradition, and joined the party that is returning to its Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt tradition:

http://www.rpatrick.com/USA/americanism/

Isn't the party that espouses these principles the TRUE liberal party?

"Socialism seeks to pull down wealth. Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty." The leftists are certainly haters of the rich, destructive envy in the worst sense.

Rober Nozik wrote a great article on why wordsmith intellectuals hate capitalism. Because in school they were "the best", but in the real world, they're not the most rewarded. But think they should be. Which fits well with Wheatcroft's recent article about the similarities between leftist/socialist thought and Islamic terrorists -- they're both losers. They're being defeated.
(My blog note on these two)

The Liberals have two problems in their War on Poverty, in trying to raise up the poor. First, they decided to do it quickly, using the morally questionable force of involuntarily funded gov't.

Tax collection is neither peaceful, voluntary, nor good -- but some is necessary (says this minarchist). The problem, like the Church had when it raised taxes/ was involved in politics, is in trying to do "good" with the tax revenue, and using the good to justify higher taxes. This is the corruption at the heart of democracy, as deToqueville noted nearly 200 years ago; democracy fails when the people can bribe themselves with the national treasury. [Far too much like Bush is doing, terribly!]

The second liberal problem is the almost total lack of accountability. Programs get judged based on plans and ideas and goals, not based on results. Wait, actually political programs do get judged, based on how much money was spent. Period. 'We care, see how much we spend.' The UN, World Bank, most NGOs, most foundations funding NGOs, all have this problem.
[Habitat for Humanity does NOT -- it asks, how many houses were built. THAT is the right model.]

There is a fine AEI-Brookings paper on Libertarian Paternalism, not an oxymoron, that is related to these policy issues.
aei
(I've renamed my blog: Liberty Father)

Roark,

Then why is the Democratic party, the party of liberals, letting [the IndyMedia crowd] set the tone and direction? ...[T]hey are the ones speaking for the Democrats.

Where's your evidence for this? Does this statement have any basis in reality at all? Please provide an example of how the "IndyMedia crowd" is setting the "tone and direction" of the Democratic party--by example of the "tone and direction" of the Democratic party, not by example of what some IndyMedia nut says that you just decide represents Democrats.

If the liberals in the party won't stand up to them...

What do you think is happening here?

...why should I believe they exist or matter?

Why is it important to Democrats that you do?

HA,

The Bull Moose party?

Really, it's a fine essay, but the limit of his concern only to Americans of European extraction doesn't exactly commend itself to what we in modern times would like to think of as "liberalism". And if we can forgive errors in judgement arising from the social structure of the nation in 1915, surely we can forgive good Teddy for being a Republican.

Christopher,

but the limit of his concern only to Americans of European extraction doesn't exactly commend itself

Go back and read the entire essay. Then remove foot from mouth.

I knew when I posted that essay that some dishonest lefty would take certain pieces out of context in order reverse its intent. Congratulations. You fulfilled my lowest expectations of the left.

You don't work for the NY Times do you?

I got quite a bit further than this:

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

And then work called. So I've gone back and skimmed the rest, and I don't see what you're talking about. He held up slavery as a bad example?

Even if I misread it, it doesn't make me a "lefty" (which I'm not), it makes me busy. It sure as hell doesn't make me dishonest. But if it makes you feel better to call me names, go for it. Thanks for elevating the debate.

Those interested in the history and philosophical differences of Socialist/Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian in the US should investigate the following books:

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell

Conservatism in America since 1930 by Gregory L. Schneider

Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement by Justin Raimondo

The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America
by George H. Nash

The FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES : The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress by Virginia Postrel

Ha wrote: “At what point does the social contract become socialism?”

Never. The social contract NEVER becomes Socialism. This is not an issue of degree, but of kind.

Liberalism is a political philosophy, Socialism is an economic system.

The Social Contract exists with all voluntary forms of government (I suppose it exists within a Monarchy, but there is shiat-all that you can do about it if you don’t like it short of risking your head, literally).

When people point to government programs, at any level or degree, and call it Socialism they are incorrect. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production (factories), not when it provides social services (even when these services touch on the economic, like Welfare).

“I think we have crossed that line. We are now sacrificing our children's future in order to finance current consumption. Instead of cutting back, we have a Republican president proposing new entitlements…”

Which should show you that these programs are not Socialism, would a Republican move us closer to Socialism? Never, not even a man as confused as Dubya.

