What’s New is Really Old

Some time in waning hours of the twentieth century, the political discourse in the United States tumbled down a rabbit hole, leaving us all stranded in this “looking glass” world. Our whole political debate has become strangely inverted, largely due to the poor education of the voting population. The words “liberal” and “conservative” have been inverted, so we find ourselves engaged in the same political contest that humans have debated for centuries, yet unaware that we are re-treading old ground.

The “left” of today are called “liberals” which they are not, and the “right” of today are called “conservatives” but they are truly not. All of the current political debate in the United States today, on any issue, boils down to a central understanding of the role of the government versus the role of the individual. However, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been reversed.

Today’s left are in reality arch-conservatives. They believe and argue that we owe our lives, liberty, and property to the state, for without the protection of the “State” we would have nothing. The communists, the socialists, the Democrats, and the various “labor” parties all analyze things this way. To them, you could not have a thriving business or profit without the protection of the “State”. Without the “States” creation of, and enforcement of, a legal structure, business would not be possible. Even ownership or retention of your gains would be impossible against theft. Therefore, all that you have, gain, and do, even your very life, is only possible by the benevolence and protection of the government. You are bound to give unto government anything it asks, even your life, because everything you have is only by its permission.

Likewise, in their worldview, any concept of “right” or “wrong” is ultimately an artifact created by government. These dictates on behavior are rightly manipulated by the “State”, in it’s ongoing efforts to forge a “better” society. “Right” and “wrong”,  are subject to change at any time by the “State” as it discovers better or more efficient ideas. This is why in Communist or other totalitarian regimes, great authority and august reverence, are granted to the “leader”. He is the font from which all order, goodness, wealth, and happiness flows. Today, we see much the same pattern exhibited by Democrats in their political behaviors and methods. There seems to be a form of idolatry, and genuine anger is raised against anyone who dares question “the leader”. It’s shocking to see in America, a political movement that is characterized by actual posters, and pictures of “the leader”. It is a cartoonish parody of the grotesque personality cults that were employed by the communists (and National Socialists) of the mid-twentieth century.

This type of philosophy is actually what was traditional called conservatism. It was first most cogently argued by Thomas Hobbes as a basis for the “divine right of Kings”. The argument is identical to the absolutist beliefs of today’s left,  save for the single element of “God”. Whereas Hobbes argued that all individuals owed everything to the monarch who protected them, because God (or fate) made the monarch the head of the government, the left today argues that it is a “mandate” from the masses. In honest moments they will then acknowledge that they think the “masses” are imbecilic fools, who cannot manage their own affairs, health, nutrition, entertainment, wealth, time, or even their own children, so must be “led” by government dictate. Yet, they then claim absolute mandate from these masses? At least Hobbes “divine right of kings” postulated a source of infinite wisdom and benevolence, as a source of the State’s mandate, rather than relying on a circular argument, that the absolute mandate comes from the ability of those admittedly incapable of making serious decisions, somehow correctly divining the persons who should make those decisions for them.

Those who call themselves “conservatives”, the right, are actually making the very counter argument against Hobbes, that was in it’s day called “liberal”. The name stems from the word “liberty”, which was the central theme of the counter argument. This position placed primary emphasis on the value of the individual. Their proposed understanding of human nature is that each man has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Without any government, each individual can do as he pleases. He associates with those he chooses, gathers what he needs for survival, and accumulates whatever excess that he can, for future hard times. He can keep what he and his chosen friends or family can produce and defend. He has absolute rights to use whatever means are necessary to protect himself, his family, his livestock and goods. To the traditional “liberal”, man is endowed these rights by our creator, God. To the traditional liberal, governments exist only so that we can pool our resources to better protect our natural rights. This was called “social contract” theory. Like any contract, there is a “trade” that is involved. Man gives up some of his rights of absolute freedom of action or behavior, to gain a benefit of better protection of his life and livelihood. Armies, legal structures, currencies, are all established so that cumulatively, we can do a better job of protecting ourselves. It is really a vast extension of that family, group of friends, or tribe, that man established to protect himself. The “State” is simply the same co-protection group, on a much larger scale. Any time a government is failing to respect our natural rights, its reason to exist has ceased, and we should replace it with one that respects our rights. The very moment the government prioritizes itself over the individual, it has failed. John F. Kennedy’s question of “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, should not be lauded as admirable, rather it is prescient only in its arrogance. They are the words of a pampered king, demanding better, more loyal service, from his subjects.

To a traditional liberal, morality, right and wrong, civilized behavior, are not whims of governance. They are established rules of human behavior, that have withstood the test of time, and proven effective at producing a prosperous society. The “State” is not free to re-define right or wrong at it’s whim, these pre-exist the government, and the governments only purpose is to establish rules or structures that closely adhere to those that are commonly held knowledge. This is the argument made by John Locke, at the time called a liberal, and the essential philosophical foundation upon which the United States was built.

 All arguments about political science can be boiled down to the conflict between these two philosophers, and everything else is merely window dressing. The right to use a firearm to protect yourself, rather than being utterly reliant on the police, falls into this conflict of world views. The proper role of taxation and wealth “redistribution”, is governed by the same analysis. Issues such as high property taxes, are really a discussion of whether or not you own your land, or are merely renting it from the “king”. Environmentalism, and the seizure of land by the government for it’s purposes, is really a reiteration of ancient “game laws” promulgated by the absolutist kings. What difference is there between the national government prohibiting the use of a “wetland”, privately owned, and the kings seizing a landhold for his own purpose? What difference is there between the declaration of “National Parks” or “National Monuments” over vast stretches of territory, and the and the “game laws”, which prohibited hunting on “the kings lands” by anyone save the “King” or those given a license to do so by him? The “sovereign lord” rides again.

As today’s “liberals” argue that government is permitted to be involved with, and have fiat over, most aspect of all of our lives, our business, our property, and even our words, they seek to return us to an absolutist “State”, whose capriciousness is all too familiar from history. The rulers live in ever more fabulous wealth and privilege, as the governed grow ever poorer and dependent on “royal” largesse. Even the flagrant hypocrisy of claiming that it’s all for our benefit is not original. Before they congratulate themselves too heartily on the resurrection of absolutist governance over those “stupid serfs”, the government officials, in their capitals, had best recall how many of the monarchs and nobles lives ended. Are they really certain they’d rather trade the representatives curtailed power and revered retirement, for absolutism leading to a date with an ax?