Liberalism Stands For Freedom; T. Phelan

The Grand Inquisitor believed in using authority to regi~Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 266. [50 ] ment man for the good of society. He told Christ that liberalism would not work; that freedom is something that men ~~fear and dread/~ but that men will follow, like a Hock of sheep, anyone who will give them, or promise them, bread. His views foreshadowed those of today~s neo liberals who want man to surrender his freedom for the politician~s promise of security, and to exchange his liber ties for subsidies from the all-powerful "Social Welfare" State. The Soul Of Man Today we are witnessing a great struggle for the soul and mind of man. We are witnessing a struggle between the authoritarian and the liberal concepts of life. In this strug gle those who now falsely call themselves liberals are lined up on the totalitarian side. That is not where they intend to stand but it is nevertheless where they do stand. They stand there because they have abandoned the philosophy of traditional liberalism, which placed its.main emphaSiS upon individual freedom. The philosophy of neo-liberalism wants to create an egalitarian society and to use the coer cive power of the state to equalize possessions and incomes even though in the process the individual is deprived of freedom.

There is a sharp distinction between liberalism and the fraudulent substitute that passes for it today. Throughout history two basic philosophies of life have been in deadly conflict. One concept, the liberal concept, is based upon the belief in the importance of the individual soul and [51 ] personality. It is·based upon the theory that the state was made to serve man, not man to serve the state. The other concept, the authoritarian concept, assumes that man, the individual, is of no importance. It assumes that man, col lectively, as represented by the state, the church, the labor union or some other collective aggregate, alone is impor tant. One concept exalts man, the other debases him. The Struggle Of Man To anyone familiar with the historic meaning of liberal ism, it is crystal clear that what passes for liberalism today is in fact its direct opposite. The principle of authority, which now masquerades as liberalism and which has en slaved the human spirit during the greater part of recorded history, has been challenged effectively only by that con cept of life which historically is known as liberalism. In simpler terms, the history of liberalism is the history of man's struggle for freedom and liberty. Although the roots of liberalism lie deep in history, the philosophy that was later to be known as liberalism began to develop with the long struggle between Parliament and the Crown in Eng land, and with the rise of the Dutch Republic in Holland.

The right of free speech was asserted as early as 1644 by John Milton in Areopagitica, an essay published in defi ance of law, to protest against censorship. But John Locke, the philosopher of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was the first to expound the principles of liberalism as a com prehensive philosophy of government. A century later, the American Revolution established a new type of govern[52 ] ment based upon the doctrines of Locke; and Adam Smith fonnulated the liberal doctrine in economic terms. Fear Of Authority The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States stem directly from the writings of John Locke. Our Constitutio~ expresses the fear of governmen tal authority, which is characteristic of liberalism. It does so in the Bill of Rights which, to protect the rights of man, places constitutional limits upon governmental authority. It does so in OUI system of governmental checks and bal ances, which was conceived, not by the draftsmen of our Constitution, but by John Locke. Our Constitution was designed primarily to safeguard liberty. It shows distrust of the President, of Congress and of the courts, and makes each a check upon the other two.

Nowhere is the fear of authoritarian govemment ex pressed more graphically than in John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty: The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar.... By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived ... as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vul tures would be no less bent upon preying on the Hock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual [53 ] attitude of defense against his beak and claws. The aim, there fore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suHered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.

"All Men Are Created Equal" The statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" was not intended to mean that they are equal in intelligence, in physical strength, in character or in any other respect in which individuals differ. On the contrary, that statement means that under a just government, all men are equal under the law. This was then a new and revolutionary doctrine in direct con flict with the principle of authority under which men are not equal under the la\v. Under the rule of authority a man's status in the social structure determines what laws apply to him. Two examples will illustrate the point: (1) In France, before the French Revolution, the nobility and clergy were not subject to certain taxes imposed upon other classes of society. (2) In England, under the Statute of Artificers enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a workman was not permitted to leave his parish without the consent of his last en1ployer. The special privileges of French nobles and clergy and the discriminatory restraints upon the freedom of English workmen were based on their status in society.

This concept of status is in direct conflict with the liberal philosophy of equality under the law. This means the ap plication to everyone alike of hnpersonal rules and prin ciples of law. As Locke expressed it: [54 ] Freedom of man under government is to have a standing rwe to live by common to everyone of that society and made by the legislative power vested in it.0 As Aristotle expressed it: The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.t The Liberal Concept In the last two decades, we have gone a long way from the liberal concepts of individual freedom, limited govern ment, equality under the law and the rule of law as con trasted with the rule of men. This trend is the result of neo-liberalism which has changed the popular meaning of the term "liberalism" so that to most people today it stands for a philosophy diametrically opposed to tradi tional liberalism.