Again, what we are talking about is our level of commitment and priority and our basic philosophy about The Common Good.

Many people would consider taking care of the elderly with medical benefits a Common Good. Other consider quality public education to be another Common Good. Regulating energy and water utilities is another. Providing police and army protection is another. The list goes on and on. None of these things are free.

So, is the tax tab increasing, from 1778 to today? Sure… but so is the list of expectations that the citizens hold about government. Are these demands too much? Maybe. We probably need to sit down as a nation and talk.

I rather think that Churchill was talking about the English or European definition of liberalism, which as others have pointed out in this thread, was a tradition that embraced free trade, bourgeois social mores, capitalism, rule of law, representative government, etc, etc. In other words, what nowadays is usually described as neoconservativism.

American usage of "liberal" is more properly called progressivism - the belief in the ability of the state, regulation, and freely elected governments to promote utilitarian goals. These goals can be best expressed as FDR's Four Freedoms - expression, religion, prosperity, security. Progressivism isn't naturally antithetical to liberalism, but its goals are not identical, and there's considerable disagreement on methods.

A lot of the confusion of terms in the US has been a product of this mis-labeling of progressives as liberals. I rather think that further confusion has arisen due to libertarians trying to claim classic liberalism as their birthright. Personally, I think this is about as accurate as the New Left's claim to progressivism ("liberalism"). That is, there are certain ancestral commonalties, but the new claimants are more radical, purist, and extreme than their claimed tradition.

Mitch,

Churchill could very well have been talking about the Democratic Party. He also wrote that quote thirty or so years before he became Prime Minister. I don't know what his politics were then. I'm no Churchill expert, sorry.

Few who would read the quote above and who self-identify as an American liberal Democrat would disagree with it.

And those who disagree with the non-socialist principles of liberalism as stated by Churchill above call themselves progressives, leftists, and anarchists.

sblafren:
When people point to government programs, at any level or degree,and call it Socialism they are incorrect. Socialism is when thegovernment owns the means of production (factories), not when itprovides social services (even when these services touch on theeconomic, like Welfare).

Formal ownership is not the point. Control is the point. If a (technically fascist) government keeps formal ownership of enterprises with their nominal "owners" but by law directs their operation in minute detail, this is every bit as socialist (national-socialist) as outright expropriation. If a government expropriates the majority of profits and spends them as it sees fit, or directs by law how profits are to be spent, how is that funtionally different from formal expropriation (where the ex-owner works "for the government")?

You may not like it, but there is indeed a sliding, gradual scale to functional (if not formal) Socialism. Just like most Libertarians have to countenance some government for practical reasons, so most Liberals have to countenance some degree of government control over people's liberties. To me, the distinction is that Liberals (and Libertarians) consider government's influence over individuals a necessary sacrifice of liberty, of which we should be properly wary. Those people who believe that government control over people's liberties is an intrinsic moral good (as opposed to a deplorable necessity) can, I'd argue, properly be called Socialists (of which Fascists are a sub-sect).

Whether Sweden has indeed transitioned far enough along that road is a matter of judgment on which reasonable people may disagree. But I don't think you can just shrug off the possibility with a technicality (formal ownership of the means of production).

Mitch H. is right on track. Churchill was referring to the original Liberal Party, an outgrowth of the Whig Party, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The many tacit meanings of the word "liberal" in this discussion show how many of our own socialists have hidden themselves behind the word after the drastic historical change in connotation. In modern American social and political terms it can only mirror value relativism, as in "sexual liberation," and has very little to do with classical liberalism. The proof is in the California pudding: if the Democratic Party is fully able to do whatever it wants in this country, we would be like Europe in no time.

Been to California lately? It's no Sweden.

Perhaps in these blogs we are developing a new intellectual identity. One that does not adhere so closely to traditional absolutes and instead looks to practical imperitives. A vision of liberalism that embraced personal responsibility could be a powerful idea indeed. One that understood that it was going to be used by the politicians and still insisted upon integrity through self-examination could move the world forward to an amazing degree.

A liberal will have you believe that the glass is half empty. A conservative will have you believe that the glass is half full. A blogger will direct you to security video online that shows the bartenders watering the booze and skimming the till, then let you make up your own mind.

