Is liberalism just a reaction to personal disempowerment

Great Debates
1

Back in my high school days, I had very strong liberal leanings. I was practically a socialist. I also had no income of my own, few friends, low social confidence, and a strong desire to have the whole world lavish its attention on me. I had been the kid that the others liked to beat up on in my Elementary School and early Jr. High School days. I blamed my unsuccessful romantic life on the “traditional” social taboos against sex, instead of on my own ineptitude with girls. I wanted to be free to follow my creative talents where they took me, to further the Advancement of the Human Race [TM], without having to worry about “making a living” or getting stuck in this “rat race” I kept hearing ominous things about.

Many, many years later, when my liberalism had turned to libertarianism (I still like the idea of more sex :slight_smile: ), I started to put 2 and 2 together as to why I, and perhaps a heck of a lot of others, were drawn toward liberalism in the first place:

What crowd has the highest concentration of liberals? High school and undergraduate college students.

What is the economic status of this crowd? Many, if not most, of them are supported almost entirely by their parents.

What is the most obvious economic tenet of modern liberalism? Equal wealth for all. Achieved, perhaps, via a “Robin Hood” system of taxation that takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

What are some of the other obvious tenets of modern liberalism? Sexual freedom and the elimination of violence.

It is almost as though, on a basic, animalistic level, a liberal is saying “Give me wealth, give me sex, and stop hitting me.” I know I was sure as hell saying those things. (Of course, I didn’t come right out and say those things; I convinced myself that my motives were for the good of all. This had the added advantage of allowing me to feel that I “cared” for others far more than those icky old Establishment types did.)

In short, it seems that the thing that draws one to liberalism is that it offers a cure for you own disempowerment. You no longer need to feel inferior to those with greater wealth, because their wealth will be distributed to all (including you) equally. You no longer have to lose opportunities to get laid, because it’ll be more socially acceptable. You no longer have to live in fear of being bullied or beaten up by the bigger kids, because they will be brought up in such a way that they don’t feel inclined to bully you in the first place.

So … is there any substance to this little hypothesis of mine? Have other writers/philosophers thought of “liberalism = reaction to personal disempowerment” too? (I’m sure someone else must have written about this by now, since it seems so obvious to me.)

2

I was a lot more liberal during my freshman and sophomore years of college than I am now. I still lean toward the left, but perhaps that will change if/when I become rich and successful. I hope not.

Liberalism did not appeal to me because I was disempowered. In fact, I’ve always led a happy and uneventful life in which money was not a great concern. Don’t forget, there’s a whole class of well-to-do and high profile liberals (also known as Guilty Liberals) who don’t appear do be particularly downtrodden or oppressed. Perhaps, as their namesake suggests, they feel guilty about their success and take up causes associated with the less fortunate members of society to alleviate their consciences.

As for me, liberalism appeals to my sense of social justice. As naive as it may sound, I really want the world to be a fair place for all human beings. It also seems to me that liberalism is a bit more rationally founded than conservatism, which tends to base policy on more emotional “knee-jerk” reactions than on evidence of success or failure. Since rationality appeals to my type of personality, I just naturally gravitate toward liberal philosophy.

  • JB
3

I have a really sound theory of my own on this one, actually…

Liberalism calls for an immediate and short-term cure for society’s ills… accept everyone, no matter what kind of disorder it may cause later… do what feels good, even if it can cause irresponsibility later… it also likes to try new things to see if it’ll work better than the current system.

Conservatism likes to stick with “tried-and-true” method, doesn’t like to rock the boat, and goes with programs that’ll seem like a waste now, but will pay out BIG in thirty years. It doesn’t want to change anything, since there’s a good chance that the change may be for the worse.

There are times for liberalism and times for conservatism.

Going by this idea, you can see how liberalism is more appealing to people who demand immediate gratification. Gun violence is up, so ban the guns… they’re the immediate problem. Women want abortions… let them, it’ll screw them up mentally to force them to go through childbirth. People wanna be gay… let 'em, it makes them feel good and righ. Get the picture?

I’m not saying that I, personally, am against liberalism… I’m just against mindless liberalism (and mindless conservatism, at that), where a person goes along with an issue just because a bunch of other “authority” figures for their particular political leanings agree with that issue.

Anyway, I’ve said more than my share. Any other ideas? (By the way, Tracer, that’s a nice thought in the OP).

4

Perhaps you are correct.

Or perhaps the students you mention are simply less educated and therefore better equiped to think about society.
Let’s see what James Loewen has to say about this in Lies My Teacher Told Me:

Perhaps tracer, you were thinking more clearly in your younger days. Before you “learned” better.

