[email protected]
There is much more where this came from, at
and/or
|
Liberalism Defined by the liberal martyr Steve Kangas 1 [ from part of the original Liberalism Resurgent] site.] |
How does liberalism differ from socialism?
Socialism means that workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors, 2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services. Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from republics to direct democracies, from centralized state bureaucracies to free market anarchy. Political scientists do not view the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union as true socialism -- this was, essentially, a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite. By comparison, liberals believe that private owners should own and control the means of production, formulate company policy, and have the right to select their own management team. Liberals would prevent them from abusing their powers through checks and balances like strong labor unions and democratic government. How does liberalism differ from the Green Party?
How does liberalism differ from libertarianism?
How does liberalism differ from conservatism? 2
What do liberals believe about rights, property and the "social contract?"
What forms the basis of rights and property found in the social contract? Whatever the voters agree to -- which means they can be anything, as indeed history has shown. And how are their rights and property defended? Primarily by the enforcement mechanisms authorized by the contract: police, military, legislatures, courts, etc. Without such enforcement, the agreements themselves would be precarious, and nothing could stop a stronger neighbor from violating your rights or your property. Many conservatives consider rights to be natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident. But rights cannot be natural, like the laws of nature, because they can be broken. They cannot be inalienable, because history is filled with examples of people who never had rights in the first place, or had them taken away. They cannot be God-given, because the world's religions widely disagree on what rights are; even Judeo-Christianity allowed slavery for thousands of years, whereas today it doesn't. Rights cannot be self-evident, because slavery was viewed as natural by Aristotle and defended by the Church as such until the 19th century. The fact that rights have changed so much throughout history demonstrates that they are social constructs. Liberals believe that advances in moral philosophy and science are responsible for our improving concept of rights. What do liberals believe about equality vs. merit?
Liberals believe that a completely unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight -- the absence of rules allows the strong to eliminate or subjugate the weak. In economic terms, power and wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. We know this dynamic by the many proverbs that describe it: "It takes money to make money," "Nothing succeeds like success," and "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Liberals therefore advocate a moderated meritocracy: those with the most merit continue to earn the most money or power, but a percentage of it is redistributed back to the middle and lower classes. This is accomplished by progressive taxes, anti-poverty spending, and other forms of regulation. Liberals do not see this as a "giveaway" to the poor -- on the contrary, they view the runaway profits of the rich (especially in the later stages of wealth accumulation) as undeserved, so redistributing them back to the workers who produced them is necessary to prevent exploitation. A moderated meritocracy retains the best of both worlds: incentive to achieve, and a healthy talent pool from which merit is drawn. Numerous studies confirm that these are the healthiest economies. In one of the more famous studies, economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a thorough statistical analysis of historical inequality and growth among modern democracies, and found that those with more equal incomes generally experience faster productive growth. Still, liberals do not advocate going too far in the other direction, towards strict egalitarianism, after the problems experienced with it by the Soviet Union. What do liberals believe about democracy?
Of course, those already in power bitterly resent this; that is why there is such a strong anti-democratic streak in wealthy conservatives and business owners. They complain that democracy allows the poor to legally steal from the rich. (Liberals counter that unregulated capitalism allows the rich to exploit and therefore steal from the poor, and taxes simply correct for that.) But democracy also works in the other direction as well. If we lived in a society where everyone was paid equally, despite their different inputs, people would surely vote to create a system of incentives and rewards. Democracy therefore strikes the balance between the corruption of absolute power and the lack of incentives, between unrestricted meritocracy and egalitarianism. It is the primary tool of moderated meritocracy. Most liberals favor strengthening our democratic institutions; examples include mandatory voting, state or national referendums and initiatives, and expanded voter registration like the "Motor-Voter" law. Some go so far as to advocate direct democracy, in which the people, not their representatives, vote directly on legislation. However, an educated electorate is necessary for the success of any democracy, and there is a real question as to whether the public is educated or informed enough to vote directly on the nuts and bolts of government policies. What do liberals believe about the constitution?