Christopher will then deny the video as a vast right wing conspiracy intended to distract us from adhering to the half empty ideal.

A blogger will direct you to security video online that shows the bartenders watering the booze and skimming the till, then let you make up your own mind.

Christopher will then deny the video as a vast right wing conspiracy intended to distract us from adhering to the half empty ideal.

Help, I've been pigeonholed!

Really, what did I do to earn that? Have you been reading my comment posts about vast right-wing conspiracies? Have you been reading my posts about attempts to distract us from the liberal (half-empty) ideal?

No. Because I don't say those things. Because I'm not a simple-minded, easily-categorized partisan. So whatever it is that I've done to deserve your scorn, I'd appreciate you backing it up, or backing it out.

"Where's your evidence for this? Does this statement have any basis in reality at all?"

The surging poll numbers for Howard Dean, the most visceral and angry of all of the current Democrat Presidential candidates. His rhetoric matches that of the Indymedia/DU crowd - and his support base is made largely of young, angry, disenchanted activists.

Would that be enough of a "basis in reality" for you?

"What do you think is happening here?"

I think I am watching the transformation of a young man with strong ideals and morals from a liberal into a moderate. I am watching him realize day by day that the political party he considered to be the embodiment of his beliefs is actually nothing like what he believed it was.

"Why is it important to Democrats that you do?"

Because debate in this country used to be the means by which great compromises were reached. Great compromises, otherwise known as collaborations, are the manner in which we keep this nation of ours from sliding off into an abyss of totalitarianism. There needs to be a two party system in place, and I honestly care deeply about the health and longevity of a functioning, working, strong Democratic party. I want them to lose, but I want them to be there.

Roark,

I can't speak to DU, but I do pay some attention to IndyMedia and I think there's a very large gulf between that crowd and Dean, at least as far as I could to by googling around a bit. The biggest set of threads on Dean revolve around a petition being passed around to urge him to explain his "hawkish" stance on the MidEast and to "explain" his ties to AIPAC. In fact, if that crowd seems to be leaning largely towards any Democratic candidate, it looks to my like Kucinich will be their man. Which is illustrative on a lot of levels.

I have a lot of problems with Dean, the most recent being his statement a couple of days ago that Bush "promised us peace". But I don't subscribe to the notion that he's any kind of left-leaning liberal. He opposed the war, but now believes that we're there for the long haul and have an absolute imperative to remain until Iraq is a stable, democratic country; me too. He supports the rights of same-sex couples and believes in universal health care; me too. Other than that, his positions (and actions as governor) have been a lot more Clinton than Kucinich, and are way, waaaaay to the right of where the IndyMedia crowd wants to be. I suspect that most of them who currently support him would recoil in horror if they actually bothered to learn about his positions on fiscal responsibility and gun control.

There needs to be a two party system in place, and I honestly care deeply about the health and longevity of a functioning, working, strong Democratic party. I want them to lose, but I want them to be there.

Absolutely commendable, and I apologize for assuming otherwise.

(PS: Lasswell--was that enough Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for you?)

Christopher,

"I can't speak to DU, but I do pay some attention to IndyMedia and I think there's a very large gulf between that crowd and Dean, at least as far as I could to by googling around a bit."

Perhaps that is it. I spend a great deal more time on DU and there is a very large contingent of Dean supporters there. I have tried Indymedia time and time again, but it is just too hate filled for me. DU isn't a picnic, but at least I can get through a few threads, read and digest the latest from the other side and get out without seeing wildly anti-semitic stuff.

As for Dean, I have several close friends (also Republicans) from Vermont. In talking with them I have about decided that I could have voted for Howard Dean the Governor. Howard Dean the Presidential Candidate seems to be another animal all-together. They are shocked and say that it resembles an overnight Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hide transformation. The more I head about Dean being a moderate in the past and then see Dean the extremist on the campaign trail the more concerned I become.

"Absolutely commendable, and I apologize for assuming otherwise."

Don't worry about it. Its not like Republicans have the corner on tolerence of opposing viewpoints. I certainly understand why anyone cringes when I self-identify as a Republican and why they decide they can't talk to me without hostility. Its a crazy world we've gotten ourselves into.

Perry, I respond:

Socialism is an economic system, not a political ideology.

Liberalism is a political ideology, not an economic system.

