Defining the Terms

Recently, some public figures were talking in the press about the US becoming a socialist nation because of the effects of the stimulus package. An article appeared in Newsweek magazine essentially saying similar things. It was said that some fear the US is going to takeover and nationalized banks. Some are concerned that the US is going to take control of the auto industry. Some say the public, thus the government, now own the big investment houses. Last night, on my usual mental wandering that usually occur when I have my evening Cabernet, I thought about that. My first thought was of my dad who always made us define our terms before we had any serious discussion. I can hear him now saying “get the book.”

I had not dealt seriously with this term since shortly after I left college. I needed to refresh my memory on just what the term socialism meant. I had a feeling that the term was being misused by those self-elected representatives of the people. So, I got out one of my old college textbooks and checked with Wikipedia, the Webster On-line Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. (I believe in being cautious. I wear suspenders with a belt). I got the book, dad. I found the following.

Socialism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation

That seems pretty simple. The government owns the land, equipment and materials as well as the processes for producing and distributing goods and services. China is one example, although it is allowing more private ownership than in the past. Venezuela is trying to become a socialist nation and President Chavez is nationalizing as fast as he can. although he is not anywhere near there yet. So how is it that the US is becoming a socialist nation? Is the bailout money being used to acquire government ownership of any means of production?

My understanding is that investment in and regulation of the means of production and distribution does not mean ownership by the state. One could argue that the regulations, whether enacted directly by the government or attached as strings to any investment made by it, could be such as it resulted in de facto state ownership. From what I can tell, however, the elected officials are not removing any economically viable business from private ownership. At least not at this time. In fact, it seems to me that they are taking great care to make sure these privately owned behemoth companies survive. (Whether a publicly held company [shareholders] is actually privately owned is a subject for another mental wandering)

About half way through the second glass of Cabernet, it occurred to me that what the elected US government officials are doing may well result in this Country moving more toward the European style welfare state of the 1950s and 60s, and like the ones that exist today in Denmark and Sweden. Those were not good days for England and France. I remember the stories of poor production and distribution of goods and services in those two countries. Stories about shortages of goods and services, poor health care, no innovation and a poorer standard of living for many.

Welfare State:
A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a "right". Welfare state can also mean the creation of a "safety net" of minimum standards of varying forms of welfare.

A welfare state can, of course, have a socialist economic system, or a capitalist economic system or one of many variations between the two. Most European welfare states retained basic private property and private means of production and distribution but the government owned some portion of major industries. All businesses as well as property ownership were heavily regulated and assessed (taxed) for the “public good.” They never converted over to a socialist economy. Today, most European countries have backed away from the old social welfare state system because of the “free market” idea and its resulting increased wealth and standard of living that are sweeping across the world. The fundamental problem with a welfare state is that it will eventually bankrupt itself by providing ever increasing welfare and free services to its citizens. It is simply a matter of economic reality (and history). Besides, as the old saying goes, do you really want a bunch of people who could not make a profit running a house of ill repute in Nevada making rules for your welfare?

History has shown that where there is private ownership of property and the means of production and distribution the majority of the people under that system fare better than those in welfare states. The prime examples in the world today are, first, Russia and China, who had no where near the productive capacity of free market states until each began to relax the rules and let the free market start working. Second, most of those countries that have socialist economies are nonproductive, agrarian societies. Third, the governing planners are never concerned with any individual's welfare, but rather, the welfare of the society as a whole.

I learned long ago that most people in the world simply want to be left alone to grow their own rice to feed their families, to be able to raise their families without interference and to believe in whatever they wanted to believe in. Most people desire to be free from unnecessary government interference and free from demands by nosy people who think they know what is best for everyone. There is no right or wrong in any economic system or any particular type of government. (I am sure that this statement will be the subject of a future mental wandering). It is simply a matter of what works best for the society (tribe) as a whole, what is sustainable in the long run and what produces and distributes enough to take care of the society's needs. Remember always, that society is merely an abstract phrase for a group of real, living, breathing individuals.

I would enjoy hearing your comments on the subject. Caveat. Bring your textbooks, dictionaries, and Cabernet.

