The Hole in Liberal Philosophy

[This is a slightly updated essay I wrote last May that I thought might be interesting to this audience, though there may be some major disagreement with my thesis.]

I’ve touched on this before, but Hillary’s recent socialistic policy pronouncements brought it to mind again. Simply put, here is the question:

What is the destiny of the United States?

That is, what is the meaning of our nation’s existence? I believe that most conservatives and libertarians feel that there is, or at least there should be, such a meaning. Some find meaning via religion, some via technology and the expansion of human knowledge and achievement (my favorite), and some via the simple sense that their children will be better off than they were - able to see farther and do more than they ever could.

Reagan captured this sense of destiny and progress, which is why he is revered by the Right to this day.

But Liberals Don’t Buy It. The focus of the liberal agenda, however, leads me to the hypothesis that they don’t believe that there could be such a thing as a meaningful existence or a new millennium version of Manifest Destiny. They don't believe in a destiny or a greater purpose. Reexamining their agenda with that understanding sheds a light on many aspects which formerly seemed senseless.

For example, since there is no ultimate point to our nation’s existence, the liberal platform emphasizes social and economic justice - the leveling of the human experience so that all people can enjoy the same quality of life. In their view, all of our policy decisions should be directed toward social engineering to eliminate economic inequalities, nurture and protect the disadvantaged, and minimize the impact of Americans on the environment.

• While those on the Right believe that capitalism is the best economic vehicle to carry the country forward, those on the Left believe that there is nowhere for the country to go, so capitalism is simply a means of unjustly distributing wealth.
• While those on the Right believe in strong defense to protect our future, those on the Left believe that in an ideal future we should have nothing worth protecting.
• While those on the Right believe that our foreign policy should serve our national interests, those on the Left believe that it should serve humanity.

and,

• While those on the Right believe in individualism and small government as the best values to carry forward the American Dream, those on the Left believe that collaboration and government intervention are the best values for improving the human condition.

A Bad Metaphor. Let me compare the situation to a car. The Right is focused on getting to the destination, preferably first. The Left is concentrating on maintenance, keeping the car clean, and the condition of the other cars on the road.

It’s no wonder that the two factions find little but frustration in common. The Right just wants to go, go, go, trusting the car’s internal systems to keep it running, and hoping to outrun everybody else. The Left’s dream is a perfectly running car that is idling in its garage, with identical cars in identical condition running in identical garages throughout the neighborhood.

Now, the Right hasn’t done a great job of planning a route. In fact, given the current leadership, there is no real route at all - they’ve just got road fever. But the Left doesn’t believe that a route exists, which I think is a sad thing.

The Dems. This, in my opinion, is why the Democrats’ platform seems so weak and formless. Basically they have dozens of remedies for the human condition, but no national direction. Based on their responses to the their critics, I don’t think they even perceive that there could be a national direction.

And, of course, once you accept that there could be a purpose to our nation’s existence, it completely reprioritizes your values. Dangerous stuff.

The Punch Line. I’d like to think that conservatives acknowledge the need for a progressive element in the debate. We do need to be reminded to worry about injustice and global hunger, etc., and we should be more proactive with the environment.

But liberals need to think beyond the humanitarian and consider humanity, or at least Americans. What is the master plan? What is the point of raising generation after generation of people in a perfectly just society?

Wouldn’t you trade all that social justice for a place in the grand scheme of things?