CLASSIC LIBERALISM

 

An essay on the aspects of ideologies that emerged in the Renaissance and exploited in the Romanticism era.

 

 

A lot of American Conservatives claim that in fact the Liberals ‘stole’ and falsified classic liberalism, which is basically a freedom philosophy, and is originally the Conservatives’ agenda. This piece will present things from quite a different point of view…

 

 

A phenomenal revival of Greek and Roman literature, the birth of concepts such as humanism and individualism, a new wave of literature, poetry, philosophy, a renewed look on theology and politics, the appreciation of Fine Arts outside the ritual cadre characterized the Renaissance. Now, let us please examine those phenomena under a magnifying glass of a kind you sure were not introduced to in college, let alone high school:

The early works of the Renaissance dealt mostly with the importance of studying, emphasizing ancient Greek and Roman arts (mainly poetry and literature) and that all people should have access to intellect and education, based on the idea that men are able to bear responsibilities, able to achieve goodness, and act rationally. This is a very short and simplified description of humanism. Though individualism emerged later, it is still worthy of being mentioned here: individualism was the philosophy pointing out the worth of the individual in the society, meaning that one should not be looked on as just one particle of a certain group or “class” but according to his own character, traits and talents. As a result of those philosophies, the Beaux Arts (Fine Arts) emerged. In the middle ages “Beaux Arts” per se did not exist as such: there were a lot of artistically valuable paintings and sculptures, however they all served to decorate churches or to depict sacred scenes to show or remind people of religious concepts or events related to religion. However, in the Renaissance sculptors and painters, as a result of the abovementioned philosophies, weren’t anymore confined to the borders of the church. Beauty became a value in itself. (Remember this sentence, because it is essential in order to understand this article).

From then on, beauty changed from a mean to an end. Though this mutation seems very subtle, it was the root of all further degenerations. The key to understanding this is looking at the development of this process, and the tremendous ramifications and implications it had later. In other words, until that time, arts weren’t an individual objective, but a vehicle to obtain an ulterior goal – usually to arouse and awaken ‘holy’ or ‘high’ emotions towards divinities, as most arts decorated churches or depicted saints and scriptural events. But in the Renaissance nothing but the artist’s aspirations motivated him to do his art. The only reason for the artwork to be created was the artist’s urge - or, in other words – desire to create it. What the thinkers of the Renaissance really wanted –probably not even fully consciously- was to legitimise man’s desires. No, not all desires, no, not totally, not openly and no, not immediately. But this is what it all boiled down to and eventually led to. Of course, this is a huge vulgarisation, as the Beaux Arts still had very strict rules, very high standards, but the core of the mater is that after all is said and done, after arts became entertainment – since they had no other objective than to procure joy – it means that in a certain sense entertainment for the mere sake of entertainment (= “l’art pour l’art”) became a value. This is what pushed the early Renaissance authors to develop their theories of humanism and individualism.

 

[The possible objection to this might be that the Renaissance ideas came much earlier than the Beaux Arts themselves, and the two things haven’t anything to do with each other. So let me please reveal a secret: I have the answer to the famous question of whether the chicken was first or the egg: it was the chicken. Think for a moment, and try to ask yourself: if you were to create a chicken, what would you create first, the chicken or the egg? In fact, giving this hint is already ‘cheating’, since one could always claim that by saying what I want to create already gives away that this thing is my objective. The chicken is the ‘finished product’ if so to speak. The chicken carries the ability to produce more chickens. The egg is just a vehicle; a transitory situation, and will eventually become a chicken. An egg can make only one chicken, but one chicken can lay or fertilize lots of eggs. In other words the egg is itself a chicken under a disguise, or the hidden, embryonic concept of the chicken.

Please pardon me in advance, but I will have to be somewhat vulgar in order to lead our investigation. I must explain this by a few very grotesque examples:

There is nothing wrong with eating. Eating is necessary to live, and to live is a duty and a responsibility (and not a human right, but that’s another story…) But eating only for the pleasure of eating is not right. There’s nothing wrong with sexual intercourse with the spouse. But sex solely for the pleasure is bad. Then the desire/urge leads to fornication, adultery, rape etc.  The mechanism is always the same – only the scale changes and determines whether a certain act is ‘wrong’, ‘unethical’, ‘bad’, ‘sin’ or ‘crime’. What blocks the fulfilment of all the desires is the mind’s ability to self-control. However, in order to activate self-control there must be defined borders, or what is wrong and right, what is allowed and what is forbidden. Once the border is taken away, nothing stands in desire’s way. But to determine where – or rather what – the border is, we need something to be based on. If we accept the Bible as a basis, it is all there. If we do not, we have to invent something on which we can rely to forbid Man to kill, steal, etc. However, the danger of such Kant-esque inventions is that they may always be revised, changed, or abolished by new ideas. This is the very reason that today universities openly teach that "morals" and the notions of "right" and "wrong" do not exist...