5

junebeetle:

What do you mean by rational? What do liberal ideas lead to? Socialism, which doesn’t work. Which wastes resources and destroys an economy. After having seen it tried and failed time and again, liberals want to “tweak” it, to just have “a little” socialism, not enough to ruin everything, but enough to make everything worse.

This is rational?

-VM

6

2 sense… what are you on?:slight_smile: I want some of it.

“Socialist leaders such as Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung vastly extended schooling in Cuba and China in part because they knew that an educated people is a socialized populace and a bulwark of allegiance”

socalist leaders such as fidel castro and mao tse-tung also put anyone who dissagree with them in prison or kill them

for me i totally agree with the idea of everyone having equal wealth and such. I also have no idea how to do it and neither does anyone else. So untill the idea of equal wealth doesent actually just make everyone lose money i wont support it.

7

I dunno. I was a social democrat long before I left my parents’ house; before I even knew I was gay, for that matter.

8

2sense quoted James Loewen as having written:

One thing I discovered as I learned more and more about American history was that every time an “obvious” solution to a social ill was tried, many inobvious, negative consequences cropped up in its wake. Prohibition was a glaring example of this: we tried to cure widespread alcohol addiction by outlawing alcohol, and all it did was push alcohol consumption underground. But other, less glaring examples exist.

My American history education in no way avoided the roots of Vietnam, inequality caused by the monopolistic practices of the late 19th century, the changing role of women, or other historically-rooted modern conditions perceived to be problems. This was not to say that I hadn’t already made up my own mind as to what all the causes of society’s ills were before I ever stepped into a high school history classroom – I was absolutely sure my opinions were right. In fact, the less I knew about a particular topic, the more strongly I held to my opinions in it.

2sense wrote:

Ohhhhhh … I don’t think so. Partly because my signature says:

9

I would respectfully disagree with this hypothesis. I recently read in the San Francisco Chronicle that 36% of adult Bay Area residents are college graduates, considerably above the national average; the article was in comparison to the number in Los Angeles, where 18% of people are college graduates. (I’ll cite find the cite if anyone wants it.) It is also the most politically liberal metropolitan area in the US. Is this just a coincidence? I think the word “affluent” is really the key in the quoted statement. A higher education is not the same as a six-figure salary.

I’m liberal because that is the way I was raised. My parents were once considerably more to the left than they are now, but they’re still left-of-center. I cannot imagine changing my political views as I get older and am more independent and empowered in this society (for the record, I am 21 years old). In fact, I hardly feel unempowered now. I have a bachelor’s degree, I work, I pay attention to political and national issues, and I vote.

10

I am an admirer of your sig. And I agree with your position on obvious solutions. I believe that Dr. Loewen is saying that the social enviroment of education itself socializes people.

Asmodean:

The quote from James Loewen does not indicate an admiration of Castro and Tse-tung other than than to acknowledge their understanding of the social principle that is being discussed. As for me, I can claim only the lingering influence of caffine, unfortunatly.

Kyla:

The quote in question refers to the entire country, not just the Bay Area. I would be interested in any national statistics that cast doubt on this assertion; however, since educated people tend to be more wealthy, I am not certain how 1 would determine the causality.

11

I have to disagree with your hypothesis, tracer, mainly because of my own experience. I had about the same high school experiences you did, it sounds like, but I was a conservative. I was fully as “disempowered” (I really hate that word) as you, but that didn’t make liberalism attractive to me.

Later, I discarded much of conservatism for libertarianism–which I felt was much more internally consistent. (It amounts to, if I’m gonna insist on freedom for myself, I’d better be prepared to insist on it for everybody.)

I fully agree with what you say about sex, however. More sex!

12

Obviously. My point was that this is an area that has a population both more educated and wealthier (check out Bay Area housing prices if you don’t believe me) than the national average, and is extremely politically liberal. This seems to contradict Dr. Loewen’s hypothesis. If I misunderstand your statement, apologies.

13

My reasoning behind my statement about the national scope of the hypothesis is that I have heard that San Fransisco is a special place. I have never visited but my father spent part of his childhood there and has many fine memories. He goes there on occasion and is in love with the area. I do not know the causes of the social enviroment that you live in, but you can’t help but notice that the rest of the country is different.
I would think that the Bay Area is more than balanced out by other “special” areas such as Dallas.

( Gratuitous Texas insult included for humor value only. )

14

…rather than trying to score cheap points by characterizing the other side of the ideological divide?

Just wondering.

I’d been a centrist for a pretty long time when I suddenly moved to the left when I was just shy of 40. The cause, as best as I can figure, was overhearing the econ lectures of a free-market fundamentalist* who taught across the hall from my office three times a week. My inner mental critique of free-market fundamentalism wound up observing a lot more problems (in my thinking, at least) with the free market than I would have originally expected.

