The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Democrats losing liberalism to GOP

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Steve Schwerbel:

Dissecting the Republican revolution (February 10, 2006)
Iran not threat West perceives (February 24, 2006)
U.S. needs ally in India (March 9, 2006)
Student Government looks to provide students with new voice (March 31, 2006)
Humanities should be loved for its brutality (April 3, 2006)

by Steve Schwerbel

Friday, January 27, 2006

If clothes make the man, my WWII-era trench coat means that I shouldn't be surprised when people mark me as a march-in-the-streets Madison liberal. When I'm asked about my politics, though, I'm never quite sure what to say. I am a member of the College Republicans, but calling myself a Republican never quite captures the spectrum of my belief. Calling myself a libertarian is generally convenient shorthand, but what I always mean to say is that I'm a classical liberal.

Every Madisonian knows that Republicans are evil. But if we look past the hyperbolic rhetoric, it seems fair to say that the modern progressive movement has forsaken the liberal mantle. And Republicans are in a good position to embrace it.

It certainly is telling that one of the most prized of Republican values today is labeled "neo-liberal." Belief in the free market, and its ability to raise the poor out of their slums by investing them in the work they do, is at its heart a liberal concern. Classical liberals know that the only way for a man to truly better himself is through his own work, not some government-sponsored program that gives him money for doing nothing.

Yet today's Democrats, the "liberal" party, don't trust the free market. Pushing for increased governmental roles in allocating resources and giving handouts to the poor, those on the left show a flagrant disregard for basic economic principles. That isn't liberalism, although it may be part of the Progressive platform.

Nor are liberals content for Americans to be the only ones who benefit from the market — sadly, the truly liberal projects enshrined in the missions of the World Bank and IMF come under fire from "progressives" all too often.

Another basic tenet of Classical Liberalism, enshrined in the Constitution, is that all people, regardless of race, color or creed, are equal. Who puts this into practice today? For all the rhetoric surrounding the issue, the Republican agenda, ranging from lifting enrollment caps for school vouchers to ending the racist belief that women and minorities aren't good enough to get jobs themselves (they need the government to do it for them), is the truly liberal project.

This extends to foreign policy as well. Liberals realize that all people — simply by dint of being people — deserve the same freedoms we take for granted in the United States. Whether they live in Europe or the Middle East or the Pacific Islands, liberals are willing to put their lives on the line to make sure that democracy is guaranteed for everyone. It is not good enough, for a liberal, to say that certain cultures really don't need democracy, that their traditional tyrants are good enough.

Liberals also know that a government is really a danger — some minimal level of cohesion is needed, but large governments threaten the very society enshrined in the Constitution. This doesn't apply only to the federal level — even municipal governments can easily take on far greater roles than they should in telling people how to live their lives. If Progressive Dane were really a liberal party, it would be appalled by Madison's smoking ban. But non-liberals go farther, building bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, expanding the reach of government at all levels to ridiculous heights.

Granted, Republicans can't really claim the mantle of Classical Liberalism just yet. Today's Republicans are not themselves shy of building bureaucracy, increasing government spending, and forcing people to march in lock-step. President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill that's come past his desk. The reason that Democrats can't block Samuel Alito is that he's essentially not opposed to big government — yet he's the Republican nominee. Government subsidies are even worse — especially the atrocious amount of money sent to our agricultural sector.

Most threatening, though, is the Republican Party's involvement in with the far religious right. It started out as a liberal undertaking based on respect for religion. Even Mr. Bush's faith-based charities program is a liberal one at heart — it reduces government and respects people's individual beliefs, while not choosing any particular religion to be the sole bearer of the program. Yet Republicans have gone far beyond a simple liberal desire to keep church and state separate. It has morphed into a Republican big-government scheme — from controlling media for "objectionable" content to regulating marriage laws in a reckless and statist fashion. This tenet of Republicanism, more than anything, needs to be shed before the Republicans can truly don the mantle of Classical Liberals.

The Republicans aren't there yet, but they are close. Because what it comes down to is a respect for the individual. People, not the government, know best what they need. Individuals don't need morality forced on them, nor do they need government programs to interact with each other. Hopefully, the Republican Party will move to embrace the true liberalism that is at the heart of our country.

Steve Schwerbel (sdschwerbel@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in international studies, political science and history.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (January 27, 2006 @ 2:05am):

You know, I'm also interested in finding out why so many liberals are against tax reform. I was discussing the issue with a liberals friend of mine a while back. The topic went to implementing a national retail tax to replace the federal income tax. The FairTax bill is in Congress right now(HR25/S25). This bill abolishes the IRS-or gives them something else to do-and gets the government off our backs. My liberal friend(I'm a liberal too, in case you haven't guessed) is dead set against it. Why? Because he feels that if the government can't pry into people's lives, then how else can they keep tabs on dissidents who may try to take over the government and oppress people.

Strange, isn't what liberals have always accused conservatives of doing? But I must admit that it would be interesting to see if Republicans end up becoming better liberals than traditional liberals. And maybe liberals would make better conservatives as well. We'll just have to wait until they get older to find out.

Anonymous (January 27, 2006 @ 7:30am):

Part of the problem with waiting until the last two paragraphs of a column to get to the main point is that it cannot be sufficiently developed and explained. That's especially true when the point sounds ridiculous on face without further elaboration.

Such is the case here when the author references "regulating marriage laws in a reckless and statist fashion". So throughout human history, since the time of Adam and Eve, we have been living under reckless and statist regimes because marriages have been between one man and one woman?? Come on!

"This tenet of Republicanism, more than anything, needs to be shed before the Republicans can truly don the mantle of Classical Liberals." There is also no analysis for this statement as to why it makes sense from a political or a policy standpoint for Republicans to do this.

