On Liberalism

Recently, I’ve had pangs of conscious about my liberal credentials.  Specifically, I’ve been wondering if my own version of liberalism is really liberal enough.  Conversely, I’ve begun to notice how much further to the political left some people I’ve known really are.  See, I’ve been a proud supporter of the Democratic Party my entire life, but I’ve never signed on to every element of the party platform.  This shouldn’t surprise any student of politics, or anyone who has worked in, around, and for professional politicians for most of their adult life.  Liberal and Democrat don’t always fit hand in glove, much the same way conservatives and Republicans don’t always play nicely in the sandbox.  Bottom line, the parties are much more malleable in their thinking than the individual members may be.  Consequently, the “party” often finds itself far more moderate than any smattering selection of its membership.  Nevertheless, some of the more powerful forces in the “liberal” fold have gotten me to think about and examine my own personal brand of liberalism.

My own personal brand of liberalism is grounded in the political thinking of John Locke and John Rawls, and the economic theories of John Mayard Keynes.  Simply put, I’m a Rawsian/Keynesian.  I believe in the basic tenants of classical political liberalism and that a justly formed government and society will spend public recourses to ensure a standard of living for its citizens that is above minimal subsistence.  Like Locke, I believe that government is based on a social contract and that persons participating in that contract have given up a certain amount of individual freedom for the betterment of the society as a whole.  Like Rawls, I believe that a just society has bargained for provisions in that contract to benefit the least advantaged members of the society.  Hence, a welfare state that provides for all of its citizens, but gives the greatest benefits to the least advantaged, is not only politically desirable, but in the long run the only just outcome.   Like Keynes, I believe that government expenditures can and do promote economic growth.  So public support for social programs again is not only politically desirable, but also leads to better outcomes and more social justice.  Abstractly, these principles all come together to form an ideal society perfectly consistent in my own elitist, over-educated, self-centered head.  Playing them out in the real world is far more difficult and complicated.

Pick any policy issue you want and I can tell what the preferred outcome is given my philosophical principles.  Free speech is absolutely supported, consistent with classical liberalism.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, free public education, all consistent with my Rawlisan sense of social justice.  Note, I don’t go so far as to say these are “rights,” as I do not think they are.  I do not even think, much to the chagrin of many on the left,  they are “human rights,” a phrase I rarely if ever will personally employ.  Rather, I believe they are obligations that just governments and society ought to incur on behalf of the society as a whole.  They can be achieved in many ways even via market forces, but the government or society as a whole should be ultimately responsible for providing them to everyone who wants them.  Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, completely consistent with my strong classical liberalism, that ensures freedom to the individual member of society above everything else.  Everything listed above also makes me a good solid member of the Democratic Party.  I’m toting the party line as if I wrote the platform myself.

Now try these two issues; free trade and the environment.  Here’s where I depart from the party line.  I’m pro-free trade and not nearly as pro-environment as many on my side of the isle.  Let’s take free trade first.  For me it’s an easy issue.  Free trade is economically beneficial for all participants.  It makes goods and services cheaper across boarders and allows complicated economic systems to make the most efficient use of their resources.  Yes, there are winners and losers, but in the long run with even more free trade and fewer tariffs, subsidies and barriers to market entry, basic goods will be even cheaper, more markets will be open and overall standards of living for everyone will increase.  It’s good economics, good politics, and 100% consistent with my philosophical beliefs.  It also makes me a very, very bad Democrat.   I’m opposed to protectionist measures like steel tariffs and farm subsidies.  Not because I hate the steel workers in the rust belt or our Midwestern farmers, but because I think the policies are shortsighted and ultimately harmful.  China makes cheaper steel than we do.  Yes, it’s in part because they pay far less in wages and benefits than US steel companies do.  But it’s also because they have bigger production facilities, more and cheaper access to the natural resources necessary, and lower environmental standards.  With cheaper steel there is more construction, more building, and more jobs in other sectors of our economy.  In other words, the economy can create more jobs than it loses by allowing the imported steel.  Not much consolation to the thousands of steel workers that will lose their jobs, but the economy can’t be all things to all people at all times.  The same is true of farm subsidies.  Other countries can grow certain crops cheaper and at a higher quality than we do.  In fact, farm subsidies are actually hurting our anti-poverty efforts in other parts of the world by making staple foods like corn, rice, and soybeans, more expensive.  The more expensive the staples, the more expensive the products produced by those staples and the more difficult it is to provide enough food for the most resource deprived, war torn, and ravaged parts of the world.  We have the capacity to dramatically lower the cost of food around the world and make it easier for millions more people to eat.  Yes, it’s going to mean some farms that have been in families for generations are going to close and be sold to bigger, industrial agri-businesses, but in the long run we’ll all be better for it.  I truly believe in the basic principles of free market economics and think that when allowed to work between nations, not just within them, we can make the world a better place.

The environment is a more complicated subject.  I’m not anti-environment by any means, but you won’t see me out there with Greenpeace, Save the Whales, or protesting drilling the in national artic wildlife preserve or oil exploration off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  Why? Because I think those are things we should be doing.  Should we be doing them at all costs, no, of course we shouldn’t.  That said, I think there are ways to accomplish what needs to be done in an environmentally responsible manner.  Sure, some things are going to be damaged, spills probably will occur causing more damage than intended, but look the science of drilling and exploration has increased dramatically from where is was even 5-10 years ago.  We can do this safer and with less risk to natural treasures and habitats than ever before.  One can’t reasonably advocate for zero environmental damage because that isn’t possible.  One can, however, require that all steps be taken to minimize the risk as much as is cost effective.  If that’s done I’ve been convinced that the benefits will outweigh the costs.  Oil will be cheaper and more available domestically and we can shift some of our resources spend on importing oil to other more productive things.

Just to prove I’m not a complete Republican, I’ll also plug a dramatic increase in the gas tax, just to piss off my right of center friends.  Right now the federal tax is 18.5 cents a gallon.  That should easily be tripled if not increased by a factor of 10.  Why?  Yes it’s a tax. Yes; the government will get more of your money, for a time.  Yes, people will probably significantly reduce or even stop driving, but it is the only way we are going to encourage the research, development and eventual use of alternatives to fossil fuels not to mention transportation alternatives like efficient bus systems, more extensive subways, and intercity high-speed rail.  As much as the time probably hasn’t come for wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources, economics can drive innovation and the government can push the economics in the direction they need to go by raising the tax.  Yeah, it’s going to hurt in the short term, but I’m convinced the damage will be minimal and the benefits far in excess of the costs.  I’m also well aware of why politicians hate economists.  Economists always talk about how good the long-term benefits of things will be, but they forget one thing; in the long run we’re all dead and not voting, so who cares?

Bottom line, excessive environmental protectionism makes things more expensive, stops development, progress and ultimately hampers our ability to get where we all want to go; namely, to a better, cheaper, more efficient society that is better able to promote and take care of the needs of the least advantaged among us.  That’s what I’m trying to accomplish, that’s why I’m a liberal, and that’s why I vote for Democrats.  It’s not because I’m a party hack, a shill, or even a socialist.  I may not be as far to the left as some, but I think my aims are equally as noble, a bit more practical, and probably more obtainable than my more progressive counterparts.  In the end, while sometimes I may disagree with their aims, methods, and rhetoric, they are tying to do what they think is right and I respect that.  I’m comfortable with my own liberalism thank you and will put it up against anyone’s, any time, any place, and on any issue.

Advertisement