But when people are involved, overlap is indeed possible.

A proponent of Socialism might well believe that people should subordinate themselves to authority as a moral duty… but not because they are Socialists, but because they are illiberal, or Conservative.

Similarly a Liberal might believe that the State should drop all tariffs and duties on imports and exports, but not because they are a Liberal, but because they are Free-Marketeers.

The problem is that these words, Liberal and Conservative, have multiple meanings… they not only describe a political perspective, but are also simply adjectives and adverbs “She poured a liberal pint and handed it to the Reverend, who sipped it conservatively the rest of the night.”

Accordingly you can use these terms in many ways during a conversation. But you should always spell them in lower case and keep them distinct in their formal ideological usage.

The problem with trying to draw an absolute delineation between liberaism as a political ideology and socialism as an economic system is that economics and politics are linked.

There is no set and defined economic sphere and political sphere. They are simply two sides of the same coin.

I've always argued that you can't be a political scientist without knowing about economics and a good economist cannot ignore the realities of politics.

That's why arguing that "expanding the social contract" isn't socialism is such a fallacious argument. In order to do so, you have to get the money to do it from somewhere.

In order to get that money you have to take it through taxation, and in order to see those services delivered the government has to take control of the commanding heights of the economy.

Sweden is a good example. Sweden is most certainly a socialist state, but the state does not own factories in Sweden. The Swedish state does not own Saab, Volvo, and Ericsson, but they tax the hell out of them to fund their social welfare state. (In fact, without those three, the Swedish economy would collapse entirely.)

Socialism is not just an economic system, it is a political system founded on the ideas of economic redistribution in the name of "social justice"- which is why calling the policies of the Democratic Party "socialist" isn't hyperbole.

Jay,

Making no distinction between the economic systems of Sweden and Cuba is absurd. They are not different in degree, they are different in kind. One has a market economy, and the other has a command economy. "Socialism" does not describe them both.

Argue against Sweden's taxes and bureaucracy all you want. You can get Democrats to pay attention to you if you do that. Otherwise your argument will be disregarded as partisan hyperbole, just as when the left says the GOP is a fascist party because John Ashcroft of too authoritarian. (And he is too authoritarian.)

Christopher,

Your comment:

And then work called. So I've gone back and skimmed the rest, and I don't see what you're talking about. He held up slavery as a bad example?

From Roosevelt:

Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?

Roosevelt's reference to European ethnic groups is clearly due to the fact European powers at the time were trying to exploit ethnic Americans.

Roosevelt goes on:

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being...
All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, no matter in what way we may severally worship our Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united America for the elimination of race and religious prejudice.

Roosevelt's essay is visionary in the context of his times and stands up to any measure of true liberalism even by contemporary standards.

P.S. Let's make a deal. I'll refrain from sarcasm if you will.

(Note:If you're busy,jump over the long babble below)

I agree that Sweden is not a "socialist state".However, any state where a half of the GNP is taken by the government,and where the state holds effective monopolies in important services,is partially socialist.
The common term used for such states is "mixed economy",meaning, an economy with a mixture of capitalism and socialism.Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are mixed economies.USA is also a mixed economy,albeit more market-driven than Sweden.

It's all a matter of degree.But whichever way you look at it,having services like education provided by the state is socialism.The fact that socialism is a dirty word nowadays doesn't change the reality.It is the amount of socialism considered appropriate that makes a person:

(The Important Part)

1)A socialist:The government should own and operate all means of production.Model:Cuba

2)A social democrat (Europe):A free market,capitalist production in most industries and services,but the government should even the differences in income through taxation and hold an (effective) monopoly in important services,like education,health care,unemployment insurance.Model:Sweden

3)A Liberal (American 20th century):A social democrat.

4)A Classical Liberal,Liberal (rest of the world),Libertarian:All means of production that can practically be produced by private enterprise,shall be so.Low taxes,free trade (not exclusive),flat tax or close to it.Model:Hong Kong,Singapore,USA (ca. 1900).See also:Milton & Rose Friedman,J.S.Mill

5)A Conservative (Anglo-Saxon world):Right-Winger,economically either closer to Libertarian (Reagan,Goldwater) or Liberal/Social Democrat (Bush II,Nixon).

I hope that helps.BTW,I am a Libertarian (mostly).

