What Is a Liberal?

In the past few decades, "liberal" has become a dirty word to almost half the population because the way in which Republicans, and especially Trump, have defined it and spoken of it.  But "liberal" is quite different from their definition.

A liberal is someone who believes that all citizens – men and women – should be treated equally and that all have the right, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether you are rich, middle class, or poor; whether you are a person of color or white; whether you were born here or are an immigrant – you have that right.

And the role of government, again as stated in the Declaration, is to ensure those rights.  What does that mean?

It means that government must do what is necessary to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue those rights.  It may require laws, regulation of business, or funding measures.  But the goal is always to ensure that all citizens have a meaningful equal opportunity, – that is, not just stated on paper.

The goal is not to make everyone equal because that is not the goal of a democracy.  That would be communism.  Rather the goal of a liberal and of our democratic government is just to ensure each person has an equal opportunity to pursue their rights.  What people make of that opportunity is their own responsibility.

Further, a liberal does not just believe that all citizens have equal rights, he or she also believes that all people have obligations that flow from citizenship.  Under the American social contract that developed in the early 1900s, each citizen has an obligation to support the common good.  Each citizen has an obligation to do nothing that takes away another citizen's rights. Each citizen has a responsibility to support the government financially in its performance of its functions, each according to his means. 

And, yes, I am a liberal and proud of it. 

With Rights Come Responsibilities

People on the Right are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights.  Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership or restriction of movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen of the United States.  Yes, we have rights.  But with rights, come responsibilities.  Not even the vaunted right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership is absolute.

Man is by nature concerned solely with his and his family's wellbeing. That is his biological imperative.  Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member, a citizen, of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.  

In primitive societies and in many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through strong social pressure; the individual was of lesser importance. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between man's individual liberties and rights and his part in the larger society.

There are thousands of laws that control the right of an individual to do what he might want to do.  Whether it's the criminal law, traffic laws, building codes and zoning laws, or product liability law, laws have been developed that balance the individual’s rights against the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act.  Without such laws we would have anarchy.

As our society became more civilized and enlightened, the concept of man's pro-active responsibilities to the larger society developed.  Existing along side his rights, are concomitant shared responsibilities for the community that go beyond the responsibility not to harm others.

In the current political context, there is a uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract in the 20^th century.  This post will look at several examples.  The most topical is the restriction on people’s movement in the pandemic.  The second  is the ongoing issue of the right of gun ownership.  Other less emotional, but equally deep concerns, are the regulation of business, progressive taxation, and the government's responsibilities towards those less fortunate.

1.  The government has wide power to regulate matters that concern public health and safety.  Certainly in this period of pandemic, they have the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other.   Yes, this restricts our normal rights in numerous ways, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.

2.  As for gun ownership, even if one agrees (whjch I don’t) in the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership recently-found in the 2nd Amendment, that right like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can be limited when necessary for the greater good.  So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that meet the constitutional standard.  The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away your guns is just fear-mongering.  There is no basis in that claim.

3.  Then there’s the issue of business regulation.  The primary interest of any business is self-interest ... that is its nature as much as it's man's nature.  As we saw during the industrial revolution and the early decades of the 20th century, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the greater public good.  

Because of this self-interest and the resulting efforts through lobbying and other means to avoid any restrictions, regardless how necessary to protect the public good, I have argued in earlier posts (“What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society”) that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision making process be the impact of corporate action on the public good, whether it be directly or through the environment.

4.  Taxes.  No one likes paying them.  Most taxes, likes sales taxes, are unfortunately regressive … the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes.  (With regard to the sales tax, that’s because lower income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, accounting for the tax taking a larger share of their income.)  

As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor.  A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher ones income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes because such people have much more discretionary income and therefore a higher tax would not pose any hardship.  And so when the income tax was instituted, that’s how it was designed … as a progressive tax.

In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000.  In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000.  As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000.  Today, the rate is 37% of income over $510,000. The rich are paying a smaller portion of their income as taxes to support the greater public good than at any time since the income tax was instituted.

5.  Finally, there is government action to support the poor.  Over the course of the past 100 years, again as society has become more civilized and enlightened, government has taken a greater hand in both directly providing for those in need as well as ensuring in various ways that they have the opportunity to better their position in life. 

This was a fuller implementation of the role of government stated in the Declaration of Independence … “to secure” the right to life, liberty, and happiness.  Programs that were once considered radical or socialist by Republicans, such as Social Security and Medicare, which they fought tooth and nail at the time, are now accepted by most as necessary programs ... not without their problems, but vital to the wellbeing of a large proportion of our citizens and thus the stability of our economy.

