|
Theron
Aiken
Sample
Definition Essay
What It Means To Be a Liberal
The recent election, as is the case with most elections, raises the question of whether one is a liberal
or a conservative? We readily identify ourselves as one or the other without much thought about what it means. The definition
of “liberalism,” for example, has changed continually throughout history, and even today it means different things
to different people. One of the more fundamental definitions is that liberalism is a political, social and economic philosophy
that is open to progress and change. By contrast, conservatism attempts to conserve the traditions and truths of the past.
In a more general sense, liberalism has also been defined as generosity, tolerance, open-mindedness and willingness to compromise.
But any way liberalism is defined, it is distinctly different in its view of
American society, and life within that society, than its counterpart, conservatism.
In the 18th century, liberals championed free markets, individual liberty and a greatly reduced
role for government and the aristocracy. This has led to one definition of liberalism: that liberals oppose political absolutism
in all its forms, be they monarchist, feudal, military, or clerical. However, there is considerable difference of opinion
on how to run a decentralized society. Today, liberals generally believe in a large and free private sector that is generously
defined, defended, and promoted by the public sector: in other words, a balance between individual and group behavior.
For one thing, liberals believe that group survival is more efficient than individual survival. That
is why true hermits are so extremely rare. But any group effort requires group agreement, cooperation and coordination. This
in turn necessitates a social contract defining each member’s rights and responsibilities. In the U.S.,
voters have created their social contract in the form of their constitution and laws. Breaking the law constitutes breach
of contract, and legitimizes the appropriate law enforcement measures. What forms the basis of rights and property found in
the social contract? Whatever the voters agree to—which means they can be anything, as indeed history has shown. And
how are their rights and property defended? Primarily by the enforcement mechanisms authorized by the contract: police, military,
legislatures, courts, etc. Without such enforcement, the agreements themselves would be precarious, and nothing could stop
a stronger neighbor from violating your rights or your property. Many conservatives consider rights to be natural, inalienable,
God-given and self-evident. But rights cannot be natural, like the laws of nature, because they can be broken. They cannot
be inalienable, because history is filled with examples of people who never had rights in the first place, or had them taken
away. They cannot be God-given, because the world’s religions widely disagree on what rights are; even Judeo-Christianity
allowed slavery for thousands of years, whereas today it doesn’t. Rights cannot be self-evident, because slavery was
viewed as natural by Aristotle and defended by the Church as such until the 19th century. The fact that rights
have changed so much throughout history demonstrates that they are social constructs. Liberals believe that advances in moral
philosophy and science are responsible for our improving concept of rights.
Liberals also differ from conservatives in that they believe in equality more so than merit. In societies
that reward merit and success the most, competition becomes supreme, the fittest survive, and people get what they allegedly
deserve. Such systems are called “meritocracies,” and they are accomplished by relaxing the rules. On the other
hand, when equality is awarded to everyone, people become less treacherous and more civilized to one another, but they lose
incentive to achieve, since there is no reward for going the extra mile. Such systems are called “egalitarian societies,”
and they are accomplished by expanding the rules. Most societies try to strike a balance between these two extremes. Liberals
believe that a completely unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight—the absence of rules allows the strong to eliminate
or subjugate the weak. In economic terms, power and wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. We know this dynamic by the
many proverbs that describe it: “It takes money to make money,” “Nothing succeeds like success,” and
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” Liberals, therefore, advocate a moderated meritocracy: those with
the most merit continue to earn the most money or power, but a percentage of it is redistributed back to the middle and lower
classes. This is accomplished by progressive taxes, anti-poverty spending, and other forms of regulation. Liberals do not
see this as a “giveaway” to the poor—on the contrary, they view the runaway profits of the rich (especially
in the later stages of wealth accumulation) as undeserved, so redistributing them back to the workers who produced them is
necessary to prevent exploitation. A moderated meritocracy retains the best of both worlds: incentive to achieve, and a healthy
talent pool from which merit is drawn. Numerous studies confirm that democracies with more equal incomes generally experience
faster productive growth. Still, liberals do not advocate going too far in the other direction, towards strict egalitarianism.
Finally, liberals are probably the strongest advocates of democracy. Democracy solves a problem described
by an old adage: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When power or wealth concentrates too
heavily in too few hands in society, democracy is useful for dispersing much of that power back to the people. In other words,
when enough voters become discontented with the status quo, they vote to change it. Of course, those already in power bitterly
resent this; that is why there is such a strong anti-democratic streak in wealthy conservatives and business owners. They
complain that democracy allows the poor to legally steal from the rich. (Liberals counter that unregulated capitalism allows
the rich to exploit and therefore steal from the poor, and taxes simply correct for that.) But democracy also works in the
other direction as well. If we lived in a society where everyone was paid equally, despite their different inputs, people
would surely vote to create a system of incentives and rewards. Democracy therefore strikes the balance between the corruption
of absolute power and the lack of incentives, between unrestricted meritocracy and egalitarianism. It is the primary tool
of moderated meritocracy. Most liberals favor strengthening our democratic institutions; examples include mandatory voting,
state or national referendums and initiatives, and expanded voter registration like the “Motor-Voter” law. Some
go so far as to advocate direct democracy, in which the people, not their representatives, vote directly on legislation. However,
an educated electorate is necessary for the success of any democracy, and there is a real question as to whether the public
is educated or informed enough to vote directly on the nuts and bolts of government policies.
Liberals and conservatives will continue to do battle and the tide of influence will continually shift
between the two extremes. Even though, in recent years, there has been a narrowing of the gap between the two ideologies as
various world events and economic necessities have brought them closer together on some issues, they will never completely
see eye to eye because of their distinctly different outlooks on democracy, merit and the role of the individual in society.
|