Please don't let Rupert Murdoch define who Howard Dean is for you. Mr. Murdoch doesn't have your interests in mind. Check Dean out for yourself; look at his record and his speeches in their entirety. While you may disagree with his opposition to the war, I think you'll find that you'll like a lot about what he says about winning the peace and keeping America safe, prosperous, and free.

Let's make a deal. I'll refrain from sarcasm if you will.

Done, and gladly.

Sorry Kimmit, but The Honourable Murdoch completely controls my life. I have no other thought that what he puts in my head. I am a zombie. Don't try to change me. I just wish I could be a liberal like you and learn to think for myself, but alas, Mr. Murdoch won't let me.

Michael,

They are not different in degree, they are different in kind.

You and sblafren are jumping through semantic hoops in order to avoid the dreaded "S" word. I think Jay and Perry convincingly made the case that socialism is both an economic AND political system, and also that the difference between Sweden and Cuba is a matter of degree and partly of kind.

By analogy, most would agree that homo sapiens, neanderthals and chimpanzees are different in degree. But are they different in kind? Depends how you view it. They are all mammals and primates. Neanderthals and homo sapiens are both hominids, but only homo sapiens are human. Depending on your classifications, they can be both different and the same in kind.

Likewise, socialism, communism and fascism are simultaneously the same AND different in kind depending on the granularity of your classification system.

Put me in that camp too. Murdoch is my god.

Before he came along, I was carrying a sign that read "I hate my dad" in a peace march; but after that first afternoon of Fox News I was sold.

Now I boil babies, line my driveway with the carcases of homeless people, laugh at drug addicts, burn liberal politicians in effigy and kill kittens.

HA,

Let us agree that you can rig the terms to make your point, and I can do the same. This is becoming a semantic argument. I think we both know what Sweden is actually like in real life, and we both probably have a pretty good idea of the realities in Cuba and North Korea, too.

The difference is that Cuba is not socialist. Cuba can be described as authoritarian, despotism, communism, or totalitarianism.

However, a socialist state is a state that still has free elections, a free press, and the like. A socialist state has usually high levels of political freedom and low-levels of economic freedom whereas a communist state has low levels of both economic and political rights.(Now, to head off any criticism at the pass, yes, I still believe that political and economic freedoms are linked, and that violation of one often leads to abridgemen of another. However, I'm willing to make some distinctions solely for the purpose of comparison.)

You are right that Sweden is a free state (at least in many respects) and Cuba is a command economy. I don't mean to confuse the two at all.

However, it is important to note that Sweden is the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of socialist welfare states, even those with nothing but the best of intentions, have tended to become tyrannical and authoritarian over time.

Pshaw. This one is easy to explain. He was drunk. There, I said it. We all know that Winnie and Gin were no strangers.

Jay Reding: a socialist state is a state that still has free elections, a free press, and the like. A socialist state has usually high levels of political freedom

Oh dear. I know of no country in history where this is true. We are talking about socialism here. Socialism is, you know, anti-capitalist. A system where there is no market, where there is only the state.

If you don't like Churchill's take on it, how about The American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I have another idea. Let's let socialists speak for themselves.

From the International Socialist Organization:

The International Socialist Organization (ISO) stands in the revolutionary tradition of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. We have branches across the country that organize activists in workplaces and communities and on campuses in order to mobilize opposition to all forms of oppression and exploitation. The ISO believes that capitalism produces poverty, racism, famine, environmental catastrophe and war. By getting involved in struggles big and small, the ISO aims to build with others a society where we all have control over our lives. We believe another world is possible.

We're not talking Sweden here. Nor is this even remotely similar to the platform of the Democratic Party.

Politics and economics - yes, of course, it is hardly possible to divide the one from the other. However, any professor or student of either field would be happy to spend hours explaining just exactly how they are distinct.

I would remind you that a person who holds to one or the other economic theory, Capitalism or Socialism (or even Communism) can still be either a Liberal or a Conservative; a monarchist or a democrat

I don’t really know how better to argue or explain it. Whether you like it or not, or whether is squares with your post-Vietnam education or not, there it is… Liberalism IS a political system and Socialism IS an economic system… they are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.

I think that you guys might be confusing society with Socialism.