Liberals also point out that the constitution and laws of Congress both have the same purpose: to protect individual rights, establish personal responsibilities, and describe the operations of government. However, the constitution does all of this at a much more fundamental level. In other words, the constitution describes the general principles of how our society is to be run, and the law fills in the details. Many people would like to see their favorite moral beliefs enshrined in the constitution rather than law, but usually the constitution is an inappropriate place for that. A constitution that included too many specific statutes would be inflexible (due to the supermajority requirement) and would quickly grow obsolete. Liberals believe that when the U.S. constitution was first ratified in 1788, it was a document serving the interests of rich white male landholders. Blacks were forbidden to vote until 1870; women until 1920; tax debtors until 1964; young people until 1971. Likewise, much of the Bill of Rights was not defended or enforced until recently. In early times the U.S. media was often censored for "seditious" material, and it wasn't until the early 20th century that the first case involving freedom of the press came before the Supreme Court. Since 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union has been the foremost defender of the Bill of Rights for minorities, the poor, and other groups who cannot afford justice and the preservation of their rights. It has taken centuries, but the U.S. constitution is gradually evolving into a true people's document. Conservatives call themselves "constitutionalists," because they perceive that strong property rights in the constitution are the best way to protect their wealth and property from the greedy voting majority. But it is interesting to note that their proposed anti-tax, pro-property amendments would favor the special interests of those who already own the most wealth: rich white male business owners. Compare this to their bitter criticism of the ACLU for defending the Bill of Rights for minorities and poor people, and it becomes clear that many people simply use the constitution as a political football to protect their special interests at the expense of others. What do liberals believe about lobbying?
Liberals believe that lobbying should be based on appeals to argument and logic, not money. All special interests, no matter how rich or poor, should have access to their representatives to argue their case. Although appealing to one's representative is a constitutional right, today's system demands $5,000 just to get through the door -- if you do not have the money, you do not gain the access. Therefore, the current lobbying system is unconstitutional, and should be torn down as such. A reform commonly proposed by liberals is the public financing of campaigns, with matching government funds to one opponent whenever the other receives a private donation. That way, donors are still free to donate to the candidate of their choice -- another constitutional right -- but there is no real incentive to do so, since it results in no advantage. Many of our current problems stem from the rise of a corporate special interest system. In 1975, the SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate political action committees, the organizations that bribe our Congress today. In the ten years after the SUN-PAC decision, the number of corporate PACs exploded from 89 to 1,682. By 1992, corporations formed 67 percent of all PACs, and they donated 79 percent of all contributions to political parties. During that time they caused an enormous power shift in government, from the middle class to the rich. The top tax rate was cut from 70 percent to as low as 28 percent. Federal regulation of corporations were slashed in half. Individual family welfare benefits (AFDC) were cut 42 percent in real terms between 1970 and 1991. The result has been a more unrestricted meritocracy, with wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. What do liberals believe about the working class?
Economists measure income inequality by the Gini index. On this scale, a score of 0.0 represents a perfectly equal society; 1.0 means that one person earns all the income. In 1947, the U.S. Gini index stood at .374. By 1968, after two decades of highly taxing the rich, this fell to an all-time low of .348. However, since then it has been climbing, rising to .426 in 1994, the highest level of inequality since the Roaring Twenties. There are at least 10 reasons for this trend: Notice that the first eight can be bribed through Congress by corporate lobbyists. If the U.S. is to reduce its income inequality, it simply must eliminate or reform the corporate special interest system. What do liberals believe about income inequality?
States with more inequality did not suffer more of these problems simply because they had more poor people; rather, these states witnessed more of these problems in the middle class as well. This shows that inequality, and not just absolute poverty levels, are linked to social problems. Statistics from Europe -- which enjoys much less inequality, and much fewer health and social problems -- confirm this correlation quite nicely. Conservatives argue that correlation is not causation, that all these social problems may be causing income inequality. But the problem with this claim is that fluctuations in income inequality are too rapid, too drastic and too localized to be attributed to sudden changes of character, morals and work ethic in people, especially when they are the same people. It is much simpler to point to sudden changes in social policy, such as massive tax cuts for the rich and slashing welfare benefits for the poor. What do liberals believe about race?
But there is no question about how this circle started in the first place: America's past social policies of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The latter were eradicated only three decades ago. Liberals believe that if social policies can create a cycle of poverty, social policies can end it. For example, anti-poverty programs reduced the black poverty rate from 55 to 32 percent between 1959 and 1969. And during this time, black IQs and health statistics rose faster than whites, converging towards the higher white average. What do liberals believe about affirmative action?
