Liberal. Many who think they are, aren't.

Two recent experiences, one on LinkedIn, one on Facebook.

One. LinkedIn. A longtime friend and colleague posted a New York Times article that had the look and feel that all of the Times' self-congratulatory articles have: "Look here! Truth presented! We are so right!"  

The article contained an unwitting punchline. The writer admired a 20th century economist who tended Left (who else would the Times endorse?). The article suggested this economist was even a kind of moral philosopher!  

We the readers were supposed to say "wow!"  

The article author didn't know it but she was confessing great ignorance.  

Economics has already long known a great moral philosopher. HIs name was Adam Smith. He wrote his great book in 1776 (yes, that same 1776), on The Wealth of Nations. Mr. Smith, a Scot, was presenting to the world for the first time an organized study not only of economics, but of human nature, and how human nature is best suited to managing economic affairs. It turns out that Liberty was the greatest recipe for individual economic success. Liberty -- freedom from the yokes of monarchs or despots -- would enable each individual to choose his or her path, and lead the way to freedom, choice, and liberty.  

This was new, just as the governing documents of the American nation were new. The word "Liberal" was coined at the time of this movement, by people who realized that freedom can never exist within despotism, but can only exist within liberated structures - liber-ty, liber-al. See the common root word, liber?  From the Latin word for "free" or "free one." (This is why classical training in language and history matters, by the way.)  

Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and a professor of philosophy at University of Glasgow, following his education at Oxford. Yet, his name and his achievements were apparently all but unknown to the New York Times writer purporting to write about moral philosophy and economics.  "Liber" was in the air back in the 1770s and late 18th century, and humankind was about to be liberated from past yokes, able to breath; one by one, faction by faction, all came to be freed over time from tyranny in the name of Liberty. But it really started with the twin Big Bangs of Mr. Smith and the simultaneously occurring American Revolutionary events.  

Two. Facebook. Misuse of the word "Liberal."  A friend declared to me that he was liberal, demonstrating this by listing his news sources - the Times being one of them, along with its fraternal twins CNN, MSN, and The Washington Post. These sources provided all the news he needed to know, he insisted, and he was therefore safe in closing himself off to other news, information, philosophies, errors, corrections, history, current events and facts not reported by this foursome.  

Of course, this point of view is the very opposite of liberal, yet I realize that many think just like him. It is remarkable. With "Liberal" having such a grand provenance, essential to the fullest formation of western civilization and the American nation, it was strange indeed to see someone so magnificently illiberal brag of his liberalism.  

Today, in a fascinating transformation, it is conservatives who have become the custodians of traditional Liberalism. Self-styled "liberals" (the illiberals) who mock inquiry and close themselves off to it are some new bird I haven't yet named. Left-lite? Marxist useful idiot? (I think that one's been taken.) For now I'll go for "illiberal," the antithesis of Liberal.  

The values that today's conservatives stand for are the same values made explicit in the founding of the American nation, where tyranny would be held in check by a citizenry given authority over their government. This was the liberation – the liberty – for which the United States and its Constitution stood and still stand. The Constitution’s provisions were the first written assurances by any government in history that “the people” were in charge. This was the governance ordained by original Liberalism, and it first entered the world stage as an operative political system in the United States.  

This particular use of the word and concept “Liberal” in the traditional sense is in conflict with the word and concepts of “left,” “leftism,” and the word “liberal” as a generic contemporary political term.  

An informed citizenry is critical to traditional liberal government “by the people.” Which of "the press" presents reporting that most fully supports a great democracy?  Hardly the Times or Post or CNN. They've been overwhelmed by alumni of the new schools of journalism who believe that "justice" is key in reporting, not objectivity and not neutrality, and that selective suppression or embellishment of facts are perfectly acceptable.  Objectivity in reporting, after all, should always yield to “justice.” (See, e.g., C. W. Anderson, https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/12/journalism-changed-under-trump-will-it-keep-changing-under-biden/?fbclid=IwAR1BzK3-yHzIgziD_CaJtYdWoopT6kbXoU8kqNyDi84GlzUiqfptfhKcAmA.)

That's how the Times and the Post became illiberal, deadset against genuine free inquiry and go-to favorite of those equally closed.   

Did you know there is an entire range of books and literary sources for this point?  See, e.g., Goodman, J., Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism | Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research. [online] Goodmaninstitute.org.

From that book: “Classical liberalism was the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It permeates the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.” 

Or how about Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Liberalism: “What has come to be known as ‘new’, ‘revisionist’, ‘welfare state’, or perhaps best, ‘social justice’, liberalism challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order [internal citations omitted].” 

Or perhaps Klein, D. The Origin of Liberalism, at Theatlantic.com: "At the core of [Adam] Smith’s idea of liberal principles is the idea of natural liberty[.]”

Or maybe Daley, B., The difference between ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ – and why voters need to know, at Theconversation.com: “These liberal newcomers, people like Richard Cobden and William Gladstone, seized on ideas like those in Scottish economist Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ for answers. [?] The new Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party from roughly the mid 1920s, introducing policies that Americans would today consider 'leftist.'”

Or Robison, N., The Difference Between Liberalism and Leftism, from the online publication Current Affairs, Currentaffairs.org: “The leftist sees capitalism as a horror, and believes that so long as money and profit rule the earth, human beings will be made miserable and will destroy themselves. The liberal does not actually believe this.”

Or Alterman, E., How Classical Liberalism Morphed Into New Deal Liberalism, at Americanprogress.org, citing Jonathan I. Israel, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity and the Emancipation of Man, pp. 1670-1752 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006): “Classical liberalism is synonymous with a faith in reason, which had arisen out of the Enlightenment as a reaction to claims of divine rule by the clergy and royalty of the late Middle Ages. It found expression in the thoughts of many writer across Europe and the British Isles, including John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, as well as in the political arguments of America’s founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Madison.”

So, the next time someone tells you he or she is a "liberal," you now have the study materials to quiz them.  

Most sincerely, 

Christopher J. Bakes | Proud Custodian of Liberalism | University of San Francisco, B.A., Economics (with minor equivalents in Theology and Philosophy)