Right Reason

The People's William

 

I think that the principle of the Conservative Party is jealousy of liberty and of the people, only qualified by fear; but I think the principle of the Liberal Party is trust in the people, only qualified by prudence.

-William Gladstone

 

From his ardent opposition to imperialism to his efforts to abolish the income tax following the Crimean war, William Gladstone—the Grand Old Man—is a shining example of liberalism in practice. Although he frequently occupied 10 Downing Street, Gladstone’s career will always be remembered for time at the Exchequer, where he became an institution of British politics. Joseph Schumpeter described Gladstone’s vision of finance in his History of Economic Analysis: 

Gladstonian finance was the finance of the system of ‘natural liberty,’ laissez-faire, and free trade. From the social and economic vision that this implies—and which we must now understand historically, irrespective of all general arguments pro and con—the most important thing was to remove fiscal obstructions to private activity. And for this, in turn, it was necessary to keep public expenditures low. Retrenchment was the victorious slogan of the day and was even more popular with radicals—such as Joseph Hume, the ‘sleepless watchdog of finance’—than it was with either Whigs or Tories. Retrenchment means two things. First, it means reduction of the functions of the state to a minimum; this was referred to by later, especially German, critics, as the policy of the ‘night-watchman state’… Second, retrenchment means rationalization of the remaining functions of the state, which among other things implies as small a military establishment as possible (Schumpeter 1954: 403-404). 

One part of Gladstone’s political triumph that Schumpeter doesn’t focus on that I desire to touch on here was how he was seen as an opponent to privilege and an advocate of a society of equals. It’s difficult to think of a politician today of Gladstone’s beliefs—and William Gladstone was certainly a politician—receiving the epithet “The People’s William.” Today, the issues of the system of natural liberty, be they free trade or concern about the level of Federal spending, are all too often cast as the issues of those in power. 

  

Yet it doesn’t be so. At least not as I see it. The issues of such a society are concerned about the economic prosperity of everyone in society. Its about creating a society of equals who are all free to truck, barter and exchange amongst each other as equals. That goal necessitates minimizing the need for political superiors in society who can impose their fiat, for good or ill, upon others. As much as we may talk about governments acting for the good of the people, all power will be abused. Here, we see the system of natural liberty’s concern for everyone: It wants to put people in a position where they don’t have to live their lives in accordance with the desires of their political superiors.

Concern about inequality itself is all hoopla. Per se, inequality should mean nothing to people. Envy is not a virtue, nor should political discourse encourage it by implying that inequality is the artifice of those in power and that other people have to consent to other people being wealthy. That’s all nonsense. The pertinent issues are those etymologically baked into the word ‘privilege.’ 

Derived from the Latin words ‘privus’ and ‘lex’—‘private’ and ‘law.’ The proper notion of privilege is one based on citizens being raised above other citizens via coercive laws. One isn’t privileged by being born into wealth alone. One is privileged by being born into a noble family who, by law, can extract tax income from their peasants. Privilege contrary to the system of natural liberty is all around us today. Bankers are in a privileged position due to too-big-to-fail policies. Farmers are in a privileged position because of the subsidies they receive from the Federal Government. The list goes on and on. 

 

A contemporary People’s William would be an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism. Liberalism can be persuasive in the debate over inequality if it focuses on how crony capitalism creates vast patterns of inequality across the world. 

 

  

Bibliography

Schumpeter. Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Empire: What Is It Good For?

 

Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home.

-William Ewart Gladstone, 1879

 

In a recent article in The American Conservative, “Why Liberalism Means Empire”, Daniel McCarthy argues that the triumph of liberal democracy in the past two centuries have been made possible by the security context of the British Empire. Though liberalism may be a powerful idea, Mr. McCarthy argues that too many modern commentators on its history have forgotten its unique security context: English-speaking hegemony. As Mr. McCarthy writes: “‘liberal democracy’ turns out to be a synonym for “the attitudes and institutions of a world in which Anglo-American power is dominant.’”

