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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in international studies, political science and history.