Supporting "liberal" philosophies of marriage puts you in a small minority in this country, as 70% (on average) voted in favor of traditional marriage when they had the opportunity in state referendums in 2004. It is bad politics to court the votes of these people and then kick them in the teeth with ideas like those presented here. Also, look how successful the GOP is in states like Illinois where its party leadership has adopted such ideas. Enough said.

It's also bad policy. Many problems that plague our cities, including poverty and crime result the breakdown of the family. Children need both a mother and a father in the picture. Anything the government does to further break down the institution of the family will only increase these social problems.

The libertarian wing of the Republican needs to stop and think about the larger political and policy impacts of their ideas before they lead the GOP and this country down the drain.

Anonymous (January 27, 2006 @ 10:59am):

You know "liberal" and "conservative" refer to social programs, right?

and libertarian, that's just shorthand for "let the people starve in the streets."

Anonymous (January 27, 2006 @ 12:00pm):

Are you kidding me?

When the Republican party in Texas wrote into the state party platform for the 2004 elections that the US was a Christian nation, and that anyone who wasn't Christian didn't have a place in American society as a full and equal citizen, was that liberalism?

When Republicans blame the poor and minorities for being poor -- even when they work full-time jobs and try to get an education -- and facing discrimination, is that liberalism?

When Republicans decide it is more important to cut taxes for billionaires and corporations than to provide full funding for public schools, health care, college loans, and myriad other social programs, is that liberalism?

When Republicans support a war in Iraq based on intelligence known to be faulty, is that liberalism?

When Republicans gutted the funding for the maintenance of levees protecting New Orleans, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, the destruction of a major city and cultural icon, and utter chaos in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly poor minorities, was that liberalism?

When Republicans support the gutting of our fourth amendment protections against warrantless searches -- especially when the "extraordinary circumstances" they cite allow them to get warrants up to three days after the search, but they still refuse to do so -- is that liberalism?

When Republicans insist on taking control of individual women's reproductive rights, is that liberalism?

When Republicans smear war heroes like John Murtha, Max Cleland, and Paul Hackett, and support draft dodgers like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and idiots like Jean Schmidt who demand that Americans go to war in Iraq then attack them for doing so, is that liberalism?

When Tom DeLay alters the borders of Congressional districts in Texas in a way that the Justice Department's lawyers say is patently illegal, is that liberalism?

When Republicans use the word liberal as an insult, is that liberalism?

Sorry, Steve, but the Republicans couldn't find liberalism with a road map and GPS, and you clearly have no conception of what liberalism really is.

Benjamin Broeren (January 27, 2006 @ 1:35pm):

Very good take on classical liberalism, and how it's warped by those in power. Similar to David Brook's piece on how liberal and conservative used to mean something. Of course, Brooks has become a hack for the GOP since...

Anonymous (January 27, 2006 @ 6:37pm):

From article:

"Another basic tenet of Classical Liberalism, enshrined in the Constitution, is that all people, regardless of race, color or creed, are equal."

Only whites were allowed to be citizens of America, slaves were still owned during the writing of the Constitution, and many prominent Founding Fathers favored repatriating blacks back to Africa.

What this fellow says about the Bill of Rights is "politically correct," certainly, but remember, when we are told something is politically correct, that does not mean it is true, but merely something we are told to believe.

Jill Henry
www.nationalvanguard.org

Anonymous (January 28, 2006 @ 1:32am):

"You know, I'm also interested in finding out why so many liberals are against tax reform."

To quote Phil Ochs: "In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it effects them personally."

Almost all "liberal" politicians, especially at the federal level, are richer than rich, and so are their campaign donors. So it really comes at no surprise that these shady folks would not support a more-progressive tax system. Unfortunately I don't know enough about FairTax to know if that's the more-progressive tax option, but assuming it is, I can only see a few folks like Sanders and Feingold leading the charge.

Anonymous (January 28, 2006 @ 10:38am):

"Jill Henry
www.nationalvanguard.org"

The National Vanguard is a white supremacist organization in the mold of the Ku Klux Klan. Jill Henry has just outed herself as a terrorist.

Anonymous (January 28, 2006 @ 12:14pm):

Steve, I'm confused about the UW College Republicans, of which you say your are a member. Just a couple days ago in these same pages the organization President, Jordan Smith, stated that one of the groups top four priorities is to help pass a state constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage for gay couples. How can you belong to an organization that makes a priority of what you, according to your interesting op-ed, seemingly find to be unprincipled and unethical?

Anonymous (January 29, 2006 @ 5:28am):

Honestly, I believe that it is really sad that we have this two-party system and both parties act like immature babies. paul Perot's Reform Party did manage mccartney to top them in absurdity. So what can we do? Should is really dead we simply try to form another third party that will not resort to the same antics, or can we simply press for new dna evidence leadership from virtual unknowns whom we know will not succomb to prove it the celebrity of politics?

Anonymous (February 26, 2006 @ 1:36am):

Awe c'mon guys! Be fare. This writer is no different then yourselves. As much as you want to view they want to be read. "Hey look at me!" If the writer was in San Diego or Boulder Colorado they would be on the other side. The efforts are allocated as such. Writers don't write in public forum to be ignored and you can't get noticed as a liberal in Madison.

This is obvious if one only looks at the argument--there is nothing that hasn't been said and summarily refuted, the manipulation is crass and obvious and the research is lazy or no existent--more time on research less time on image no one cares about the trench coat. The writing is from 1-10 a 9 though--nice. With any luck and a lot of practice. All in all great writing but unoriginal argument--it may help you to not confuse leftist with progressive. There's nothing progressive about the left, nor the right. Real progress happens when one looses the image and gets to work. Progress and sustainability a balance between freedom and regulation. Wait that's liberty--freedom with in the law.