 Before accusing me of despotism, please let’s try to speculate on the essence of beauty –  I defy anyone to give a square definition to the notion ‘beauty’. One thing is certain: beauty does fulfil a certain urge in Man – this urge itself quite not so clear, (though practically speaking it can be seen as the basic Human urge to seek wholeness and completeness – the same urge that pushed people to great achievements and discoveries). Letting this urge to be satiated with sheer beauty, degenerates and degrades this great character inborn in Man from highest to the lowest: “letting it to be satiated by sheer beauty” is in other words entertainment, meaning that instead of directing this Great Urge to wholeness consciously and self-submissively (i.e. to follow predefined rules and not randomly to chose what seems to be right and good for oneself) to achieve wholeness, through a slow and smooth – but very sure – process, leads to an addiction to entertainment and finally to legitimise the fulfilment of human desires. Even though at this point only the finest, loftiest and most spiritual aspirations were allowed, and first only to the Artists (exposing the fine arts in near-prostitution way as in our days did not yet exist), had very strict rules and required very high standards, hard work and discipline, the principle – even if very subtly – was still the same: doing something for the mere reason that it is desired was legitimised. Then, as above said, only in very restricted areas, but soon this tendency degenerated to what we know today as the Romantic era and finally the Sex Pistols’ style degeneracy.]

 

 Already by the later phases of the Renaissance the artists became Artists, and soon were to be considered as demigods (But G-d was only a demi-Artist, since the world, after all, isn’t as perfect as the Mona Lisa or Brahms’ 4^th symphony…) The characteristics of Romanticism were the emphasis on very strong emotions, ideas of freedom and human rights, breaking away from accepted status-quos, attributing enormous importance and respect to arts and intellect, without emphasising on moral virtues at least to accompany them. The most repulsive ideas and obscenities were tolerated under the title of “Arts”. Arts became a legitimate excuse for all things formerly held as categorically bad  (even if not always de-facto observed). The Artist enjoyed a special status and could allow himself the most odious behaviour. 

Great thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (of whom Robespierre was a great admirer, but of course the Liberal educational system would never mention it to you…), Locke and Montesquieu led the march of the ‘Human rights’ and ‘freedom’ concepts. This philosophy was based on the idea that man was naturally free and man’s nature is basically good. The problem with this philosophy is that it can be positively interpreted only under certain circumstances: freedom is a value only when it lacks, and to say that man’s nature is basically good is an outright misconception, or half-truth. Man’s nature is basically not good, but Man possesses the ability to control his (bad) nature. But to control his nature Man must have a frame of disciple to which to stick. If this frame is taken away nothing prevails, and nothing stands in any desire’s way. All impulses, and consecutively actions, are being good or bad only depending on the ratio and context in which they are done. Love, hate, envy, compassion, hunger, sex, enjoying beauty, anger etc., cannot be looked upon as good or bad by themselves – it is good to love good people but it is bad to love criminals, it is good to eat but bad to be a glutton etc. Failing to understand and to apply this directly leads to the unleashing and legitimising of all urges, impulses and desires – which in fact is the modern Liberals’ agenda. The conclusion is, that without recognising G-d as a supreme power and obey His word – there is absolutely no rational reason to forbid any action of man – from Homosexuality to abortions to murder to robbery – since man is fundamentally free and fundamentally good. - consequently, his actions are also good and must be free...

Later in history, namely in the XIX^th century, when the humanism ideology became commonplace and every despot could hide himself behind the veil of being the world’s new saviour, and in the very name of liberty and the benefit of humanity were committed the worst genocides and dictatorships, as already discussed in the main article.