Defining Liberal and Conservative

I am an news and information junkie. I cannot get enough. I am addicted. I watch the news, listen to the news and read the news a couple of hours every day. I have not the slightest idea why I input all of this news and information into my aging brain. I really cannot do anything with it except hopefully form opinions on issues, which I like to think are informed opinions. Alas, having information from which to form opinions is no longer in vogue. The airwaves and the Internet are jammed with opinions not based upon accurate information or upon careful analysis. It seems to me that the news today is analyzed from a political perspective rather than from a basic set of personal principles: a creed. Today, a person or idea is labeled either a conservative or a liberal based upon one's political perspective and so the the vast majority of opinions presented tend to be one or the other, with each one claiming to present the exclusive "fair and balanced" position. It seems to me that a person is rarely ever a pure conservative or liberal. The fact that no clear and concise definition of those two terms is at hand makes the opinions proffered even less informed. Each presenter hurls the terms liberal and conservative at the other side as if they were the ultimate derogatory nuclear bombs. What if reality is that we are all somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative. It is entirely possible that we are all pragmatists.

Everyone has an idea of what is conservative and what is liberal, but do we all have the same idea. For example, is giving women the right to vote a liberal or a conservative position. In the late 1890s up to the 1930s it was most certainly a liberal idea. Is it still a liberal idea in Western countries today now that women in those countries have the right to vote? What about in some other countries, mainly in the Near East and Middle East? In such countries it would not only be considered liberal but blasphemously so. Do the definitions of what issues are liberal and what issues are conservative change with time? Do such definitions change with place? When you call an idea or someone liberal or conservative do you mean the same thing as I understand the words liberal or conservative? Well in the overwhelming desire to aid good communications I will proceed to define the terms.

Lest start with the term liberal. Liberalism, according the Wikipedia, is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals. Liberals, or at least constitutional liberalism, encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government. This seems to me to be exactly the thinking of the founders of this nation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal). But wait, don't conservatives also claim to believe in these same values. Something does not compute.

Looking again at Wikipedia we find that liberalism appears in two broad forms: Classical liberalism, which emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, and social liberalism which emphasizes some kind of redistribution of wealth.[7] Those who identify themselves as classical liberals, to distinguish themselves from social liberals, oppose all government regulation of business and the economy, with the exception of laws against force and fraud, and support free market laissez-faire capitalism. Oh Darn. there are two entirely different types of liberals. It appears that the founders of this Country would be labeled classical liberals, but not modern day liberals. How the deuce do we distinguish between a classical liberal and a social liberal? Which one is meant when one says a person or position is liberal? Wikipedia says In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

So, the United States is a country that was founded by classical liberals but is currently being run by modern liberals, who have beliefs that are different from those of the founders. To make this even more confusing, Wikipedia says that in Europe, the term liberalism is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. Say what? Even the use of the term liberal today means something entirely different in different places. So, if I say to a person from Europe visiting in the United States that a certain idea is liberal he may well understand what I am saying as something entirely different from what I mean.

Lets see if the term conservative is a bit easier. I remember from my study of American History that when the Republic was being founded the conservatives wanted to remain part of England and retain the monarchy. Wikipedia says in Western politics today the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers. Now I remember studying the Englishman's philosophy* in college so this one should be much easier. Conservative political parties have diverse views; the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Republican Party in the United States, the Conservative Party in Britain, and the Liberal Party of Australia are all major conservative parties with varying positions. Wait a minute- multiple Burke's? Views, not philosophies? Reading further, conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So modern conservatism is a merger of classical liberalism and social conservatism, leaving out social liberalism.

Thus we have the modern definitions:

Liberalism mean the belief in a system that supports business regulation and redistribution of wealth for the common good as well as a government of sufficient size and power to accomplish it. Liberals may or may not believe in individual freedom, a republican form of government, a capitalist economic system or democratically elected officials (although most in the United States probably do). Those are apparently not part of the main core beliefs of liberalism.

Conservatism means a belief in individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of government, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property and a transparent system of government, all from classical liberalism, as well as fiscal conservatism (frugality? restraint?). Core conservatives beliefs do not espouse a belief in any particular system of government (aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy) as long it is based upon the rule of law (but again, most in the United States probably believe in a democratic republic).

This must mean that George W. Bush was in fact a modern day liberal and that Bill Clinton was in fact a modern day conservative based upon what each did while in office. Right? Having established definitions for the terms how do I know that another person using those terms means the same thing as the definitions I have derived? You know what? I am too old to worry about it. I at least know what I mean and I have decided that I am a classical liberal pragmatist. You can go look this one up for yourself. I am going to watch the news.


* I must confess that my minor is in Political Philosophy.