Most Americans probably feel that the philosophy of liberalism is epitomized by the New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society policies of Lyndon Johnson. If we look only at the history of liberalism in this century this belief is certainly justified. If you look at the definition of liberalism in your dictionary you will find a definition that does not fit with the philosophy that we know as liberalism today. This is because the dictionary definition refers to classical liberalism, a political philosophy that originated, around the 16th century, in England. Over the next two centuries liberal political philosophy, refined and expanded by thinkers in Great Britain, acquired quite a few supporters in Britain and some in other European nations. By the last half of the 18th century the philosophy had nearly reached its ultimate stage of development and was more widely accepted in the British colonies in America than anywhere else in the world.
      At that time the original liberalism was, of course, called simply liberalism. Classical was added to the name much later to differentiate it from the liberalism we know today. Historians and others who deal with both philosophies sometimes denote the former as negative liberalism and the latter as positive liberalism. These terms are very appropriate since they carry a connotation of opposites and negative liberalism is, indeed, the antithesis of positive liberalism. I will examine classical liberalism later but first I want to examine the principles and characteristics of positive liberalism. In the interest of simplicity I will stipulate that throughout this book I will use the term liberalism to denote positive liberalism in accordance with the common usage of the term.
     Liberalism is essentially based on the belief that most of the problems of our society result from the greed or ignorance of a large part of the population and therefore the nation as a whole will benefit if the nation is governed by members of an elite class who are wiser than the bulk of the population. Liberal politicians and leaders portray themselves as members of this wise elite group and at the same time portray conservatives as opportunists who are anxious to benefit themselves at the expense of the people in general. Obviously the people can benefit from the wisdom of the liberals only if the decisions of individuals are supplanted by the decisions of the elite by means of the authority of the government. Thus, liberals constantly seek to extend the authority of the government over the actions of individuals.
        The mainstays of liberal philosophy are policies that are ostensibly intended to redistribute the wealth of the nation by appropriating money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. This method of gaining support from the populace by promising to redistribute wealth did not, by any means, originate with liberals but they have exploited it much more successfully than any group that used it previously. Their success is due to the sophisticated methods they have employed in exploiting it and these will be examined in later chapters.
        The liberal movement can be divided into three separate components. The first, and by far the largest, of these components consists of the ordinary Americans who provide the grass roots support of the movement, primarily by their votes but also through contributions of money and services. Some of these people support liberalism because they expect to profit personally from liberal policies, while others, and they are probably the majority of this group, support these policies because they feel these policies will benefit other people who, in their opinion, are deserving of benefits. I will term the whole of this group the manipulated.
        The second component consists of politicians, judges, educators, celebrities, and other prominent people who promote liberal policies. Some of these people, particularly among the celebrities, may support liberal policies because they are unaware of the true objectives of these policies. They differ from those in the manipulated class solely by virtue of the fact that, due to their prominence, they have the ability to deceive their fellow citizens even if they do so unwittingly. Most of the people in this group, especially the educators and those connected with the government, obviously do know that the actual objectives of liberal policies are not those that are publicly ascribed to them. They are blatantly attempting, very successfully, to deceive the American people. For this reason I will term this component of liberalism the manipulators.
        The third component of the liberal movement is a relative handful of very wealthy, very powerful, Americans who devise and promote the liberal agenda, sometimes in concert with their counterparts from other nations. These people make every effort to cloak their political actions and their political power in secrecy. The outward manifestation of their efforts is usually denoted the "Eastern Establishment." For my purposes I will term these people the planners.
        I realize that many people, having read the preceding three paragraphs, will be inclined to dismiss this characterization of the liberal movement as just another "conspiracy theory." Most of this book will be devoted to presenting the facts that have led me to this conclusion. To anyone who is inclined to dismiss my explanation as a "conspiracy theory" I offer a short quote from a book written by John Taylor that was published in 1814.

        I have said that it is obvious that the manipulators understand that the true objectives of liberal policies are not those that are publicly ascribed to them and if I am correct then it is also obvious that the manipulators are deliberately deceiving the American people. They could be motivated by nothing more than a desire to personally benefit from this deception or they might believe that the nation will benefit from the actual results of these policies. If there are those who hold the latter belief they might well feel that deceiving the voters is not only morally acceptable but could be considered a duty.
        Whatever their motivation the manipulators almost invariably promote these liberal policies by the time tested practice of appealing to emotions. Some group of Americans are painted as victims of other Americans or of forces beyond their control and a liberal policy is promoted as a solution to their problems. A rational analysis of the proposed policy will usually indicate that it is not likely to yield the results claimed for it by the promoters of it and an examination of the results of a liberal policy that has been implemented will almost invariably reveal that it has not done so. For this reason liberals eschew any attempt to justify the policy rationally and limit themselves to emotional appeals. Many liberals not only disdain rational consideration of the policies they promote but also resort to outright lies in their efforts to stir the emotions of the people. In later chapters I will offer numerous examples of such lies. Every liberal policy extends the authority of the government and thus limits the right of individuals to make their own choices regarding their own lives.
