An Evaluation of Modern Liberalism

By Rob Kellert

Not even halfway through his first term, President Barack Hussein Obama, the narcissistic former community organizer and masterful teleprompter reader, has wrecked the nation with more success than others could by trying. Many were warned of what was coming; most were too excited to care. Many wanted hope and change. They got change that has forced us all to hope more than ever before. They sowed the wind, and because of that, we are all left to reap the whirlwind. What went wrong?

There are two predominant schools of thought here, each the antithesis of the other; these are known to be liberalism and conservatism. Modern liberalism—not to be confused with classical liberalism—is rooted in principles of expanded government and greater governmental scope, particularly in economic matters. Its survival and success as an ideology therefore requires that the government assume more power and influence than it previously possessed.

It is true that the people can empower the government by electing liberal politicians, but in doing so the people possess only an indirect role in expanding government, for they cannot directly control the magnitude or nature of the authority that liberal politicians assume once in office.

Under liberal government, therefore, the people are passive enablers, not proactive sovereigns; they possess only secondary, indirect control. Of course, the people possess similar control in electing conservatives, as well. However, given the general nature of conservatism is to stifle excessive government intrusion and expansion, the people need not fear a reckless inflation of government under conservative leadership.

Liberal politicians, emboldened by their elections by the people, possess direct control over governmental change. They view the people’s endorsement as a mandate to expand government and, in the process, conveniently augment their own power. While these politicians might mask their radical liberalism behind “bipartisan” rhetoric during campaigns—as President Obama has done with as much craft as his disciples’ gullibility and emotional pliability—they recognize that, once elected, they hold free reign to pursue potentially radical agendas.

Danger lies not in words spoken prior to election—though words can portend future danger—but rather, in actions following election. The people, temporarily powerless until future election years, are left only to observe and cope with the actions of their newly elected, ambitious liberal leaders. The people are thus unable to obstruct the excessive government expansion that naturally follows. But why, some ask, does it naturally follow?

As established, liberalism generally entails a greater presence and role of government. The ascendancy of liberalism therefore requires, by necessity, inflating government. Because leftist politicians subscribe to the liberal ideology, they will do all in their power to promote such government inflation. As the government subsequently grows, so do both the number of its positions and, often, the power allotted to each existing position. This has held particularly true with recent government intrusion into healthcare and the financial sector. Liberal politicians therefore, while enlarging the scope of government, increase their own power. This, make no mistake, is hardly a coincidence.

If we assume that as government expands, its potentiality for corruption and administrative inefficiency expands with it, it follows that a liberal agenda will likely result in more corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency than what previously existed. Such growth will continue in perpetuum unless and until the people’s dissatisfaction eventually propels more conservative leaders into office in future election years.

Still, all ill effects of liberal control remain as burdens to present and future generations, and the size of government, once dilated, seldom contracts. The foremost examples of this are Social Security and Medicare liabilities, with a looming aggregate cost in excess of $50 trillion. Thus, while conservative leadership might temporarily halt disastrous trends brought about by prior politicians, it cannot reverse much of what has already taken effect. Those financial burdens await us all, especially our posterity.

Proponents of liberalism could—prima face—target conservatism, but with a host of less intellectually honest and rigorous criticisms. One of the most intriguing arguments against conservatism, for instance, is that if people are left to pursue what is in their self-interests, inequity will result. This suggests that human beings, in general, inherently seek what will benefit them the most. For the sake of argument, assume this is true. (Conservatives would likely contend that it generally is, but not so excessive as to diminish the collective good.)

The difference here is that liberals—if liberal politicians, the most self-interested people of all—use self-interest as a ground for further regulation, whereas conservatives account for self-interest to foster a free-market, competitive economy in which freedom of choice checks self-interest that would result in collective harm. In the process, economic efficiency is optimized with no less—and often more—collective good than an economy hindered by bureaucratic government regulation imposed by economically illiterate politicians.

As established, since politicians are human beings—though that point is debatable—it follows that they, too, will seek what is in their own best interests. Considering these self-interested politicians wield significantly more power—government power—than do the vast majority of citizens, shouldn’t liberals be more skeptical of politicians? Furthermore, since these self-interested politicians constitute only a minute fraction of the population, yet command an immense and ever-accruing proportion of power over the population, shouldn’t liberals be far more concerned with curtailing the power of politicians than diminishing the freedom of private citizens and companies beholden to the federal government?

Adding to this the fact that, compared to most citizens, politicians have more access to corrupting influences by the very nature of their offices, one can only imagine how quickly and often self-interested politicians can be overcome by vice—vice perpetuated and rewarded through our tax dollars. The continual growth of corruption and lobbying, in fact, owes itself to the growth of both the size and power of the federal government. After all, without the government’s growing command over more facets of our lives, there would be less need for private citizens, companies or corporations to implore politicians—or even pay them—to exercise less regulatory authority; “special interests” would thus be diminished in both size and power and the government, in turn, would be less corrupt.

It suddenly becomes clear that if human beings tend to act in their own interests, liberals should direct their skepticism and regulatory efforts more toward their own government officials. (They never will, as it would decelerate liberal politicians’ acquisition of government power.) This, ironically, is a tenet of conservatism. From this we can infer that either human beings, by nature, do not tend to pursue their self-interests or that opponents of conservatism make an illogical case.

If human beings do not pursue their self-interests, then the primary excuse for liberal regulation and overarching government power would be irrelevant; we would have no clear reason to support liberal policies. If opponents of conservatism make an illogical case, then we would have a bad reason—many bad reasons, in fact—to support liberal policies. In either case, modern liberalism, at least as touted by its most powerful adherents, lacks logical rigor.

This should surprise no one, for power supersedes principles for liberal politicians. Contrived “principles” are merely the means by which they attain their sacred omnipotence. Liberal politicians, for the most part, care little for principles as long as they acquire their sought power in the end.

At the same time, there are liberal members of the electorate who cling to principles; without these “true believers,” liberal politicians cannot get elected. To court these principled voters, leftist politicians run on principles—and radical ones at that—but only rhetorically. They are motivated by the power their election will provide; to them, principles are a means, not an end.

It’s an effective political symbiosis: liberal politicians implement policy—under the guise of their electorate’s principles—all the while securing what they want, power, for themselves. Both groups get what they want and the country suffers for it. Even more dangerous—but, unfortunately, more prevalent—are the politically apathetic, but emotionally galvanized members of the liberal electorate.

Tell these people an anecdote of a senior citizen who—in contrast to the vast majority of patients—did not receive “adequate” health care treatment and they will demand and support a broad federal overhaul of the entire health care system. Tell them of a CEO earning multi-millions and they—in their envy, ironically exacerbated by the very financial turmoil liberal policies have brought upon them—will demand a federal overhaul of the financial sector. Portray conservatives trying to curb the illegal—repeat, illegal—practice of illegal immigration as racists and nativists and these emotionally pliable souls will erupt with more fiery criticism of conservatives than of terrorists. (For example, ABC News recently reported that Barack Obama criticized Al Qaeda—for racism and the devaluing of African life. This has been one of his most—if not only—“scathing” public criticisms of terrorists yet. Rather telling for one whose illegal immigration rhetoric implies many conservatives are racists, too, isn’t it?)  The list goes on, and with it, the country declines.

While we should not apply it universally given its potentially anarchic implications—though the nation is as distant from anarchy as ever before—Thomas Paine’s notion that that government governs best which governs least has never held truer. Learn from the Founders. Trust developed minds, not empty suits. The Founders may be departed, but should we continue to stray from their vision and principles, so will the republic.