Hence, all Conservatives or right-wingers who claim to be the real carriers of classic liberalism’s banner should reconsider this attitude. Modern liberalism came - under all forms, including Communism, Nazism and Fascism – as a direct result of classic liberalism, only somewhat more developed or modified. When someone applies the philosophy of liberalism, he usually applies it to himself – he has the freedom, he has the right, and if he also has some power, his liberty becomes a hell for all those who stand in his way to fulfil his desires – or in other words his liberties, freedoms and rights. In the name of those values – which in reality only apply to him – he will oppress and annihilate all those who stand in his way. The principle is simple – if there is no supreme being above Man all regulations are senseless, and in this case any desire is to be fulfilled. Please meet Messrs Clinton, Arafat, Hitler, Peres, Ciaucescu and all their friends.

You don’t really believe me? So let’s take a good look at the works two great classic liberals, - both universally recognized as ‘morally conservative’ i.e. without the frivolous anti-establishment and unleashed hedonism of Byron and his likes, - Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe and Victor Hugo’s The Miserables:

Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe is a real classic in English literature. The author starts his book with a didactic introduction in the Normand invasion of the predominantly Saxon England, about the felling of oppression and humiliation of the Saxons, the Normands’ behaviour and the rivality between the two races. Through the book  though, Scott presents those wishing to preserve their national roots as prejudiced, unwilling to compromised and outdated. Those who wanted to accept the Normand domination as status-quo and reconcile the two peoples and forget the past – such as Ivanhoe himself, and king Richard – are the “good guys” who are presented as the sober and reasonable. At times the narrator, as well as some conversations, seems to be taken right out of mid-sixties socialist Eastern-European textbooks. Though Scott lived about five hundred years after the time of his novel, and the Saxon and Normand races are totally interwoven and inseparable, there is absolutely no reason to represent the elders of the time as almost-bigots and those who wished to preserve their national identity as prejudiced and outmoded. This already shows a certain corruption of the mind and willingness to “forget the past” for the benefit of an unwanted, imposed friendship and peace, instead of standing up for the invaded Saxons, which seems more like the right thing for them. Of course Scott did not paint it all smiles and honestly describes the Normand injustice and oppression, but his message was clearly favour of accepting the situation and assimilate the two nations. This was by no means an obsessive addiction to Multi-Culturalism, but the seed was sawn, and we’re now eating its bitter fruits.

 

Hugo in his world-famous “The Miserables” tells the story of Jean Valjean, a poor, exploited “working class” man pushed by famine and misery to theft, and from then on slides down the thorny path of criminality. This alone is bad enough: the vast majority of criminals do not steal out of hunger. This is pulling the wool over the eyes, and sanctifying one individual by vilifying society and the “establishment” for being what they are. Of course, the establishment has been proven more often than not to be oppressive and unjust, but it still does not require the rejection of the notion of establishment. Moreover, when those who reject the establishment become an establishment themselves, it usually becomes far worse than the overthrown one. Don’t you see Orwell’s Animal Farm in today’s USA?

But back to Hugo, after Valjean finished his term and arrives in town after a whole day’s travel on foot, he is expelled from all inns when the owners find out that he is a dangerous criminal just released from jail. The author then describes the protagonist’s agony and suffering – the evil society is so cruel to the angel who tripped once and his only wish is now to become a decent and honest man. Hmmmmm… Amnesty International comes to mind…  This theme comes back time and again in his work, with Cosette, the little orphan exploited by the evil capitalist innkeepers, the mother who sells her hair, her teeth and finally her body to support her daughter, and the born again Valjean, who became a saint, but when his new identity is unveiled the stubborn establishment still wants to bring him to court for his evasion from jail and so on. Hugo did not protect criminals, but he presented the whole story as the establishment trying to drown the poor individual in a harsh and inconsiderate way. And what converted Valjean was of course the priest’s unconditional and unlimited love for all human being. I know that it will be hard for Christians to accept this, but let’s face it: this doesn’t really work. If a thief breaks in your house and you give him your belongings as a gift – as the priest did for Valjean – it will encourage him to steal more. And honestly, I don’t want to be a burglar in Texas where everyone is a proud WASP Christian with a gun (not with unconditional love). If was to be a thief I’d go Multicultural New York, to steal from the rich Lexus Liberals who would make in their pants before they’d be able to reach for the phone and call 911, while I’d be far away with their silver and their gold…

So here is your Classic Liberalism on a plate of silver… Time for a change of heart?…