Yesterday, I published this post about American Liberalism. I linked to the post at TMV, writing:

For an interesting discussion about American Liberalism, I suggest going here. The post is based on this article at the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen. She writes that there is a discussion going on in American Liberal circles, about the essence of Liberalism, what policies Liberals favor. Should Liberals talk about morality in society? What about foreign policy? Should the US adopt an interventionist foreign policy, or more of an isolationist one?

A little while later, three great bloggers, Pamela Leavey, Libby Spencer and Ron Chusid answered (some of) the questions raised in my post. I strongly recommend all those interested in this issue to read both posts in their entirety.

Some points.

Pamela writes:

I would on a whole disagree with Michael on his assertion that “liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the government should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.” That choosing of which moral values to defend is clearly in my opinion something that both conservatives and liberals do. Particular values are relevant to each of us and to claim that one side of political ideology has a higher standard or one side of political ideology is better than the other is exactly what divides this nation today.

And so again, I will assert as I did above, that the notion that “family values” rest solely in the conservative party is hogwash. As an only parent and a liberal, I have raised a daughter on my own, who graduates from high school this month with a 3.9 grade average and high aspirations to make a difference in the world. I’ve taught her the very values that I live by and there is no standard that says children raised by two conservative parents have done a better job raising their children than I.

The standards by which we live our lives are what define us and our children, political ideology and “values” are an aside to that. No one holds a lock hold on values. When we stop debating whose values are better, like whose God is the “only” God, this country and the world will be a better place.

Imagine all the people… living for today… I am sorry I could not resist.

Pamela’s approach – lets stop fighting about whose morals are best, lets focus on whose policies are best / most effective – is one most people could, principly, embrace. That is, if only it were that simple. Sadly, it is not so.

This is not a debate about whose moral values are best in one’s private life. I know very moral progressives, I know very moral conservatives. I also know very immoral progressives and very immoral conservatives.

The question is, does one believe that society as a whole benefits from certain moral values? If so, doesn’t it make sense for the government to promote these values? And if so, what moral values exactly benefit society and how to promote them?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of political questions revolve around the question of ‘what’s right.’ More about that in my response to Libby’s post below.

Libby takes a radically different approach than Pamela:

Michael says it’s not that simple but I have to disagree. It really isn’t that complicated. I think he is confusing morals with religious values. The two are not necessarily inclusive and shouldn’t be conflated to make the point. Lying, cheating and stealing for instance are moral issues and not only do most of us forgo such behavior as a matter of conscience, it’s also a rule of law that no liberal or conservative would think of opposing. The morality is secondary to the public safety issues. These are behaviors that harm others…

Even an issue as emotionally fraught as abortion is not really fought on moral grounds. Although the religious right would have you believe they are battling to prevent the murder of unborn children, it’s not really about that fetus. Terminating a pregnancy does them no harm, but again, the choice to do so offends their religious values. They’re fighting to prevent a woman from making a private decision about a medical procedure and label the “wrong” choice immoral, because it is — according to their religious rules. We could look to Teri Schiavo and see the same dynamic at work.

Libby, however, forgets one thing. Firstly: most moral values ruling in Western society today are ‘Christian values.’ By that I mean that they are, in their esssence, rooted in Christianity. Secondly: for many people morality and religion are intertwined. Libby believes that they are not, but others believe that they are. Libby looks at certain moral values, and tries to determine whether values are accepted by secularists and Christians alike; if they are, no problem, if they are not, they are labeled ‘religious values’ and thus irrelevant to political discourse. This might make sense to Libby, but many religious persons would strongly disagree with it.

Thirdly, despite Libby’s characterization of those who oppose abortion, my experience is that abortion is a moral issue for most pro-life’ers. Libby believes that pro-life’ers do not really care about the unborn child. Again, in my experience she is completely wrong about that. She then goes on to contradict herself by explaining that, according to these people’s beliefs abortion is murder, and therefore wrong and should, therefore, be illegal. To these people it is about morality, it is about right and wrong.

She goes on to write the following:

But perhaps I belabor the point. The short answer to Michael’s question is every choice we make as human beings is a moral choice and all our laws are to some extent based on moral correctness and are necessary because individual moral values differ and some people do lie, cheat and steal. The government should regulate behavior that harms others. It shouldn’t regulate behaviors that don’t, no matter how offensive they may be to another’s moral values. That is the very definition of freedom.