If people choose to live together (in society) in a town and they agree to levy taxes to pay a sheriff and build a jail, purchase a fire truck for the local volunteers, or build a school house and hire a teacher they are not practicing Socialism... fer crying out loud! Even if this is the ONLY sheriff, fire truck, school and teacher in town. This is simply an example of people living and working together for mutual benefit… that is social behavior, no Socialism.

Can various political systems severely impinge on the economics? Can the desire for Sweden to have a Social Contract as thick as a phone book demand such high taxes that the economy takes a hit? Sure. And can a political theory like Liberalism impact the thinking of politicians so much that they pass NAFTA? Sure.

I never intended to argue that there was any kind of Separation of Economics and State. But I think that it is important that you understand the difference… that you realize that an economic model is impacting your political system and do not become confused that your political system is under attack by some other political system. If you don’t understand the influences involved, how can you respond to them intelligently?

Say it with me… Liberalism argues that political power lies with the individual alone and government requires the consent of the governed… this is a political perspective. Socialism is when the State owns the factories and directs the economy… this is an economic model. Come on now… everybody.

** What is funny is that at various points Jay and HA appear to get it and then get lost…

HA says “Socialism, Communism, and fascism are simultaneously the same and different in kind…” Sorta, actually, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all the same in kind… they all have to deal with private property and the free market, they are economic models but vary in degree of support for private property.

Capitalism=private property and a free market, Socialism=state owned factories and a command economy, Communism=the elimination of private property and a command economy.

This is your sliding scale, it was Marx’s too, he believed that societies would move from one system through the others, from Capitalism to Communism, with a necessary stop at Socialism along the way.

However, Fascism is when the market and the state actually merge… it is not about government control of the marketplace it is about the government becoming private property itself. This was the original encyclopedia definition; before all the publishing companies were bought by the government controlling corporate interests, interestingly.

Jay, Socialism IS just an economic model. Sure, it is based on a political vision as well: Radical, Leftist poverty politics. Socialism is the economic METHOD to reach their political vision of economic and social justice.

On the other hand, Capitalism is also just an economic model. It is based on the political ideas of Liberalism, it argues that people know best what to build and sell and how much to pay for it all, with out government interference. Thus Capitalism is the economic tool to reach the political vision of these people, self-determinism.

On the other hand, Fascism is a combo punch. There the government knows best what the government wants from the economic system and will use the people to get it. Yikes!

Jay also notes that a Socialist state can still have free elections and a free press, that is because it is only an economic model, not a political one.

Meanwhile, under Jay’s posited definition of Socialism, as merely a welfare state with some state monopolized economic sectors, then Sweden is not an exception at all, it joins the US, the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Greece, etc… in providing a healthy dole, and free state run medical, insurance, and pensions, and universal education.

According to a guy to talk to, Brian Rush, Liberals believe that happiness of all people or the common interest should prevail and that Liberalism is very much tied to Humanist values. Liberalism according to him is very flexible in incorporating Socialist or Marxist and Environmentalist (The Deep Greens) ideas.

Socialism on the other hand according to Brian Rush believe that economic equality is the most important thing and that goal should come before everything else.

Socialists in general are mildly to extremely hostile to capitalism, because they see it creating economic inequality. Liberals generally are comfortable with capitalism, some liberals are concerned at the more nastier sides of capitalism and want to use government power to curtail it, while other Liberals see the unfettered free market as a good thing that benefits the whole of society.

Liberals are very passionate believers in liberty and democracy, which fits with their view of government benefiting all the people not just a special group. Socialists opinion of democracy and liberty is mixed, some socialists like the Fabians in Britain (George Orwell was a Fabian socialist) think that a Democratic society goes hand to hand with democracy. However most socialists believe that democracy is just another form of rule by the Ruling Capitalist class and that a dicatorship of the working class should replace democracy in the transition period to a workers paraise.

Our good friend Winston Churchill according to Brian Rush was strongly Liberal in his early political career, acquiring a strong conservative bent in this later career. According to Brian Rush Conservatives are suspicious of change and value tradition and order above all else.

Mr Rush made up a list of seven political ism's that ask for Michael to post on his site later.

Jay,

The difference is that Cuba is not socialist

Fidel Castro would take exception to your refusal to classify Cuba as socialist. Most self-described socialists would too.

I think there is a better case that Sweden is not socialist. I would say they borrow elements of socialism. Compassionate fascism as someone put it. There are no clean boundaries and neat little categories here.