Affirmative action works by determining what percentage of qualified women and minorities are available to a company, and then setting a goal for hiring that percentage. For example, suppose a minority makes up 30 percent of the local population, but only 15 percent are qualified for the company's jobs. After a study of the available talent pool, affirmative action sets the hiring goal for a company at 15 percent, not 30 percent. Thus, affirmative action merely asks corporations to hire a true cross section of the qualified talent pool. It is a myth that these minorities are unqualified, or less qualified than their peers. And if the company makes a good-faith effort to reach this goal but fails, then it incurs no legal penalty -- the goal is simply reset for the next year, and the next, and the next, if need be. The courts step in with quotas only in the case of blatant discrimination against clearly qualified minorities. Seen in this light, it is really quite difficult to criticize affirmative action, because its hiring goals represent the only truly "color blind" state of affairs. Deviating substantially from a goal suggests that the company is discriminating against qualified people from one group in favor of qualified people from another group. A company shouldn't care about the ethnic background of its employees as long as they're qualified; indeed, intelligent companies will recognize that it expands their talent pool. This is the reason why major companies like IBM have openly declared their support for affirmative action; they realize they are not being forced to hire less qualified individuals. What do liberals believe about welfare?
In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup" or that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work. Conservatives also accuse welfare of giving mothers an economic incentive to have more children. Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children. The size of average welfare families is virtually the same as non-welfare families. Because the poor cannot afford well-funded lobbyists in Washington, they make easy targets for budget cuts. Between 1970 and 1991, individual AFDC payments have declined 42 percent in real terms. Today, AFDC takes up less than 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Meanwhile, corporate welfare is running $150 billion a year, three times the federal spending on AFDC and food stamps. What do liberals believe about feminism?
What do liberals believe about the environment?
The demands on natural resources caused by the population explosion are overwhelming. According to the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental watchdog group, we are experiencing all the following trends: Liberals advocate replacing our growth-based economy with a sustainable economy that uses up resources no faster than they can be replaced. If we do not establish a sustainable economy ourselves, then nature is sure to do it for us, and you can bet that we'll be kinder to ourselves than nature would be. What do liberals believe about crime?
Liberals also believe that social factors contribute to differences in the crime rate. Two factors have been getting especial academic attention lately: media violence and income inequality. Dr. Brandon Centerwall has produced one of the most famous studies, which found that the mere introduction of television into a region causes its crime rate to double as soon as the first television generation comes of age. And two separate studies, one from Harvard, the other from Berkeley, compared state crime rates to their income inequality rates, and found that the states with the most inequality had the highest rates of homicide, violent crime and incarceration. The liberal approach to solving crime is prevention, through addressing social factors like these. They view as illogical the after-the-fact responses of conservatives, who react to crime with larger police forces, more jails, and tougher laws and judges. It costs $16,000 a year simply to house a criminal in jail. If anyone wonders where the money would come from to fund social programs that prevent crime, let them look no further. What do liberals believe about guns?
Robert Heinlein once made the famous quote, "An armed society is a polite society." But you could not get a more polite society than Japan, which bans virtually all guns, and has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. By comparison, America has the highest level of gun ownership in the world, and its highest murder rate as well. Studies show that gun availability is generally correlated to the murder rate. Of course, it could be that people are protecting themselves from a high murder rate by buying guns. But the FBI reports that only 1 percent of all murders are considered justifiable homicide with a firearm. Whatever the intentions of gun purchasers, these weapons are used overwhelmingly more for murder than self-defense. What do liberals believe about drugs?
What do liberals believe about religion?
A November 1994 Gallup poll found that only 22 percent of all Americans describe themselves as members of the "religious right" movement -- whereas 70 percent reject the label. However, it is indeed true that the more religious people are, the more likely they are to be conservative. Only 35 percent of all Americans are "religious," using a definition that requires them to consider religion "important" and to attend religious services once a week. Of this group, 59 percent were Republicans, and 36 percent were Democrats. What do liberals believe about science?
What do liberals believe about abortion?
Perhaps the most common pro-life argument against abortion is the Biblical commandment, "You shall not murder." (The Hebrew word rasach means "murder," not "kill.") But murder is a legal term, not a blanket description. The Bible allows many exceptions to killing. Was abortion one of them? We don't know, because levitical law comes to us with large gaps; many of its statutes are missing to us. However, Jewish tradition has never considered abortion to be a sin. Some Christians argue that the lack of scriptural law on abortion doesn't give us permission to "play God." But humans are no less "playing God" by bringing a child into a life of needless pain and suffering. We don't have scriptural advice on that either, so, by this logic, we should not do it. The conundrum remains: humans must "play God" one way or the other, and, lacking any explicit instruction from God, must choose according to their conscience. What do liberals believe about national defense?
Note 1: We refer to Steve Kangas as a "liberal martyr" because he was found killed by a gun shot under very suspicious circumstances just outside of the offices of the secretive Ultra-Conservative multi-billionaire, Richard Mellow Scaife, whom Steve had been investigating and criticizing on his web site for years. |
||||||
|
Contact [email protected] There is much more where this came from, at and/or
|
`