Opening the Locke box

Chevreh, Reebyata, As part of my committment to open rubyjewsday to respectful discussion between myself and interlocutors in the Russian community and beyond, I have asked my friend Locke to respond to my posting about the late, great Boris Yeltsin. Locke has done that and more in a thoughtful article you can read after the jump. The author is a prominent member of the Russian community who prefers to post under the pseudonym Locke on this blog, so I honor his desire to remain anonymous while sharing with us some provocative ideas. Now class, please ponder his words well, because I will respond to him in several days and then there will be snap exam to see if you all have been paying attention.

I think I am a liberal. Really. I look on Wikipedia and I find the
following:

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies,
philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual
liberty.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment,
but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a
society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations
on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the
free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private
enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of
all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal
democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal
rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]"

So far so good. This is liberalism as seen by the original Locke, by
Presidents Jefferson and Washington and Lincoln and the first Roosevelt
from the Pro position, and by Governor Wallace and Senator Thurmond from
the Con. This is my liberalism. Affirmative action and school busing are
quite thoroughly anti-liberal: once you trample the rights of one concrete
individual in search of the nebulous concept of social justice, you
redefine liberalism into something it is not. You might say I have a
conservative view of liberalism: I want to conserve classical liberalism
that informed the idea of the land of opportunity. Social justice, the
keystone of "new liberalism", reminds me of a tailor who made all the
underwear with room for one testicle after proving, mathematically, that
that's how many the average American has.

Most traditionally "liberal" institutions have decidedly counter-liberal
effects. Labor unions limit upward mobility of their own members by
collective bargaining, and in union shops nonmembers need not apply.
Public schools inculcate political correctitude in much the same way by
much the same people who in the past burned heretics at the stake. Equal
Rights Amendment, a classic liberal idea, went down in flames because of
the dent it would have put in the huge advantage women have in such areas
as marital law, "rape shield" law, and domestic violence laws --
advantages promulgated by "new liberal" legislation. In socialized
medicine, the issue gets complicated further: the single biggest obstacle
to universal affordable quality care is -- surprize! -- individual
freedom: because it is also freedom to break your neck on a motorcycle,
acquire AIDS (or transmit it) by the myriad ways that can be done, or eat
yourself into a triple bypass. So a society that is serious about
universal health care will have to find some means to keep one
irresponsible individual from consuming the resources that would have paid
for thousands of vaccinations -- again, anathema to a classical liberal.

So here we come back to the Russian debacle. Was it a failure of
capitalism? I think not. Capitalism, in its purest sense, is private
ownership of means of production. Well, the late Soviet period was a time
of near-bankruptcy of the public ownership of means of production -- and
what kept it partly afloat was private CONTROL of means of production that
were nominally public. Privatization was a desperate attempt to forestall
the impending collapse of the entire national economy by infusing it with
individual responsibility, flexibility, accountability, motivation, drive,
courage, reward -- yes, freedom to succeed and its inseparable twin,
freedom to fail. The failure was a failure to recognize how much of the
above qualities were present in the Russian people -- and how concentrated
they were in how few individuals. It was a failure of the liberal idea
that every individual is sacred, doomed by the masses who saw themselves
as just that, masses, faceless herds shepherded by the few individuals
carrying the whip and the carrot v sil'nyx rukax. And what is the social
theory that gauges people according to what herd they belong to? Right.
Social liberalism. Don't think so? What do you think the Bakke case was
about? Has any "Womyn's" group ever lost a discrimination case? Do you
remember the way congressional districts got jerrymandered to screw Steve
Solarz out of his constituency? Remember Hymietown? All "new liberal"
creations; all milestones in the creation of a mob from former
individuals.

So here it is. Shortish, it ain't, but misunderstood it should not be.
Were I a wordsmith for a living it might scan better, but still and all,
not bad, I hope, for a second language.