        Having explained, very briefly, the philosophy and the main characteristics of positive liberalism I will now offer a brief explanation of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is essentially based on two premises. The first is that every individual has a right to speak and act as he sees fit, provided that he does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. The second premise is that the only true function of government is to protect equally the life, liberty, and property of each of its citizens and that the performance of this function is the only justification for the existence of any government.
        Many of the early classical liberals did not favor democracy because they felt that the people, as a whole, lacked the wisdom to govern themselves or to choose those who would govern them. It may appear that, in this respect, these people resembled the supporters of positive liberalism but this resemblance is only superficial. Those classical liberals who opposed democracy felt that an elite class would be more likely to create and preserve a government that would perform only the proper functions of government and would thus allow to every individual the greatest freedom of choice. Positive liberals, on the other hand, believe that an elite class should make a great many of the choices that classical liberals would leave in the hands of individuals. Liberals in the English colonies in America were among the first to proclaim that self-government was, in fact, an integral part of liberal philosophy.
        If you read the Declaration of Independence carefully you will see that it attempted to elicit support for the struggle for independence by implying that success in this struggle would permit Americans to establish governments based on the principles of classical liberalism. The willingness of many Americans to risk their lives and make terrible sacrifices in the hope of winning their liberty is a sure indication that many of them believed strongly in the principles of classical liberalism. The single sentence from the Declaration of Independence quoted at the head of this chapter is essentially a very brief statement of the principles of classical liberalism. Among Americans of the 18th century and early 19th century there was a widespread belief that the Declaration of Independence was as much a part of the foundation of the United States as was the Constitution.
        In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson stated that all men are born equal, an idea that he almost certainly borrowed from the English liberal John Locke. Both of these men were very rational individuals so it is obvious that they did not believe that all men are equal in terms physical or mental powers let alone that life would provide them with equal opportunity. The equality of which they spoke is not an equality of results, or even equality of opportunity, but an equality before the law. Equality of opportunity is limited by certain laws of nature and human behavior which simply cannot be controlled. Classical liberalism is based on the belief that a government should treat each of its citizens in exactly the same way regardless of their station in life and should promote equality of opportunity within the limitations previously mentioned. This can only be done if the government recognizes that every individual is responsible for his own behavior. If a society accepts the premise that the behavior of an individual is entirely determined by the circumstances of his life then obviously no individual can be justly punished for any type of behavior and in this society a government cannot even attempt to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.
        This is not to say that one who subscribes to the principles of classical liberalism cannot be swayed by compassion. A belief that all men are created equal unquestionably implies a belief that equality of opportunity would be a desirable state of affairs. It is equally obvious that creating equality of opportunity is, and always will be, beyond the ability of any institution of society. A classical liberal believes, therefore, that the sole function of government, as the ultimate societal institution, should be the equal protection of the natural rights of each of its members. Because he believes that equality of opportunity and the amelioration of human suffering are desirable goals he will support the creation and operation of voluntary organizations outside of government that are devoted to these goals. In the early days of the U.S. many Americans believed strongly in the principles of classical liberalism and when Toqueville toured the nation in the 1820s he was impressed by the number of voluntary organizations Americans had created to deal with societal problems of all types. In extreme cases classical liberalism will agree that equal treatment before the law can be unjust. An individual who is insane is obviously not responsible for his actions. If a society makes no effort to provide the necessities of life for the indigent part of its population there may well be instances where the theft of food cannot be justly condemned.
        After the Revolutionary War those Americans who wanted a government based on the principles of classical liberalism were opposed by others who preferred to see an American government modelled after the English government. Alexander Hamilton was the foremost exponent of the latter view. These opponents of liberalism were known as elitists, authoritarians, or, less politely, as reactionaries. They preferred a government controlled by an elite class that would impose their wisdom on the behaviour of the people and would be financially rewarded by the government for their efforts.
        Thus, it is obvious that the liberals of today share many of the beliefs of the elitists of two centuries ago. The opponents of liberalism today are known as conservatives and they share some of the beliefs of the classical liberals. The following is a very brief explanation of the way in which this reversal of terms came about.
        At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Hamilton proposed a constitution that would have established the type of government he preferred. This was promptly rejected and the Constitution in its final form was essentially a blueprint for a democratic republic. During the administration of George Washington, Hamilton and his followers, who later formed the Federalist party, began attempting to establish a de facto government of the type they desired by distorting and ignoring the Constitution. The Federalist party faded out of the picture early in the 19th century but the Hamiltonians continued their efforts throughout the 19th century. They were very successful and some of them amassed huge fortunes by the end of the 19th century, primarily by manipulating the government to their advantage, usually through outright bribery.