One last question. What do you think would happen in the US if our "social contract" approached the thickness of Sweden's?

What you are missing is that Sweden is a democratic constitutional republic, with muliple parties (much like the US) while Cuba is a One-Party Totalitarian Dictatorship.

Yes Sweden is more influenced by socialist PARTIES than the US, and yes probably some of these parties are influced by the second international, which planned on using democratic elections to create a socialist state. The result is a mixed or corporate economy and a Welfare-State, neither pure market or pure socialist.

Never forget that socialism is impossible, regardless of whatever goals socialists may have. (See Ludwing Von Mises, Socialism).

PS: Comaparing Conservatives in the UK to conservatives in the US is unfair to both, as the two are not synonymous. Conservatives in the UK ar loyal to Throne and Alter. Conservatives in the US are loyal to the very liberal (in the classical sense) Founding Fathers. Plus the Cons in the UK are a political party while in the US it is a philosophy.

PPS: Why don't we anti-idiotarians abandon both liberal and conservative and reclaim the term "Whig"?

One last question. What do you think would happen in the US if our "social contract" approached the thickness of Sweden's?

I don't think it would, because Americans would never tolerate the lack of economic freedom that exists is Sweden. (My first college roommate was Swedish, and the first time he went to Target he thought he'd died and gone to heaven...)

If theoretically it did happen, the government would become insolvent. Sweden is small, geographically concentrated, and largely ethnically homogenous. By comparison, the US is large, geographically diverse, and ethnically diverse. If the US became a socialist state along the Swedish model the amount of money that would have to be diverted from the private sector to government would tap so much investment from the system that the US would simply be unable to survive economically.

Posted by HA at September 3, 2003 07:52 PM

> That's a great point. The left likes to
> characterize fascism as its diamatric opposite
> with capitalism somewhere in between.

Not really, they like to claim that fascism is new hybrid form of capitalism that is attempting to overcome the 'inevitable capital crisis' perdicted by Marx. Of course, this is coming from the Bolshevik communists... so it can be taken with a grain of salt... Nonetheless, fascism is described as being a new form of reactionary capitalism (even though a larger percentage of proletariat / industrial workers were involved in Mussolini’s march on Rome than in the red revolution in Russia). About the only basis for the claim is that fascism did not involve the seizure of the means of production... only it's state management..

> The truth is that fascism is a blend of
> socialism and capitalism and usually ends up
> being a transition state between the two.

Yes it is. Mussolini was a Marxist who broke with the 'mainstream' Marxists because of some ideological points. It was somewhat similar to the Stalin Trotsky break. Mussolini felt that socialism would not work in Italy because it was a fragmentented nonindustrialised society. Hence, he wanted to graft nationalism (re: socialism in one state) onto socialism to move Italy to the next stage of development required for true socialism...

Yes, it is also important to note the Stalin Trotsky break again in this context... as even the Bolsheviks moved in the direction of Mussolini (socialism in one state with nationalism grafted on...) when it was required.

I also think it's perfectly fair to point out that leftists created this whole left-right scale (re: 'progressive' vs. 'reactionary').

We are under no obligation to accept it. I don't. As a libertarian I see the fascists and communist left as anti-liberal totalitarians... they are the same. We (the free world / west / et cetera) are the actual opposite (of both fascism and communism)...

> Hitler gave fascism a worse name than it would
> have otherwise had. Socialism has been much
> more malignant.

Pretty much. People have commented over time that Japan and Sweden don't really have socialism.. they have a system similar to the Nazi economic system. In college I had an econ prof who compared our regulation of the pubic utilities to the Nazi econ system... It's not a slight so much as an observation... In cases of monopolies (like public utilities) it works quite well...

Then again, there is the whole issue of the term communism… which is what some people use to mean Marxist socialism while others equate socialism with what fascist economics actually are (private ownership with state ‘organization’)… further muddying the waters, others use socialism to describe any system that provides a vast social safety net / redistribution of income…

It’s a big cluster… just like the term Liberal… which does not mean what it really meant anymore…

Thomas

"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men," said Orwell, "is the restatement of the obvious."

I see the fascists and communist left as anti-liberal totalitarians... they are the same.

Robert D. Kaplan once said that Communism is Fascism without the ability to make the trains run on time.

