Hey, I just read Cc’s posts #142 an #146. He is claiming that three historical figures, whom I consider liberal, are really conservative! Holy cow! I think the great man is wrong…for the first time maybe.
To his credit, let me admit that life is complicated and so are people. No one is all one thing or another. But with the three he cites…I think he is twisting reality to make it fit into his worldview.
I believe he mistakenly labels Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr. as political conservatives [[in the way we now think of the word). But I could be wrong, maybe he was thinking of another Lincoln, another Douglass [[or maybe there is some great conservative with the last name Douglas), and another MLK [[possibly MLK, Jr.’s father before he had a son named after him)?
Please indulge me as I try to explain that to call these folks conservative, as I proudly use the word when I refer to myself as a Colbert Conservative, is a misuse of that proud term.
Abraham Lincoln was a great lover of the personal liberty. But it was the liberty of the slave and the average working man who he dearly cherished. Let me illustrate that with a few quotes:
“To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.” [[1847) Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln, later to become 16th President of the United States
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration.” Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States in his first message to Congress, December 3, 1861
As I read both quotes, Lincoln is implying that the government needs to side with labor against owners. And he is being consistent over time, implying that this was a core value of his! BTW his analysis of labor and capital in the second quote is pretty standard for the day. Adam Smith wrote something similar, but without the interpretation. Taken together, they imply that labor creates all wealth. Luckily for us Social Darwinists that capital has enough control of government that that kind of SOCIALISM hasn’t come to pass yet. .
“Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” Adam Smith, Scottish political economist and author of The Wealth of Nations
Then there is Frederick Douglass: BTW it is Frederick Douglass [[not Frederick Douglas). Here’s a Douglass quote showing is love of liberty.
“I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.” Frederick Douglass former slave, American abolitionist, editor, orator, author, statesman and reformer.
Now by running away he was depriving his Master of his property, and, if caught, would be sent back under Federal law [[Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution)…but he was preserving his freedom and at the same time depriving his Master of the liberty and freedom to unilaterally make decisions about Mr. Douglass’ quality of life as a slave.
Along the same theme of aiding the poor, the downtrodden, the little person here is Douglass commenting on what seems to be labor unions. I am on the other side of this kind of crazy talk. After all, Douglass is being consistent with the idea that “labor creates all wealth” and therefore is deserving of its “fair share” of the wealth it creates. That is an anathema to me as a Colbert Conservative.
“It is a great mistake for any class of laborers to isolate itself and thus weaken the bond of brotherhood between those on whom the burdens and hardship of labor [[fall). The fortunate ones of the Earth, who are abundant in land and money and know nothing of the anxious care and pinching poverty of the laboring classes, may be indifferent to the appeal to justice at this point, but the laboring classes cannot afford to be indifferent. What labor everywhere wants, what it ought to have, and will someday demand and receive, is an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. As the laborer becomes more intelligent he will develop what capital he already possesses --that is the power to organize and combine for its own protection.” Frederick Douglass, American Abolitionist, Orator, Labor Leader, and Statesman
Which brings us to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Again with the quotes:
“As I have said many times, and believe with all my heart, the coalition that can have the greatest impact in the struggle for human dignity here in America is that of the Negro and the forces of labor, because their fortunes are so closely intertwined.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter to the Amalgamated Laundry Workers, January 1962.
“The labor movement was the principal force that transformed misery and despair into hope and progress. Out of its bold struggles, economic and social reform gave birth to unemployment insurance, old age pensions, government relief for the destitute and above all new wage levels that meant not mere survival, but a tolerable life. The captains of industry did not lead this transformation; they resisted it until they were overcome.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1965
Judging by his words, Dr. King was a great lover of freedom and liberty. But whose? Now maybe Dr. King was saying that unions are not collectivist; and that they don’t use their collective power to redistribute wealth away from owners and to workers. Maybe he didn’t also sign onto the philosophy that “labor creates all wealth,” and therefore it’s only just that owners are forced to share it. Maybe he didn’t see the liberty and freedom of Negroes and employees as pushing up against the liberty and freedom of owners and a white-dominated class structure…but I think he did. So in my book Dr. King, like Lincoln and Douglass, was a liberal!
It’s just that, as with these other liberals, their assertion of liberty and freedom comes smack up against the property rights of others…the rich, the well-born, and the powerful. As a Social Darwinist, I am against this kind of “power to the people” philosophy espoused by the three people Cc mentions. I don’t know but maybe if Cc can’t see this liberalism, maybe I will have to reconsider my deep and abiding devotion to the Oracle of Conservatism on DY. Maybe I won’t be so awed by his many pearls of wisdom.
But I hope I am wrong, and he will give a detailed treatise on how I misinterpreted these men as liberals…but, alas, I doubt it.
Bookmarks