In all these areas, the current radical brand of Republicans, egged on by the energy and anger of first the Tea Party and then President Trump, have argued that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated.  People should be free to do what they think best.  Business should not be regulated.  The wealthy should not pay more taxes.  The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.  (Programs like Social Security are distinguished because it’s been earned, and corporate subsidies are necessary because of their importance to the economy.)

Each of these positions is against the balance that our nation has historically struck between private rights, the public good, and the role of government.  These positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few.  America’s strength in the 20^th century evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.

That is where we need to continue heading in the 21^st century to ensure America’s continued strength.  Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America.  Radical Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.

The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights

The current crop of Republicans, a radical, rabidly conservative group, take as their jumping off point a very unnuanced view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  To them, rights, if not specifically qualified in those documents, are absolute.  So whether it’s the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, or whether it’s the right of free speech or the right to bear arms in the Constitution, no limitation on those rights is warranted (unless of course it limits the rights of opponents and so suits their purposes.)

And one must say, the words certainly sound absolute.  But let us consider their context.  First, the Declaration of Independence - the mother, if you will, of all our founding documents.  What does the Declaration say about rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The context of this recitation of rights is that all men are created equal and that all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, unless you believe that the Founding Fathers meant to set up a state of anarchy … with everyone exercising their liberty, doing whatever they wanted, without restraint … one can’t believe that they meant that no bounds could be placed on the exercise of these rights.  

Why?  Because when you have a community of people it is inevitable that at some point the free exercise of one person’s liberty and pursuit of happiness bumps up against another’s … either harming another or impinging that person’s exercise of his liberty.  Since the Declaration states that all men are created equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the system can only work if one says that each person has this liberty so long as it does not harm others or impinge on the rights of others.

This last proposition is in fact the basis for all government laws and regulation of any type.  Whether it’s criminal laws, traffic laws. zoning ordinances, building codes, the Clean Air Act, banking regulations, etc. … all of these derive their legal basis from the basic proposition that neither an individual nor a corporation can act as it will, if such action harms another or the public welfare.

Then there are the sacrosanct rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.  But even the most jealously protected right of them all … the right of free speech … is not absolute.   Not only can one not yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but the laws of libel and slander prohibit both written and spoken words that are defamatory, malicious, and false.  There are false advertising laws, which prevent corporations from misleading the public.  The list goes on and on.

As for the right to bear arms, even assuming for the moment that the Constitution indeed grants that right to an individual (until recently the courts had not so held), it would be ludicrous to argue that the government can place no limitations on a right which has not just the potential, but as we see almost daily causes others grievous injury and death. Yet to the NRA and its supporters, and the majority in Congress which is either beholden to the NRA or scared of its power, virtually any regulation whatsoever, no matter how reasonable and called for, is anathema.

As recently as a generation ago, conservative Republicans understood that while they had their ideologically preferred way of addressing issues, they shared common ground for the most part with Democrats in understanding what the great public issues were.  They understood that we lived in a country where citizens had both rights and responsibilities. Where we all played our part, each according to his abilities, in supporting the government in its role of securing the rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As it says again in the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

That is the purpose of government.  The mantra started by Ronald Reagan and taken up by the Tea Party Republicans that, “government is not the solution; government is the problem,” is at odds with not just our founding documents but our history.  

Indeed, it is at odds with the history of the Republican Party.  It was often Republicans that pushed for government action.  Whether it was the Republican President Lincoln pushing to end slavery or the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt breaking up the huge trusts of the day, such as Standard Oil, Republicans have a long and proud history of arguing for government action to protect those less powerful., to insure that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to the rights we have, no one should shrink from vigorously protecting his or her own rights.  However, everyone must understand that with the exercise of rights comes a responsibility not to harm others or impinge on the exercise of their rights. When it does so, then the common good demands that such exercise of an individual right be regulated so as not to harm others.  The common good always trumps the exercise of an individual right.*

*A note of clarification.  In light of recent events around the world, and the comments of several readers, I need to clarify that if the exercise of one's right, such as free speech, offends another or the majority, those others are not harmed nor are their rights in any way impinged.  And so there is no justification for restraint in that situation.  When I speak of the common good, something far more concrete is meant ... like breathing clean air, drinking clean water, not having to fear violence, not being cheated.