Equality under the law has been undermined by giving special privileges to powerful groups. The special privi leges now granted members of labor unions in no way differ in principle from the special privileges that the French nobles and clergy once enjoyed. Labor unions are exempt from the anti-bust laws. In many states they can not be sued although the congregation of a church may be sued. They are immune from injunctions, except to a very limited degree. Before the Taft-Hartley Law, the United States Supreme Court held that they could law fully engage in racketeering and extortion under the OJohn Locke, Treatises on GO'vernment, II, 1690. tAristotle, Politics, V. [55 ] threats of violence. o Thus the principle of equality under the law has given way to the discredited, reactionary, medieval concept of status under which a person's position in society determines the laws to which he is subject.

The Rule Of Law If equality under the law is one test of liberalism, another is the concept of the rule of law rather than the rule of men. This basic idea rests on the assumption that the power of the state should be exerted according to the law rather than through the arbitrary action of officials. But today in administrative agencies of the government, the arbitrary judgment of officials is substituted for the rule of law. We quote Roscoe Pound, former Dean of the Harvard Law School: As a result ..• of the hostility of administrative agencies to all attempts to impose effective legal checks upon them we have been coming in practice to a condition of what may be called administrative absolutism .... To them [government officials] ... law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it.... Instead of our funda mental doctrine that government is to be carried on according to law we are told that what the government does is law. t Another test of liberalism is the doctrine that freedom can exist only under a government of defIned and limited powers. This Lockian principle is written into our Consti~U .S. v. Local 807 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 815 U.S. 521 (1942).

tRoscoe Pound, Administrative Agencies and the Law. [56 ] tution. But our Supren1e Court, bowing to popular pres sure, has for all practical purposes wiped out the consti tutionallimitations upon the power of government. The commerce clause has been stretched so far that the Court has upheld the government's claims to jurisdiction over the terms of employment of elevator operators in city office buildings and of those employed in hosts of other purely local activities on the tenuous ground that, since these local activities are related, however remotely, to interstate commerce, the federal government has juris diction. The Decay Of Liberalism The change from the liberal philosophy of a free society to the neo-liberal philosophy of the Social vVelfare State did not develop overnight. In both England and the United States early liberals were interested not only in promoting the extension of individual liberty, in broadening the fran chise and in obtaining the greatest measure of political equality among men, but they ,vere also strongly imbued with humanitarian ideas. They were shocked by many of the evils that characterized the industrial revolution in England and in the United States, and they sought to re form them. As time went on, many who designated them selves as liberals became more and more interested in reform and less and less interested in freedom. They wished to use the coercive power of the state to limit liberty in order to protect the \veak against the strong.

But the term cClibera!"was identified historically with in[57 ] dividual freedom. Neo-liberals resolved this difficulty by gradually debasing the word ~'freedom" and changing its meaning. This changed meaning began to evolve in our universities and in intellectual circles based largely upon German idealistic philosophy, which taught that man is subordinate to a higher force or purpose and that it is only as he serves this higher purpose and makes his desires conform to it that he becomes really free. If this higher force is conceived of as the state, then man is only free as he serves the state. This is a collectivist and authori tarian conception of freedom. Marxian communism teaches that the legal liberty of western democracies is merely "formal liberty" without substance. The Communist View This communist view of liberty is constantly reiterated by our neo-liberal left. We are told again and again by those who claim to speak for liberalism that society must give the average luan "actual as distinct from merely legal liberty"; that political freedom is meaningless without "industrial democracy"; that the old kind of liberty was "license for the few and economic serfdom for the many"; and that, because of inequalities in wealth, the average luan has no opportunity and therefore no real freedom.