I completely agree, and I bet most people, yes, most conservatives as well, would agree with that. However, in the case of abortion, Libby believes that no other person is harmed because she does not consider the fetus to be a human being. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, what then? Doesn’t that drastically alter the situation? In that case one does hurt another human being, in this case even an innocent child who has no say whatsoever in whether he (or she) should live or die.

In other words, Libby believes that it is very easy to separate morality from religion, but I do not agree with that. It is not that easy at all, especially not in the case of something as complicated as abortion.

Libby uses the same methology to decide whether something is acceptable or not as John Stuart Mill did. However, one question to Libby: does she think that Mill would have supported abortion?

I highly doubt it.

And as far as taxes go, providing for the common good is a moral responsibility that the government should shoulder and that includes helping those less fortunate. Liberals support the social safety net and are willing to pay for it. If we’re going to be assigning hypocrisy, it belongs to those social conservatives who fight tooth and nail for the “right to life” and then begrudge sharing a bit more of their own wealth to improve the quality of life for those who are then born into households of lesser priviledge.

What we see happening here (as in her entire post), Libby says that she disagrees with my thesis when she, in fact, agrees. My thesis was exactly what she wrote, that, in essence, all, or at least most, decisions are moral choices. American liberalis too, I argued, adhere to certain moral values, but pretend they do not. Therefore, I wrote:

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

And this is exactly what Libby did in her post. She labeled helping the poor a “moral responsibility” of the government and then attacked conservatives for not being willing to support the social safety net necessary to do so.

Lastly, I would like to respond to this post by Ron. Ron first explains why it is very difficult to come up with a clear definition of ‘liberalism’ in America, he then writes:

Liberalism stems from liberty, and above all else liberalism stands for individual liberty. Therefore liberals are united in opposing the violations of civil liberties seen under the Republicans who believe that the Bill of Rights is limited to the Second Amendment and see the American Civil Liberties Union as their enemy. Liberals defend both the basic liberties defended by the founding fathers, and seek to restore the checks and balances on government power were eroded under Republican one party rule.

This sounds like European liberalism, not American liberalism. Last time I checked, American liberals strongly opposed the views of Barry Goldwater, who actually wanted to do what Ron describes: limited government, more power to the states, constitutionalism.

More:

Liberals support a free market economy, but this leaves room for a variety of interpretations ranging from classical liberals supporting laissez-fair capitalism to those supporting increased government action. Liberals oppose both socialism and the system of government/corporate collusion promoted by conservatives, and I see neither as capitalist system. If not for the many other negative connotations of the word, fascism would be a far more accurate description of the economic policies being promoted by many Republicans, but using this label would denote an extremism which even the Bush administration has not reached.

Wait. Liberals support a free market economy, but oppose conservatives who support a free market economy?

Isn’t this what traditional American conservatism is all about? When I read Ron’s post, I feel like I am reading Goldwater, Burke or Hayek, not Al Gore et al. That post could have been written by me, replacing the word liberalism with conservatism. It seems to me that Ron forgets that the word ‘liberalism’ has radically (d)evolved in America.

In reality there is considerable pragmatism as opposed to ideology on economic issues among liberals. Liberals do not necessarily desire higher taxes as conservatives would argue, but neither would liberals accept a Grover Norquist pledge against raising taxes regardless of the situation. While Cohen considers a support for proactive government to be a fundamental belief of liberals, this is more a matter of pragmatism. Liberals will utilize government where necessary, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism about government. Liberals neither must advocate bigger government in all cases as conservative propagandists would claim, or oppose government in virtually all situations as many conservatives do. Liberals can support the necessary social safety net for those who need it without supporting a net so big that it strangles us all.

Again, most conservatives (and European liberals) would agree with that. The question is, when is it necessary and what role does the Constitution play in this? Also: what does Ron exactly mean with ‘the government’? Is he talking about local government, state government or the federal government? How is one weighed to another? If both the state and the federal government can solve an issue, which one should do it? The state? The federal government? Again, how about the Constitution?

Oppose socialism? What about moderate socialism? It seems to me that most Democrats would be member of the Labor parties in Europe. They almost always favor a bigger government (as in more programs to ‘help’ the poor, ‘improve’ education, ‘distribute’ wealth, etc.).