Well, there are youngsters out there who want a form of Anarcho-Communism to be the way the world is run.

I tried explaining to this young person that in Anarchy will only last until one-person steps on another’s Neck and threatens violence. Then he gets underlings of a similar thought and next thing you know, you are living in a small fiefdom. Of course, he did not believe that would happen.

Check Dean out for yourself; look at his record and his speeches in their entirety. Posted by Kimmet - September 4, 2003 03:35 PM

Actually, in terms of his record as governor, Dean put economic justice fairly low on his priority list. In mid-1996 he put his weight behind the national welfare reform laws which slashed existing safety nets and forced impoverished mothers to work low-wage jobs. The Associated Press described him as “the governor who has at times tried to cut benefits to the aged, blind and disabled, whose No 1 priority is a balanced budget”. Business Week (8/11/03) said “Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state’s stringent environmental regulations”. Garrison Nelson, a respected UV political science professor says “he’s really a classic Rockefeller Republican”.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 5, 2003 11:07 AM

> Robert D. Kaplan once said that Communism is
> Fascism without the ability to make the trains
> run on time.

It reminds me of a stomach turning story about the Soviet Union. The industrialist Armand Hammer was being shown around the workers paradise by a local cheka man. The security service person demanded a private railway car be provided at a specific time. When it failed to arrive, he had the rail way office surrounded, the manager removed, and he murdered him in front of Armand and the man's staff... Armand was said to be impressed with the efficiency of the whole thing.

Of course, this is a workers paradise?

Just goes to show the depravity people will accept to service their ideological needs.... Any good liberal should have been revolted by such a society / system...

That's one set of perspectives, and I've read them. Some of them are based on misunderstandings (the welfare reform stuff was, of course, extremely complicated) and some is based on differing definitions of "Rockefeller Republicans" (most Rockefeller Republicans I know were not wont to put aside hundreds of thousands of acres as undeveloped land, then sanction gay unions).

A great treatment of a possibly functional anarchy is given by Vernor Vinge in several of his short stories; essentially, he lays out the economic conditions necessary for an anarchy and makes fairly clear that they do not exist here but might exist in some other place at some other point.

According to a guy to talk to, Brian Rush, Liberals believe that happiness of all people or the common interest should prevail and that Liberalism is very much tied to Humanist values. Liberalism according to him is very flexible in incorporating Socialist or Marxist and Environmentalist (The Deep Greens) ideas.

Socialism on the other hand according to Brian Rush believe that economic equality is the most important thing and that goal should come before everything else.

Socialists in general are mildly to extremely hostile to capitalism, because they see it creating economic inequality. Liberals generally are comfortable with capitalism, some liberals are concerned at the more nastier sides of capitalism and want to use government power to curtail it, while other Liberals see the unfettered free market as a good thing that benefits the whole of society.

Liberals are very passionate believers in liberty and democracy, which fits with their view of government benefiting all the people not just a special group. Socialists opinion of democracy and liberty is mixed, some socialists like the Fabians in Britain (George Orwell was a Fabian socialist) think that a Democratic society goes hand to hand with democracy. However most socialists believe that democracy is just another form of rule by the Ruling Capitalist class and that a dicatorship of the working class should replace democracy in the transition period to a workers paraise.

Our good friend Winston Churchill according to Brian Rush was strongly Liberal in his early political career, acquiring a strong conservative bent in this later career. According to Brian Rush Conservatives are suspicious of change and value tradition and order above all else.

Tristan,

I remember Brian Rush from discussion boards a few years back. Smart guy, one of the sharpest left-liberals around. Tell him I said hi, and that he's welcome to come over and comment any time.

And maybe he should get a blog. He'd raise the collective IQ of the left half of the blogosphere.

Thomas,

You explained my position better than I did. Thanks.

Reply to Michael,

According to Brian Rush's political ism's I am a Liberal with a strong conservative influence or a Conservative with a strong liberal influence.

I find Brian Rush observations sometimes insightful, sometimes completely wrong (his lack of proper understanding of market economics is very annoying according to me).

However Brian is more intellegent than most liberals who have an environmentalist or socialist influence and way more intellegent than the socialists and environmentalists.

The problem with quoting Churchill on this issue is that he is speaking to a liberalism which is not embraced by most self-professed liberals in the modern US.