Liberal Assumptions

Just did a piece on the false assumptions that underlie the conservative agenda in the US.  I missed some, I know.  I will miss some in this piece as well.  My effort is to state as clearly as possible the basic tenets of my liberalism.

So, I’m a liberal.  A lot of people are liberal, but we tend to be less vocal than conservatives in church or leaning on the back of a pick-up truck.  It has been my experience that conservatives do not respond well when their thinking or beliefs are challenged.  I live for the day when a conservative turns to me and asks, “So Bob, what do you think?”  So in the event that may happen someday I should be prepared to answer.  This is what I think:

Human beings on planet earth have historically been ruled by tyrants, those tyrants identified by lineage and/or birth, or by force of arms when one army conquered another army.  Tyrants had the habit of acting tyrannical, that is they insisted that everyone should think like them, have the same religious beliefs they have, look like them, act like them, totally support them, and hold the tyrant in some sort of special esteem, sometimes even worship.  Punishment was swift and sometimes fatal.  What is the fun of being a tyrant if you are not the boss and can say “off with their heads” if someone disagrees with you?  By definition, tyrants tend to be the wealthiest people in their fiefdom because they simply take what they want.  Not all tyrants have been evil and many attempted to better the life of their subjects.  But even in such a benevolent tyranny many were at risk if they were not sycophants; brown-nosers or boot lickers.  So for the thousands of years of human history people have lived under the heel of military or birthright tyrants and religiously believed whatever the tyrant believed.  Some tyrants set themselves up as a god, some simply said god was a turtle or a cow.  Whatever, human lives were dictated by the dictator.

Then along comes Rene Descartes, an amazing French philosopher and Mathematician.  In the simplest terms Descartes said human life should be grounded in reason and science. "Cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am.  He was a brilliant mathematician, but his lasting impact is that he is the founder of modern day western philosophy.  Influencing Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hobbes and others, he initiated the age of reason.  Tyrants should have trembled everywhere.

Especially when John Locke came along.  Locke was born in 1632, just 5 years before Descartes published his first philosophy.  Locke expanded Descartes thinking to include the notion that human beings are born free and equal, therefore, monarchs and kings have no justification to rule.  Wow.  He argued that individual consent should be the bedrock of all governments.  Read that to say, Democracy. 

I cannot stress enough that Locke’s philosophy promoting reason, science, individual human equality, and consent of the governed as the only legitimate form of government was the most radical, liberal thought of the day.  Nowhere was there such a government.  Everyone was ruled by a tyrant.  The simple thought that humans are equal at birth and that each human should participate in granting consent to the government was way out in left field.  Only the most liberal scholars of the day were willing to take his notions seriously because such notions meant replacing tyrants with individually selected leaders and policies endorsed by the governed. 

Among those who took him most seriously were Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  These men crafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the US Constitution in 1789.  Both documents are firmly grounded in Locke’s philosophy.  Both documents stress the rights of every person, the equality of every person, the requirement that government governs only with the consent of the governed and that democracy was the fundamental form of such a government.  It is hard to describe what a shock it was to the world that a nation would be born following these premises.  It was so left-field that no one suspected it would work, much less last.

All of this is simply to say that the USA began with the notions of equality, the notions of democracy, the notions of seeking the consent of the governed, the notion that neither birth-right nor military force can be the basis of legitimate governments, and guarantees that the government would never infringe on the citizens’ rights to believe what they want to believe, say what they want to say, protest against the government, never be at risk of the government falsely accusing them or falsely imprisoning them, nor could any citizen be forced to testify against himself, and against the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of properties.  The colonists had experienced all these things and more under British rule and wanted to ensure that they would be safe in their person and property under a new government.  The very notion that government should be limited is profound.  The notion that individual human rights should be sacrosanct is groundbreaking.  The US of A began as a liberal bastion for the world.

So, what are my liberal assumptions?  First, all people are created equal.  Rich, poor, Anglo, Black, Christian, Muslim, atheist, men, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc., etc.  We are all created equal.  None of these identifiable groups holds a birth-right superiority to any other group.  When a liberal hears anyone proposing discrimination against any identifiable group, the liberal is outraged.  That is how it was before 1776; that is not how it is meant to be since then.  Our history is a march toward more and more civil liberties protecting every group from suppression.  At least, that has been our history until very recently.  We regress if we hire or do not hire people based on whether they think, believe or look like me, or of we hire people because they share a similar lineage.  That is old school.  The American school is we hire people based on the quality of their performance.

Secondly, there must be an impenetrable wall between religious beliefs and the government.  Never, ever should the government imply that one belief system is superior or inferior to another.  The inherent right of each human to decide what he or she believes regarding gods, afterlife, holy texts, etc., is purely an individual right and the government must stay out of it altogether.

Thirdly, government officials and governmental policies must be based on reason, rational thinking and our best science.  To base policies on antiquated or self-centered belief systems is not meant to be a part of this democracy.  So, evolution is real, climate change impacted by human behavior is real, a woman’s right to control her reproduction, etc. etc. are all liberal beliefs based on science.  Anyone who would argue that those beliefs should not form the basis of policy are arguing that their own religious beliefs should be held in higher esteem than someone else’s beliefs.  Such an argmument o a liberal is un-American.  Asking for your 10 commandments to be erected in governmental spaces, and asking that governmental employees lead others, much less children, in a prayer that is clearly supportive of one belief over another is a horror.

And finally, that while the government must protect individual liberties it must also protect the safety and well-being of its citizens.  That is a governmental function, not a free market function.  Monitoring and regulating production is the same as maintaining a standing army.  Both are government functions.  Maintaining a free public education is more important than providing entrepreneurs the right to siphon off tax dollars for private sector education as in charter schools and vouchers.  Liberals do not believe that the free market, free enterprise, or whatever, is a good way to promote the equality of all.  In fact, as the gap between the rich and poor in this nation grows and grows it appears it is a terrible solution from a governmental perspective.  Is health care a way the government should protect citizens?  A liberal would say absolutely.  The private sector has made some very rich while so many go without the protection of health care.

Those are for me, at least the big 4 liberal assumptions.  It remains hard for me to understand discrimination, especially government sanctioned discrimination, against any group.  It remains hard for me to see a difference in our military protection, our health care protection and the provision of public education all of which are fundamental foundations of a democracy.  And I am deeply, deeply concerned whenever I hear a follower of one religious belief system advocate that everyone should follow their belief system.  Individual rights are not measured by majority vote, if so, all of us in Texas would have to be Catholic.  In a democracy, the majority may feel empowered to act as tyrants and that is blocked by the Bill of Rights.

I bet there are more liberals out there than you imagine.  At least if you are a conservative you should be able to argue that you are not biased against liberals, and the proof is you know one.