New Polity

America is a liberal nation.

Jefferson: 3rd President of the United States and Classical Liberal.

I know, now I’ve got some explaining to do. I do not mean to suggest that the majority of Americans embrace the statist tendencies of our present government, nor do I mean to say that the foundations of our system of government are rooted in a philosophy opposed to tradition, stifling to prosperity, and injurious to liberty. In fact, I mean the exact opposite. This is because what “liberal” means is very different from what “liberal” meant, as the result of a long process of redefinition—and outright misrepresentation.

Tracing its roots ultimately to the Latin word for free, “liberal” used to aptly describe the ideology of liberty that Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and American Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson propounded. This Classical Liberalism is at our nation’s core, and can be found throughout our most precious documents. From the recognition of certain natural and inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence to the construction of our Constitution according to the principle of limited government, truly liberal principles have shaped the United States of America.

Many of the policies described today as “liberal” have nothing to do with liberty. So why the shift? Why would a politician be considered liberal if, for example, he or she supported broader government control over the economy? Why would a politician be considered liberal if he or she supported centralizing power in the hands of the federal government? Why would a politician be considered liberal if he or she supported policies like the Fairness Doctrine that unreasonably restrict rights like the freedom of speech? These tendencies in governance are all erroneously described as liberal in the modern discourse, yet in reality they all take power away from the individual citizen, regulating and restricting nearly every aspect of life until all decision-making power belongs to Washington, D.C. politicians. Such policies restrict liberty; they do not expand or protect it.

Of course, leftists would respond that their policies are meant to protect the “common man” from those who would exploit him, to prevent others from taking away his freedoms. That’s an argument for another day, but let’s focus for a moment on the original liberal paradigm.

The U.S. Constitution reflects the values of Classical Liberalism.

The Framers of the Constitution intended our government to be limited in scope, with its powers and duties divided between a central government and the states, all for the purpose of securing our rights from tyranny. Such tyranny could be that of the minority over the majority (as in the case of monarchy or oligarchy) or that of the majority over a given minority group (as is the case in unrestricted direct democracies). Whatever its form, the Founders knew that the best instrument for realizing tyranny was—and remains—government. This is the whole principle behind the Founders’ attention to checks and balances and limitations of power. It is not to say that the Founders were anarchists; they recognized the proper function of government to be, in true liberal fashion, the defense of our rights. Referring back to the previous examples, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would recognize the government’s role with regard to the economy to be the facilitation of the free market, through the enforcement of contracts, elimination of unnecessary barriers to free exchange, and protection of property. With regards to federal power, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would recognize the American system of dual federalism and fight to preserve it, in order to keep power properly dispersed between state governments and the federal government, pitting “ambition against ambition”, to borrow a phrase from Madison. With regards to fundamental rights, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would place the highest value on keeping government out of the areas of your life in which it has no place. You don’t need to look far for evidence of these sentiments; a cursory examination of the Constitution will do the job. The commerce clause instructs Congress to make trade regular among the states, the Bill of Rights lists many of the liberties government is designed to protect, and the Tenth Amendment, too often ignored in today’s politics, reserves for the states and the people those powers not explicitly enumerated for the federal (central) government.

It was with this proper understanding of liberalism that Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose Friedman, wrote of Adam Smith (classical liberal economist) and Thomas Jefferson, observing that

Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the protection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the perpetual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, government’s role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson’s ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1801), was “[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”[1]

Our government was instituted to preserve our rights, not to violate them. It was designed to recognize and respect our rightful powers, not to usurp them.

Classical liberalism opposes modern liberalism, in that the activist nanny state modern liberals support means an abandonment of the very principles on which our Republic was founded. Dependence on government means submission to government, and government money means government control; both these facts are clearly evident in the aftermath of the bank bailouts. Classical liberals in the American tradition know we cannot surrender our rights to government if we intend to keep and enjoy them.

[1] Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. New York: Harcourt, 1990. Print.