These days, the wife and I are doing quite nicely, thank you; we hardly feel disempowered. But the insights about how society works, or fails to, that I had as a result of listening to Mark’s lectures, seem just as true now as they were then; if anything, the picture keeps getting clearer, IMO. So while I don’t know what holds true for most people, the model of disempowerment --> liberalism doesn’t seem to apply here.

  • ‘Free-market fundamentalism’ is a term used to describe the view that government’s responsibilities should be far more minimal than even most conservatives publicly advocate, frequently to the extent of urging that construction and operation of roads should be handled by private interests.
15

I’m no fan of socialism myself, Smartass, so I can’t exactly disagree with you. I suppose I could argue that libertarian ideas lead to anarchy, which also doesn’t work, but I don’t believe that most reasonable libertarians advocate anarchy — just as most reasonable liberals (in the U.S. anyway) don’t advocate socialism or communism.

  • JB
16

junebeetle:

The difference between libertarianism and anarchy is fundamental: The core of libertarianism is the protection of individual rights. Libertarians generally beieve that government is required in order to achieve this protection.

The difference between the goals of most liberals and socialists is only one of degree. Socialists want the government in charge of all resources. Liberals are willing to allow me some of my earnings, with government just allocating a “small portion”. The problem is, with liberals maintaining a big influence on government, this portion keeps getting smaller and smaller.

-VM

17

I think it is to some degree a matter of interest and perspectives. When you are young, you tend to see the preponderance of problems in the world and are taken with the notion that they might be solved by good-hearted people like yourself.

As you get older, you begin to realise what a miracle it is that things aren’t a lot worse, and note that you wouldn’t trust youself too far with your friends’ money.

This doesn’t necessarily change your underlying values, though. I am still a leftie (in Australia the Liberal Party is the main party of the right) but since training as an economist I have a different view as to the causes of problems and a different view as to the likelihood of their being fixed by governments, lobby groups and markets.

Mind you, if your underlying view of what is just does change, it may be your wallet talking.

Oh, and at the risk of Smartass thinking I’m picking on him:

[quote]
The difference between the goals of most liberals and socialists is only one of degree. Socialists want the government in charge of all resources. Liberals are willing to allow me some of my earnings, with government just allocating a “small portion”. The problem is, with liberals maintaining a big influence on government, this portion keeps getting smaller and smaller.**
One might say: “The difference between libertarians and socialist is a matter of degree: libertarians are willing to allow state intervention to pursue some social goals.”

The growth of government has slowed a lot. In many countries (mine for example) it has fallen as a proportion of GDP, both since the 1970s and since the 80s. You wouldn’t be claiming that citizens in advanced countries have less private income to spend compared to 10/ 30/ 50 years ago, would you?

picmr

18

picmr:

Yep, like cancer. Sometimes it grows fast; sometimes it grows slow. But it always grows.

-VM

19

Liberalism DOES serve as an escape for people who are “disempowered”, as Tracer has said. If you’re in a slump, it’s much easier to demand that everyone else change to make your life easier than to change yourself to make your own life easier.

Now, 'fore all the liberals out there pounce on me and flay me alive, I just want to mention that that’s hardly what I see liberalism as (read my original reply in this thread, WAAAAY up at the top). But to a lot of lazy teens, they see liberalism as a loophole, a reason to complain since “Government empowers everyone except me”. Is that the case for everyone? Of course not. But think of it this way… if you’re young, dumb, and ugly (thanks, Mr. Yankovic), and don’t wanna do anything except have fun, which ideal would suit you more… “Work your ass off and get ahead,” or “Everyone should share everything, man… there shouldn’t be any rich people, there shouldn’t be any poor people… we’re all equal, man…”

Another thing to think about is this: When you’re young, you’re just starting out with your life. Generally, kids see a long road ahead by participating in the rat race. Do they want to get involved with that? No, it’s boring and pointless (read “Death of a Salesman”). But if there was some way to get ahead without doing all that nasty work, SO MUCH THE BETTER! But if you’ve already established yourself in the working order of the world, you’d be very hesitant to change it… after all, it’s what you’ve done your whole life, and it’s what you’d know.

20

libertarianism, in its pure form, has never been tried, per se, and will not work, as it depends on Humans not acting like Humans. The closest thing we have had to a Libertarian gov’t, is Beirut/Lebanon which is run by groups of strongmen & armed gangs. That is what would happen if “libertarianism” was actually tried in the real world. It does sound nice, and “less government” could work, but in it’s pure form it simply can’t work.