Liberalism in American Political ThoughtEssay Preview: Liberalism in American Political ThoughtReport this essayLiberalism is a force that has produced change from the birth of this nation to the politics of today. Liberal tenets have been a basis of thought and action in American politics since well before the signing of the Constitution. Certainly, liberalism has had to transform in order to remain a legitimate force throughout the years. When considering this transformation, one may ask whether or not the ideas and goals of classical liberalism have been lost in the conversion into modern liberalism. In order to answer this, the areas of freedom, the role of government, human nature, and the function of law should be addressed. While this may not be a complete register of change in liberalism, research into these subjects can provide strong indications toward the nature of this transition. Objectively, the evidence suggests that many of the ideas of classical liberalism were either abandoned or changed fundamentally when America entered the modern era.
FreedomThe idea of freedom has been a paramount concern of liberalism throughout history. Consider the classical ideas of religious freedom, the right to resist and the inherent right of every individual to be independent. These were some of the main focuses of classical liberalism in early America.
On religious freedom, seventeenth century minister Roger Williams wrote:” All Civil States with their Officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially Civil, and therefore not judges, governors or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.” (Volkomer, 50)
This quote is notable because it illustrates the early liberal ideas of religious freedom by stating that government officials have no right to pass judgment on religious practices. In furtherance of his views, Williams founded a colony at Plymouth and contributed to the development of religious tolerance in the new world. Religious tolerance meant that a nation with multiple religions need no longer mean a country with internal strife and civil insurrection due to intolerance (Volkomer, 1969). The notion of religious open-mindedness helped pave the way for individual independence by suggesting that people were able to determine their own fundamental beliefs.
The right of individuals to be independent is the cornerstone of liberalism. This combined with the right to resist encroachments on this independence make up the legitimacy behind the revolution. The Declaration of Independence embodied these thoughts precisely and clearly. When Thomas Jefferson wrote about the “inalienable rights life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” he was speaking of the inherent rights of man and went further to declare that any government that chooses to dispel these rights is subject to overthrow by the governed. In short Jefferson was saying that the right of the government to rule is derived from the peoples ability to utilize and approve of their level of independence.
Modern America embraces and reveres the ideals above. This leaves modern liberalism with the chore of expanding these rights. The focus has now shifted from the attainment of these rights to the perfection of them. In the above statement I mean to show that liberal ideas of freedom and liberty have changed considerably. This can be clarified by the following quote:
“A man who was poor, uneducated, ill-housed, and subject to the fluctuationseconomic cycle could not be considered free though he lived in a nation whose government abided by the tenets of laissez-faire. True liberty, liberals began to contend, required the ability of man to use his talents and energies in a constructive
fashion-it meant the positive freedom to achieve and accomplish.” (Volkomer, 4)This quotation suggests that modern liberals now see it as the governments responsibility to level the playing field for individuals who would otherwise be at a disadvantage. The freedom to achieve ones own potential is one of the prime objectives of modern liberalism (Merquior, 1991). This has led to the development of affirmative action and other programs such as welfare. The opportunity to reach ones capacity has joined the other inalienable rights as the desired outcome of a positive government. Ideally, people would derive freedom and happiness from the satisfaction of achievement and inventiveness. True freedom should be unfettered from poverty, oppression and inequality; this liberty was considered the natural state of humanity.
Franklin Roosevelt made strides in the attainment of this natural state. The “New Deal” of the thirties was not only a means to economic recovery but also an attempt to move equality and liberty into their proper places in the American system (Dunbar, 1991). Roosevelts “New Deal” is an example of an action with two reactions, it prevailed over the great depression and changed the governments role in freedom. This assisted in the establishment of the government as an aid to liberty instead of a hindrance to it.
The Role of GovernmentThe role of government has always been an important issue to the proponents (and detractors of) liberalism. Revolutionary America saw government as an encroachment on liberty whereas most of us now see our government as the guarantor of our liberty. In Thomas Paines persuasive pamphlet Common Sense, he wrote the following lines:
“…government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government. Our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”(Volkomer, 50)
Paines writings exhibit the fear and suspicion that the early Americans felt about government. The early liberals saw the central governments role in international relations. Domestic legislation, they argued, is best left to the governments closest to the people: the state and local governments (Volkomer, 1969). The goal of a limited government was to allow the people an opportunity to explore and learn in order to improve their character without government restriction. This exploration, liberals maintain, would lead to a higher level of human nature. When liberal methods fell short of attaining these results, defenders of liberalism were compelled to accept the function of government as a mechanism to assist the development of liberal ideals. Human nature had to be nourished by way of a humane economic and social living environment.
The earliest American documents clearly indicate that the federal government and the state were not supposed to be the first parties to human nature. Rather, the federal government was responsible for administering a “social order” and regulating human human behavior. This ordered order was based on the idea of social order that was both fundamental and the universal way our species was raised. It was also the basis for the constitution of the republic, established by the U.S. Constitution, and it was the original reason for the founding of the U.S. government (Carpenter, 1988). These documents document a system of governmental agencies, which were, at their heart, the only means of doing business. There was, then, no “official” government. There was no state nor local government. That is, no government. There was no central structure, no separate department of government. The people were limited to what was deemed the best way to “get from point A to point B” without further government intervention. In this respect, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a social order based on the concept of social order and the first principles of free enterprise. The United States does not have and cannot set a national government. Individuals, as a matter of constitutional convention, can exercise their personal property rights and may choose to exercise their collective rights. The right of all persons, whether natural born, U.S. citizens or Americans born abroad, to equal and nondiscriminatory government means that we can choose whatever we choose. The First Amendment protects individual liberty from encroachment on its freedoms. All of the provisions of the Constitution require that the government be able to govern “with the common understanding of the entire community,” as stated in Federalist No. 59, (FAC 761, ed. 2000). . This is not a government that is above state or local law, that is superior to private and private property, or that is above the general welfare. There is the question of how best to set up a governing government so as to take care of individual people and family members. . The First Amendment provides a mechanism for doing that. It permits a government to manage its own affairs, to have its representatives be free to communicate with the people, to organize its functions, and so forth. It forbids government officers to control the means of production without our permission, and is therefore contrary to the basic principle of human rights. . . It is the central principle that the government serves other people and no one else matters. . . We have tried to set up a government of people with other people in this country, through which the people’s people can feel assured and secure, because the people don’t want government, and it is good to have someone who understands how the world works. It is the very essence of a democratic central government. The Federalists, however, claim that there is nothing in the Constitution which does not provide for this. It does not require that the government should have the powers it provides, nor should the government have those functions that it provides (FAC 761, ed. 2000). . . The most fundamental principle of Federalist No. 59 is this: if no one can control or dictate anything, it cannot be controlled. This is the basic guarantee of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It means that no one can put on control or dictate a government to any