Liberalism - Climbing Down
Liberalism comes from the Latin liberalis, meaning “of freedom.” By the time the Enlightenment propelled the concept of the rule of law over authoritarianism in government, the liberal philosophy began holding sway throughout most of Europe and the United States. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Things spread at a much more rapid pace in the 20th century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars, in the process surviving challenges from fascism, communism and, yes, conservatism.It was a time of tough sledding for conservatives, for in reality they had benefited greatly from the liberal advance, especially its emphasis on the rights of property and the inherent worth of the individual. When liberal leaders stated that the most important right is the right to think for one’s self, conservatives could hardly disagree. And yet they fought it because the ground under their philosophical and political feet was being washed away in a tide of individualism and the conservatives fought hard to hold the line.Talk to any Conservative MP in Ottawa today and they will fervently press home the truth that government should get out of the way of people living their lives. The problem is that such a statement is actually been a liberal tenet for the last three centuries. All this makes the workings of Stephen Harper so confounding and antithetical to conservatives, both economically and politically. The supposed Conservative party of freedom is actually run by an iron grip so tight that any kind of individualism isn’t tolerated. In making himself the only fixed point, Harper has sucked the humanity right out of the party. And, in the end, that’s why he can’t sell the product to a broad enough audience in Canada.Why is it, then, that as the historic party of the individual and personal freedom, the Liberal Party of Canada hasn’t caught on either? Some reasons are obvious: past political wrongs, leadership struggles, the aforementioned focus on broad policies over individual rights and powers. But we’ve known that already and there must be something more.Despite his occasional successes, the PM’s small and mean-spirited approach has hurt him. Michael Ignatieff’s attempts to catch the collective imagination with his broad concepts and even broader inclusion has had troubled getting through. In reality, Canadians were looking for neither. As individuals, modern citizens desire a political process where they really matter, and large ideas or small mindedness just aren’t the ticket.The Conservative dilemma is fairly obvious: the supposed party of the free individual conscience has become an iron glove. And Liberals? They continue to assume that, as Thomas Sowell has observed, “if you don’t believe in their particular solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.” This baleful approach is a philosophical and increasingly political dead end. And it's just patently untrue. Canadians might have given up on government as a foreign aid dispenser, but civil society is verdant with millions of Canadians reaching out to their world. That is just as true in anti-poverty sentiment or small business innovation as it is in environmental stewardship.For whatever reason, the Liberal Party is having trouble connecting with that rich resource of individual dynamic and generosity. To get there, it must climb down from its perch of policy-mindedness and involve itself once more at the community level in ways that are empowering to the party. We need renewal, instead of always trying to offer it.As Nick Clegg, co-leader of Britain’s new coalition has put it: “David Cameron and I both understand that this government’s unifying realization is that power must be dispersed more fairly – from the Whitehall centre to communities; into the hands of patients, parents and pupils in our public services. In short, distributing power and opportunity to people rather than hoarding authority within government.”That is a remarkable statement, and the fact we are hearing little like it among Liberals today is a clear sign of our dilemma and inability to find our message and connect.