This is an overview that covers from 19th century to the present. You should pay closest attention to the term up through the 1960s, the rest is for those who want to understand it in relationship to the present, though we will deal with the issue of neoliberalism later in the semester, so you definitely can wait to understand that til later in the semester.

 

Liberalism for Beginners

·         Liberalism as a doctrine is truly shrouded in myth and innuendo. If you are confused, that is because the history of liberalism and conservatism as doctrines are themselves sometimes the opposite of what we have been told by pundits. The “L” word now stands in for what “socialism” used to in this country, and so few people identify with the label and it is merely useful as an epithet. Conservatives themselves, have done an about-face on issues once considered sacred.

·         Another confusing element: "Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas.

·         Within liberalism, there is a spectrum of ideas from left to right.

·         In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. In that it has ALWAYS been “conservative”, seeking to contain more radical social movements.

 

A brief History

·         Liberalism in late 19th century—(in fact it was a little-used term) derived its beliefs from advocacy for the individual;

o        =emphasis on individual rights;  limiting government’s and other institution’s ability to dominate the indicvidual;

o         economic liberalism at this time was laissez-faire (which means “leave it alone”): exalted private property, individualism and equality of opportunity in the market. No unfair advantages to particular parties tied to the state, a rejection of mercantile systems

o        Note: Despite popular notions,  the U.S. state was anything but “laissez-faire” in the late 19th century, especially toward workers. For example, the use of police and state powers to thwart workers’ power is was perhaps the most draconian of modern industrial democracies. In addition, by the early 20th century, the largest corporations derived their power from state intervention, such as tariffs to reduce foreign competition, drive toward imperialism, not the free market. I think there is a definite parallel with modern “neoliberalism”. (see below)

 

·         On social issues, there is a clear and less confusing line from 19th century liberalism to modern liberalism. Example: the advocacy of women’s right to abortion without being prevented by the state is derived from the 19th century emphasis on individual rights.

·         Of course, things get complicated here, too. For example, recently, liberals have opposed the unlimited right to bear firearms. As with a number of social issues, liberals have tempered their support for individual rights when they judge that it might interfere with other individual’s rights and harm the community. This recognition helps us to understand how liberalism of the 19th century made the transition from focus on unfettered individual rights in respect to economic issues. Those who helped to define liberalism in the 20th century began to see that large corporations had accumulated so much wealth that they controlled so much of society that they had more power than the state. These corporations threatened the well-being of workers and consumers and the urban arena, and controlled politics at every level. The only entity with enough power to counteract the power of those corporations was the state.

 

Progressive era

·         Turn toward activist state on economic issues occurred especially in the Progressive era, when abuses of corporations challenged –Progressive reformers perceived that the social, political and economic dislocations wrought by large-scale industrialization, urbanization, and immigration could not be solved on an individual or community level. These reformers began to build the modern American state.

o        “progressive liberals”—including Jane Addams—demanded restraints on business, state-sponsored social welfare programs, an empowered labor movement, woman suffrage, legal access to birth control. Although acting in the name of the people, these reformers distrusted mass-based party politics and sought to place themselves as the alternative to more radical social change from below. They looked to executive administrative agencies (such as the Food and Drug administration) to solve rampant corporate abuses. This always left liberalism with an elitist tinge to its policies.

o         This era’s reform saw the dawn of another species: the “corporate liberal”, those farsighted executives of large corporations who saw the value of state intervention  but sought “self-government in industry” as a solution to both laissez-faire and true social democracy. An enlightened ad benevolent corporate leadership could manage the state and temper its abuses.  These were the types that would come to the fore of later Democratic administrations. 

 

 

Great Depression/New Deal era Collapse of capitalism brought forth more commitment of intervention by the state to address the absolute misery of much of the population. Liberalism as a key current of modern politics derives from the New Deal Era, when, in the midst of capitalist collapse in the U.S. and growing fascism abroad, the U.S. liberal state offered a compromise between social upheaval and capitalism.

·         Laissez-faire economists (who were endorsed by conservatives—opponents of the New Deal) at the time argued for restricting democracy further in order to restore profit margins.

·          But New Deal liberalism did result in empowerment of some elements, most strikingly organized elements of the working class. Before this era, U.S. workers rights were severely constricted. Now they could legally join unions, and thus won enhancement of their rights as an individual against the power of corporations.  However, throughout this period, FDR’s commitment to the reviving the private sector and limiting budget deficit curbs the vision of liberalism.

·          Liberals of the New Deal era split over the degree of intervention on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised. Some liberals in FDR’s administration argued for more government planning, and for jobs programs.  This is tempered by Party politics as well, where liberal support for social security is compromised by Southern democrats. In the end, the “managerial liberalism” of the Progressive era triumphs.

 

Postwar era

·         Growth liberals or Fiscal/Military Keynesian liberals—dominant species in government from Truman to Johnson; idea: use power of the state to sustain growth of the capitalist system so that the system does not become unstable and cause Depression. Idea was that if government spurred growth, room might be opened for extension of social security or other programs that addressed insecurity and want in America.

o        Postwar liberalism did not confront the economic dominance of big corporations, and as I have made clear, increasingly liberal Democrats were barely distinguishable from Republicans in promoting corporate tax breaks to spur economic growth.

o         Growth liberals committed to using government assistance to extend capitalism across the globe. By 1950s use of military Keynesianism as means of curbing capitalist economic cycles. (At first, Truman’s hard-line stance with the Soviet Union shocked most liberals, but domestic red-scare silenced this dissent. There were very few outspoken “dove” liberals by Vietnam era, but they did exist. By the 1950s, liberalism was “wedded” to the cold war).   Growth Liberalism dramatically challenged by Vietnam War era however. Liberal commitment to a cold war foreign policy brought the dream for a more just America down in the flames of the war in Vietnam.