Though I greatly enjoyed the article and his willingness to stare empire in the face without giving into the same litany of politically correct euphemisms that has become cliché, Mr. McCarthy over-argues his point. Like all commentators on history who have been enchanted by a single factor in the flow of events, Mr. McCarthy seeks to explain centuries of liberalism through a single story, that story being the security context given by empire. 

 

What escape’s McCarthy’s explanation is how liberalism mutated in Britain before the British Empire came to be. Importantly, the centuries from Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution remain unexplained. The empire which the Plantagenet kings held was a continental one largely unpopular among the English barons. The empire which the British held during the 17^th century was nothing like the imperial hegemony like McCarthy described following the Napoleonic Wars.

Mr. McCarthy forgets that both the Baron de Montesquieu and Voltaire had praised the English for being different than the rest of Europe. Though they were largely incorrect on why those differences existed, they praised the land as one of liberty and independence, free from the aristocratic ethos they saw across the continent. Such liberalism didn’t come from empire. It was already there. It may have been spread by empire, which it most certainly was, but empire wasn’t a cause of that idea, merely its means of promulgation. 

 

It’s in the United Kingdom’s relationship with continental Europe where Mr. McCarthy’s idea betray the liberal polity. He argues that what brought down the British Empire was “neither a loss of nerve nor utopian overextension, but the brute fact that Britain did not have the wherewithal to contain a united Germany forever.” A strong Germany could then battle the United Kingdom for control of the seas, and spell doom for the liberal Anglosphere, and Mr. McCarthy argues these facts necessitated that the British government join in the system of alliances that prevailed in Europe since Germany’s unification:

Sooner or later, Germany would upset the continent’s balance and challenge the Royal Navy’s supremacy on the seas. Britain was not, therefore, acting irrationally when it entered into alliances against Germany ahead of World War I: the British way of life depended on the empire, which in turn depended on maritime hegemony.

A Britain ready to fight Germany might win and preserve its world order; or it might lose. But a Britain unwilling to fight could only lose. 

In that last sentence, Mr. McCarthy is dead wrong. The Battle of Jutland showed that the Royal Navy was too much for the Kaiserliche Marine to handle. Even though the Germans would claim victory, the next time the Kaiserliche Marine would enter the North Sea en masse, it would be to enter interment at Scapa Flow. 

The historical evidence simply doesn’t illustrate a United Kingdom about to loose control of the seas to Germany; instead, it illustrates that Britannia continued to rule the war. So, the United Kingdom got itself drawn into a European war it had nothing to gain from, yet plenty to lose from. A Britain unwilling to fight could have sat on the sidelines confident that the Royal Navy protected her from German aggression. 

 

As Winston Churchill pointed out during his speech at Zurich University in 1946, in which he argued that Europe had to become the United States of Europe, the United Kingdom was not part of Europe politically. Instead, the British were politically part of its empire and the states that have grown out of that empire: 

There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. Why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?

A united Germany was bound to dominate Europe sooner or later. A liberal United Kingdom though could have gone on despite that fact, as it shall go on despite that fact today. By fighting in the Great War, though, the British government undermined liberty at home for no gains abroad, and only served to hurt not only its position in the world, but, more importantly, the prosperity of its people at home. 

 

We must remember that there is no such thing as ‘liberal empire.’ Every liberal empire must betray the natural system of liberty abroad which ensures liberty at home. The British Empire was important for exporting English-speaking peoples across the world, and for ensuring English-speaking hegemony today.  Still, the British Empire was force and fire which ruined people’s life, particularly foreigner’s life, as William Ewart Gladstone argued in opposing Disraeli’s imperial wars. The Zulus, he said, were slaughtered “for little other offence than their attempt to defend against your artillery with their naked bodies, their heaths and home, their wives and families…” and he called his audience to remember that “the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, among the winter snows, is as inviolable in the eyes of Almighty God as can be your own?”

We mustn’t delude ourselves into thinking that liberalism necessarily needs empire to flourish. Empire has been important for forming the liberal world we see before us today, but that doesn’t mean empire was a necessary condition or that empire will continue to be needed. Moreover, in the world we live, empire only serves to embitter the world against the English-speaking world which has been the standard bearer of liberalism, and to short circuit whatever gains which may have been made there for liberalism. 