The old-fashioned liberal looked up to the man of moder ate means who skimped and saved to put his children through college. The neo-liberal thinks that he has been victimized and that the government should perform this duty for him. [58 ] Expedient Bedfellows It is a curious thing that although most of our neo-liberals are bitterly opposed to totalitarianism, they nevertheless adopt the communist definition of freedom. It is necessary for them to do so to provide a moral justification for the "Social Welfare" State which they advocate. They have adopted the definition of freedom which the Communists share with the Fascists. It is a definition upon which right wing and left wing totalitarians agree. Let us look at the record. Molotov, in an attack upon Bernard M. Baruch at the United Nations General Assembly, expressed the commu nist view of freedom. He said: [Baruch's] concept of freedom is far removed from the real aspirations of common people for freedom. . . . He would like to see all people satisfied with freedom under which only the lucky ones can enjoy the benefits of life.~ Lenin wrote: No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.t Oswald Mosley, the British Fascist, wrote: Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good homes, leisure and recreation with family and friends.:t: oAddress before the United Nations General Assembly, October 30, 1946.

tDraft of Bolshevik Theses, March 17, 1917. :l:Fll8cism,1936. [59 ] Juan D. Peron, in a series of ne\vspaper articles, con trasted the liberal idea of freedom with the totalitarian definition of freedom which he shares \vith neo-liberals, Communists and his fellow Fascists. He wrote: The equality of the French Revolution consisted in equal treatment of all persons, whereas present equality consists of an unequal treatment to compensate the differences The liberty of the French Revolution was incompatible \vith the professional syndicates [labor unions], whereas in the present, the syndicates or unions constitute the indispensable require ment for individual and collective freedom of the working classes. In the nineteenth century, or at least in its beginnings, it was impossible to understand the interventionism of the state in social matters, whereas in the twentieth century we cannot understand the relationship behveen capital and labor unless we look at it on the basis of state intervention .... Respect for contractual freedom was an unchangeable point of this policy of freedom; but in our tirnes, it will be very rare to find a con h'nct in which the state 90es not intervene .... Liberty will bestow fewer rights upon the individual to do as he sees fit, because liberty will increase the obligation to do whatever is best for the community. ~ Peron has written a platfor111on which the whole left wing could stand. This should surprise no one because neo-liberalism, in common with fascism and comluunism, is basically authoritarian. Peron has rationalized and put in logical form the general philosophy of those who nOV\l call themselves liberals. It \vill be noted that Peron's con cept of freedom, \vhich the left wing has adopted, is that of license for the organization at the sacriRce of freedom for the individual. To illustrate, the closed shop deprives ~St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 8, 1948.

[ 60] the individual workman of the liberty of choice to go into the union or to stay out of the union as he pleases. But in neo-liberal eyes the closed shop and the union shop increase the freedom of the workman because they in crease the power of the organizations which claim to rep resent him. The same is true of permitting labor unions to coerce and intimidate .both their own members and unorganized workmen. This is a collectivist concept of freedom on which the Russian Communist, Molotov, the British Fascist, Oswald Mosley, the Fascist dictator of Argentina, Juan Peron, and neo-liberals all agree. A Necessary Evil The Grand Inquisitor was intellectually honest and recog nized that freedom and free bread are alternatives. But Communists, Fascists and our neo-liberalleft wing argue that government bounties of free bread and freedom are identical. Traditional liberalism regards government as a neces sary evil. It fears government and seeks to impose re straints upon its power. As Woodrow Wilson expressed it, "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of gov ernmental power, not the increase of it."O Today's neo liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. Communists look upon the centralization of all power in the state as a necessary prelude to the police state which is their goal. But, many neo-liberals abhor the police state. They merely want to ·Speech in New York, September 9, 1912.

[61 ] do good and improve the lot of mankind. But they want the government to have unlimited power to do good. They look upon the citizen with suspicion and upon the gov ernment with approval. They seek to build a government of unlimited powers to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in incomes and wealth, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor. Neo-liberals unwittingly are playing the com munist game. They mean well but they fail to recognize the harsh truth of Lord Acton~s dictum: "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If we follow them we shall end as slaves of an authoritarian state. That is not the goal of neo-liberals but it is nevertheless the destination toward which they are headed.

[62 ] SOME WANDERING THOUGHTS bg JOhn Unksl * MAYBE the whole idea is impossible, but what do you think of my wandering thoughts? We all complain that the federal government is en croaching upon the authority of state and local govern ments and the rights of individuals. It takes unto itself more and more of the functions historically exercised by states and localities. Under the old way, "home govern ment''' was a blessing for the nation as a whole. My thoughts went far off the beaten paths. Why should we not forbid the federal government to collect taxes? Let state and local governments collect all taxes, if needed. Then reverse the present trend by giving state grants to the federal government to cover the expenses involved for its then limited services. Why federal "grants'" to states and localities when the residents of the various states and localities furnish this money in the first place, and have to pay for the administration and handling of these funds which, if they come back at all, look awfully sick after deductions for "services rendered" by the federal govern ment?