·         Labor liberals—furthest to the left of the spectrum in postwar era, initially endorsed original social Keynesian ideas of full employment policies, national health care, extension of social security. Use state to address people’s misery and insecurity under capitalism, since the state is obviously sustaining the capitalist system. Group was  diminished in significance and vision by domestic anti-communism, ranks thinned by purges of postwar era. Remained the left of the Democratic Party, however. Fight for minimum wage, health insurance, full employment bills were led by labor liberals. However, most labor came to accept anti-communist agenda and endorsed military Keynesianism—see Right Turn for more on this

 

NOTE: Conservatives of this era attack the welfare state, but endorse the growth of government through military and social spending for some sectors, in particular for southern and western areas of the country. Seek to limit programs such as full-employment, rights for African-Americans within the welfare state. See America Divided for a fuller accounting of the conservative stance during this period.

 

Another note: War and warfare states have accounted for larger growth in government than any other periods. In this conservatives have helped to build the modern bureaucratic state even as they claim to despise it. Just look at the Reagan administration and the military budgets. Even as Reagan denounced government, the largest budget deficits in history were created during his administration.

 

1960s liberalism

Liberalism of the 1960s: the Civil Rights and other movements of the 1960s drove a wedge in the old definitions; some liberals turned further left in response to the mass uprisings, and sought to extend rights to private and public sphere more fully. Corporations acquiesced to some of  the state interventions and experiments.  America Divided covers this.  As blacks and others challenged liberalism on the rights issue, conservatives attacked liberals as elitist (helping blacks to get more rights than whites, keeping people from praying in school, giving criminals rights but not victims) and thus as a threat to individual moral autonomy. Beginning with Richard Nixon, Republicans picked up the “common man” them and used it for electoral victories, suggesting they spoke for the “silent majority” imperiled by “social engineering.” But  on a number of policy issues, Richard Nixon was more “liberal” than one might consider given his rhetoric. He started the political attack on liberalism, but his economic policies would be considered more “liberal” than Bill Clinton’s.

 

Reagan and Bush eras:

o        successfully associated liberalism with a negative context: as the doctrine of black rights, rights of criminals, regulations which hurt businesses and even those people  the regulations were designed to protect. (OSHA will hurt workers because it will cost jobs)

o        Reagan and Bush were neoliberals—doctrine addresses ECONOMIC issues, and means revival of old liberalism that contends that allowing markets to prevail will bring about the good society. Because they had attacked liberalism, they were not about to adopt the moniker as Europeans did.

 

Neoliberalism-1980s-present (you can skim this, as we’ll deal with it later. I include it here in case you have come across the term neoliberalism and want to clarify its definition)

o        Reagan-Bush era coincided with dawn of neoliberalism in old liberal circles. Neoliberals joined conservatives in lambasting public programs, skewering bureaucrats, and celebrating the power of the market. This turnabout was prompted by the capitalist crisis and the reaction to 1960s. (we’ll discuss it later in semester!)

o         Neoliberals support “liberating” private corporations from many of the old bonds imposed by government. Reagan’s endorsement of free trade meant having to choose between corporations in the party that sought protection and those seeking to dismantle the old barriers to capital accumulation. He as well as all U.S. presidents up the present have supported trade agreements that seek to open world markets and restrict national regulation of trade and investment.

o         Unions viewed as barriers to freedom of individuals and as Old Guard seeking unfair protections. Example: Although Clinton and Gore certainly had to cater to the union wing of the Democratic Party, they completely rejected union pleas for more union and environmental protections built into trade agreements. In this they show their allegiance to neoliberalism

o        Cutting public expenditures for social services like welfare, health care—reducing “safety-net” for the poor in name of reducing government’s role

§         .  On the left end of the spectrum of neoliberals, there is a commitment to letting the market set prices, letting global capital have more “freedom” and using the state to temper the extremes and giving the displaced new education for skills (thus George Bush as well as Clinton are these sort of neoliberals: for advocating better education system, to enable the get another job when people are continually displaced by the marketplace. They argue that if people have better education, they will help the neoliberal order to flourish, and have skills that allow them as individuals to command high wages and benefits within the marketplace)

o        Ideologically, doctrine suggests that “individual responsibility” and not “public good” as the mission of government.

 

o         Most draconian implementation has been in third-world countries, where it is advocated without abandon as the solution for economy. Powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. There most public enterprises have been subject to dismantling—by U.S. and European neoliberals empowered to act on behalf of their governments-- in order to free up resources for “first world” investors. Neoliberals recognize that investors do not look at countries that have tough regulatory structures or generous social benefits will not look favorably on that country, so they have been part of dismantling the safety nets, supposedly to provoke capital investment

 

o         In Europe (where the word is more common) and U.S. it has been tempered by popular support for the programs it advocates dismantling, including social security, but in the case of the U.S. welfare system, you can see its success more fully.