The Foreign Policy of Freedom

From William Ewart Gladstone's speech at West Cader on November 7^th 1879 as part of his Midlothian Campaign against Prime Minister Disraeli's government:

And that sixth (principle of foreign policy) is, that in my opinion foreign policy, subject to all the limitations that I have described, the foreign policy of England should always be inspired by the love of freedom. There should be a sympathy with freedom, a desire to give it scope, founded not upon visionary ideas, but upon the long experience of many generations within the shores of this happy isle, that in freedom you lay the firmest foundations both of loyalty and order; the firmest foundations for the development of individual character, and the best provision for the happiness of the nation at large. 

 

It is tempting to think merely in terms of national interests when it comes to foreign policy. After all, each nation has a scarce amount of resources at its disposal and ought not its principle guiding force be to advance the interests of its citizens? However, once we go down the rabbit-hole of national-interest politics then where do we end? At what point must national interests be sacrificed in order not to violate the moral prescriptions of virtue and propriety? The cold truth, though, is that whenever we speak in terms of national interests, we have put moral concerns aside and have come to foreign affairs as merely a technical problem, with the end (i.e. the national interests) given with the question now being what means must be employed to achieve those ends most efficiently.

A moral foreign policy cannot be one dictated by mere national interests. They are certainly important, but no nation is well served by officials willing to sacrifice foreigners at the parochial altar of national interests because there is then the threat that those officials will then be willing to act similarly against their own citizens. Plus, in the uncertain world of foreign affairs, it is often unclear how to advance national interests: the lines between friend a foe blur, the data of each situation are unknown, and even the mission itself is not entirely known. What can be in the national interest a year ago may have turned out to be conditioned on a mistaken appraisals of intelligence. We must have recourse to general rules then and the only general rules that action should be informed by in government are the rules dictated by justice.

 

Along with those rules comes a deep devotion to human liberty. Sadly American foreign policy motivated by the very same love of freedom that Gladstone speaks about has lead to unnecessary interventions, entangling alliances and the squandering of resources. Whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya, the honest love of freedom, among other things, has too often lead the United States into no-win situations it is too proud to simply leave.

However, it need not be that way and to understand why it need not be that way, we must understand that freedom is not just an abstract state of affairs, but rather a fruit of a society of law. Too often those who advocate freedom, whether in Gladstone's era or our own, advocate it as if it is a idea removed from the institutional specifics of society, as if it is something that simply has to be accepted rather than cultivated by law. However, if we take the writings of men from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek to heart, what we must accept is that freedom is something that must emerge in each society by the proper functioning of laws. It is simply not something people can be liberated into for freedom without the rule of law will never sustain itself, but will collapse into chaos and faction.

A foreign policy of freedom, even though it is far more the claim of modern Libertarians than modern Conservatives, must still be a conservative foreign policy. The reason is that a free society does not simply come into being by the fiat of its rulers or by the fiat of foreign invaders, but by stable domestic institutions and by the rule of law. A tragic consideration that we must accept is that not all societies are ready to reap the fruits of liberty, whether this be for reason for a lack of the rule of law or maybe due to unstable institutions; liberty is as much a historical accident as conscious creation of the human mind. Any foreign policy that proclaims to be for freedom while at the same time destroying the institutions and rule of law that are its preconditions in foreign countries is no foreign policy of freedom, it is a foreign policy of tyranny which is bound to result from the conditions it causes in other countries.

 

A foreign policy of freedom must then be a policy of example and sympathy. It must be a policy of setting a virtuous and just example to other nations by showing how the conditions of freedom are a boon for the prosperity of the nation. It must be a policy of sympathy because no advocate for freedom within our modern and inter-connected world can stay silent as liberty in quashed in foreign parts of the world, but must be an active advocate willing to extend its sympathy across the world. However, prolonged engagements and entangling alliances do nothing to make possible the conditions of liberty in other countries, and as such they must be rejected.