        One result of their success was that by the end of the 19th century the principles of classical liberalism were ignored in the political process and virtually unknown to most Americans. Prominent Americans publicly paid lip service to the ideals of classical liberalism but they were largely ignored in the operation of the government. In the late 19th century many Americans were attracted to socialist ideas and about the same time a few of the wealthiest Hamiltonians adopted some more ambitious objectives and developed an agenda intended to gain for them political and economic control of the entire world. These people were the original planners. They realized that they shared with the socialists a desire to increase the authority of the federal government. For this reason they began to assist the numerous left wing political movements and out of this cooperation modern liberalism was born. Most Americans today are unaware of the involvement of some of the wealthiest Americans in the socialist, or progressive movement, of this century. This is not so strange in view of the fact that the planners tried to conceal their support of the political left, while the socialists invariably preached a litany of class hatred toward the wealthy and proposed to appropriate their wealth.
        The socialists proposed to do this by increasing the authority of the government, and the planners, confident of their own ability to maintain control over the government, gave them their wholehearted assistance. Government authority was thus tantamount to the authority of the planners. With the exception of the masters, the Hamiltonians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries feared socialism and opposed it bitterly. The planners also publicly opposed socialism, not because they feared it but because public opposition to it made it easier to conceal the fact that they were promoting it.
        The socialist movement, which was more commonly called the progressive movement, was eventually labelled the liberal movement because most Americans did not like the socialist name even though many of them staunchly supported policies that were by, definition, socialist. Thus the name liberal came to be applied to a political philosophy that is essentially the opposite of classical liberalism.
        The political philosophy that stands in opposition to liberalism today is called conservatism. As I have pointed out above the name liberal, when applied to the philosophy we know by that name, is an anomaly but the term conservatism is quite accurate. Basically conservatives believe in the type of government that existed in the 19th century. I do not mean that they favored the corruption that existed at that time but rather that they favor the limited involvement of government in the daily life of the nation that they perceive to have existed at that time. Liberals often accuse conservatives of being obstructionists who oppose liberal policies but offer no alternatives. Because conservatives believe in a minimum of government intervention in the lives of individuals there is a great deal of truth in that contention. The conservative philosophy of today is not, however, identical to the classical liberalism of two centuries ago. The Hamiltonians of the late 19th century protested very loudly that the socialist agenda of that time was a repudiation of traditional American values, especially the premise that the government should not interfere with the economy, but they ignored the fact that they had reaped, and were reaping, large profits from the involvement of government in the economy. On the whole, the conservative movement of today ignores this fact as doggedly as the 19th century Hamiltonians did.
        The manipulation of the government by the Hamiltonians had by the end of the 19th century distorted the U.S. economy and given them the ability to claim a share of the nation's total production of wealth that was out of all proportion to their contribution to the production of that wealth. This, of course, is exactly the contention of the socialists. The socialists contend that this is a natural result of the capitalist system but, as I will explain in later chapters, they are absolutely wrong in this contention. The situation in the 19th century did not result from the capitalist system but rather from the manipulation of government and corporations and should be recognized as a de facto form of fascism. The solution proposed by socialism and liberalism, which is simply another name for socialism, can only worsen the situation. Their solution, of course, is a continual increase in the control exercised by the government over every aspect of our lives.
        A government dedicated to the principles of classical liberalism was the proper solution to the problems of the 19th century and it is the only solution to the problems we face today. Obviously we will never see a government that actually protects equally the life, liberty, and property of each of its citizens. In this sense classical liberalism could be considered a utopian concept and the same is true of socialism. But a government based on classical liberal principles will result in the greatest amount of personal freedom and prosperity that it is possible for the nation to realize.
        The government of the United States has never been a government dedicated to the principles of classical liberalism but it probably came closer to it from 1788 to the end of Jefferson,s administration, in 1809, than it ever has since and also came closer to it than any other nation has before or after that time.
        A government based on the principles of classical liberalism today would be much different than that of the period from 1788 to 1809. Because of the increase in population and technological advances such a government today would necessarily be much larger and would be involved in many more aspects of our daily lives than that government was.
        The difference between such a government and our current government would be that it would measure every policy against the standard of protecting equally the life, liberty, and property of each of its citizens and would confine itself to those activities that are proper to it under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If a government action that is not authorized by the Constitution is deemed desirable and also consistent with classical principles such a government would not take that action until the Constitution had been amended to permit it.
        At the present time most Americans consider themselves to be liberals or conservatives or something in between. The liberals favor an ever increasing amount of government control over the lives of individuals for the purpose of limiting inequality.
        Conservatives favor less government authority, a smaller government, and lower taxes. Conservatives will often believe that corporations are entitled to the same rights under the law as are individuals. Conservatives usually feel that our economy is essentially a free enterprise economy except for some of the government regulation of it that has been instituted in this century.
        Classical liberalism, as previously stated, is the antithesis of modern liberalism. On the other hand a classical liberal will not, by any means, agree completely with present day conservatism. A classical liberal will not concede to corporations the same rights that he believes to be the natural rights of man. He will not believe that the economy of our nation is a true free enterprise system now, or that it was such in 1900. A classical liberal will believe that the only true function of government is to protect equally the life, liberty, and property of each of its citizens and that every act of government should be measured against that standard and not the benefit it will bestow on any faction.
        A government like this will probably never actually exist but the closer we come to having such a government the better it will be for the people of the United States. In the final chapter of this book I will explain a proposal by which the people of the United States might be able to establish such a government.