Classical liberal thought, I would argue, is in the midst of a minor interpretive crisis. With a quick glance at the sales numbers of books by Hayek or Ayn Rand one might try to claim it’s in the midst of a revival—in fact at this very moment I’m sure there is a blog post over at Cato talking about the impending triumph classical liberalism. I would argue that classical liberal thought must be reevaluated. I believe attempts at promoting classical liberal thought in the political realm must come to terms with the realities of modern industrial economies, where multinational bureaucratic corporations are just as influential, if not more influential, than nation-states on the lives of individuals. The core themes of classical liberal thought are still valuable, but a failure to interpret the impacts of industrialization on these principles leads to public policies that undermine the ability of individuals to retain meaningful liberty and autonomy in their day to day lives. I would argue that the heart of a healthy liberal state is being undermined in the name of protecting it and the voices of everyday citizens are being harnessed exploitatively to do so.
Are citizens themselves calling for a move towards a more limited state? What I saw as a candidate for state senate were contradictory claims of desiring limited government intervention, with questions of “what’s happened to my country,” and pleas of desiring to get back to the “good old days.” On multiple occasions efforts to point to the decline of regulations or decline in social investment that have occurred over the past few decades, as compared to “the good old days,”—which are also known by some economists as “the golden age of capitalism”—got shock and disbelief from the vocal, agitated, questioners (but nods of approval from many attendees around them).
The idea that good public relations by Glen Beck or Ron Paul has inspired people to break open the books, think deeply, and nurture a new found love for liberty, and a distaste for the state, is a lovely one indeed. But it is idealistic, naïve, and not accurately representing the core sentiments that people are communicating to their politicians. Has the work of Hume, Locke, and Adam Smith found a new era? Is Humboldt's The Limits of State Action going to help resolve the challenges of governance that we face at the local, state, and federal level? Or are policies that are simply focused on the concerns of protecting individuals from the church and state of limited value when power and external constraints on autonomy are found outside of those arenas?
I would argue that the current discourse is being driven not by a new found appreciation for classical liberal thought but by political and economic instability that has arisen through imbalances of political power—imbalances that have gotten increasingly worse over the past three decades. Sheldon Wolin, in his book Democracy Inc., pointed to the dramatic rise of private power in the form of modern corporations, "[t]he emergence of the corporation marked the presence of private power on a scale and in numbers thitherto unknown…concentration of private power unconnected to the citizen.” I would argue that these shifts of power away from individuals having a voice through democratic participation--be it electorally or via a voice in the workplace through a union—has exacerbated what Alan Wolfe has called the paradox of modernity. Wolfe opens his book Whose keeper? by noting that “[c]apitalist economics and liberal democratic politics have given many citizens of Western societies two unique gifts: freedom from economics and liberation from politics.” These gifts meant that people could, “lead their lives unaware of the struggles for power taking place around them.” These are the factors driving discontent and solutions that fail to address these challenges not only miss the target but exacerbate the problems.
Could the revival of classical liberal thought in the form of Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, or the “Tea Party movement” in fact be the outcome of private power harnessing modern forms of mass media for their own purposes; further exacerbating the discontents of living in modern industrialized society? If so is there really a revival at all? I would argue that classical liberal thought is in the midst of a minor crisis of confidence because many of its most vocal champions in the political realm aren’t champions of classical liberal thought at all, but are pushing political agendas that undermine core goals of the liberal project—goals of individual liberty and personal autonomy.
As I stated earlier, I believe a key component of this question can only be resolved by noting that classical liberal thought was founded by thinkers who came before industrial-capitalism. Noam Chomsky, in his essay Notes on Anarchism, points out that, by “the very same assumptions that led classical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, [industrial] capitalist social relations are also intolerable.” I believe that recent discussions of terms like “Liberaltarian” and creation of spaces like the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarian to discuss and debate such questions there is recognition that classical liberal thought is at an important impasse which right-libertarianism-- a la Rand Paul or policies of the Libertarian Party--can’t resolve in a clear cut manner. Though these are positive steps in thinking through these questions one of my concerns is with the lack of discussion of left-libertarian perspectives that would have meaningful applications in the political realm, give voice to the interests of working class citizens, and would highlight problems that industrialized economies present to us that cannot be resolved with solutions proposed for agrarian based close-knit societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment