George Rebane

My belief tenets of the Educated Liberal (EL) received a thorough comment by an educated liberal friend and correspondent.  The 39 listed tenets were in two groups – the first 29 were derived from my own experience and people of a similar outlook, and the last ten were from G. Stone, a liberal law professor at the University of Chicago.  The latter were assessed as “factual” and my 29 were labeled as “pejorative caricatures” of the EL mind.  My friend is not a loner inhabiting some ideological extremum, but holds views shared by many (most?) ELs.  In the sequel I will assign him to that group.

First, I want to make sure that we all understand that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives do hold certain tenets of social philosophy in common – from the sound of the subject comment, one could presume that this intersection was empty.  Most certainly, all ideological camps seem to strive for the same objectives of a society blessed with health and well-being in an environment that serves to develop individual potential.  Given this understanding, I take Stone’s tenets to task as being, perhaps, necessary to characterize the EL, but by no means sufficient as grist for an understanding of, let alone for a debate on, the distinguishing differences between the three points – liberal, libertarian, conservative – on the political spectrum. 

For the non-technical reader I introduce the term ‘discriminant’ (from the field of pattern recognition) as an added requirement for a worthy ideological tenet.  A discriminant is a specific attribute shared by two sets of things.  We wish to separate or identify the members of each set by using some value of a useful discriminant as a threshold.  For instance to predict whether a randomly selected male is a member of an NBA team, one could use height as a simple discriminant to cleave the population of males.  Short guys – say, under six feet – don’t usually play in the NBA.  Another discriminant to cleave the then surviving set of tall men could be race – ‘white guys can’t jump’ and all that.  You get the idea how such discriminants can be used to pare down the survivors to a group of men most of whom would be on a NBA team.   We note that discriminants don’t have to  be perfect to be useful – every man with a PSA reading for prostate cancer has been told that by his physician.  I would not be surprised if ‘discriminant’ also finds its way into our everyday non-technical conversation.  Recall that terms like ‘feedback’ (control theory), ‘in the loop’ (control theory), ‘short circuit’ (circuit theory) and ‘on line’ or ‘online’ (network theory) are no longer just the jargon of engineers.

So now, let me critique Stone (the numbers refer to the list in The Educated Liberal) and be specific why these tenets, and others like them, are not adequate discriminants for a serious discussion about separating out EL beliefs.

30. “Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism.” [G. Stone]

This, of course, is also at the very heart of the beliefs of today’s educated libertarians and conservatives (ELC) who trace their pedigree to the educated liberals of the first half of the 19th century.  The 20th century co-opting of the ‘liberal’ moniker is another story well covered elsewhere.  (I am a bit distressed that in these discussions the EL continues to lump all – educated and ignorant – in the opposite camps into one group without differentiation.  The ELCs seem not to be so hindered, but do raise the ire of the ELs by referring to them as the ‘liberal elites’ who are definitely not from the rank and file of the unions and inner cities.)  As a discriminant, this tenet gets an F for Stone   

31. “Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.” [G.Stone]

This one highlights Stone’s overly generalized descriptives which we shall see throughout.  The ELC shares this same belief, although the difference is probably in what kinds of social policies are launched in the name of tolerance and respect since political correctness has now robbed the language of much of its ability to be used in discriminating and clear speech.  Again, Stone describes the EL at an ambiguous level that gives him both cover and comfort while implying that today’s ELC has a deficit of tolerance and respect for people who are different.  Again an F.

32. “Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.” [G. Stone]

This one is almost too lame to deserve comment.  Let’s just say that all educated members of a participative democracy believe that all members, regardless of education, have such rights and responsibilities.  Again an F.

33. “Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind.” [G. Stone]

It is almost perverse that Stone embraces this as a distinguishing attribute of the ELs whose public policies have restricted individual freedoms at least as much as those espoused by the ELCs.  But since the ELs do promote culture neutralizing acts – like voting without proof of citizenship – let’s give Stone a D- on this one.

34. “Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual.” [G. Stone]

Now here Stone gets at least one and a half out of three discriminants right.  ELCs share the ‘liberty’ (Bastiat Triangle and all that) at least equally with ELs.  The ELC does believe that government must safeguard equal opportunity but not equal outcome (and there is a difference).  Finally, the ELC firmly believes that government should not get into messing with such things as the dignity and self-esteem of individuals.  A solid ‘C’ for Stone on this one.

35. “Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.” [G. Stone]

The ELC believes that helping the less fortunate is a cultural aspect of social life, some cultures support it and others casually bypass those dying in the gutter.  In America culture-driven private giving to the less fortunate is historical and legendary worldwide.  The ELC believes that government can best help the less fortunate by sustaining an environment of wealth creation that lets the private sector both aid the less fortunate and enable them to be lifted from their misery.  Most certainly the ELC does not believe that our Constitution prescribes helping the less fortunate as a “fundamental responsibility” of our government.  Stone gets an A- on this. 

36. “Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.” [G. Stone]

Same comment as for #32.  ELCs constantly point out that this is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution.  No cigar for this one – F.

37. “Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties.” [G. Stone]

So do the ELCs since that is the penultimate avenue of redress – the ultimate being what the Founders wrote in as the Second Amendment.  Including “special” gets Stone a D.

38. “Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.” [G. Stone]

Absolutely in concordance with the ELCs as long as “liberalism” is defined in the classical sense which I doubt was Stone’s intent.  Therefore there may be a discriminating basis here, and he gets a C.

39. “Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values.” [G. Stone]

Now one may say that this one is beyond lame as a discriminant between any and all people of the left and right no matter their educational level.  But closer examination draws our attention to “unnecessarily”, which seems to imply that, at times, the EL does see the necessity to sacrifice constitutional values.  Given the existing record of such sacrifices, Stone gets a D.

The first 29 tenets in The Educated Liberal are meaty discriminants specific enough to go into the liberal literature, legislative record, and exhortations of liberal leaders, and either confirm them or, on the evidence, discard them.  I cannot take credit for discovering them since they were already mature before I was born.  These and additional liberal tenets have been the subject of numerous studies and policy papers issued from the intellectual conservative and libertarian brain-trusts such the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, and Cato Institute.

So here’s the test for a candidate tenet – liberal or conservative or libertarian – that seeks to serve as a discriminant.  Given an anonymous speech, bill, or social critique, can the application of the candidate tenet(s) serve to identify, with high likelihood, the ideological author of such an offering?  Stone’s cannot.  But I submit that the first 29 can. 

We cannot make progress with Stone, claiming that one side believes in sugar and spice and everything nice, while insinuating that the other side doesn’t.  In sum, it seems clear asserting that Stone’s tenets can serve as true discriminants in the right-left dialogue may be the real problem that sustains the current national debate to nowhere.