The argument that liberal civilization is fundamentally flawed and necessarily brings about multiple evils is almost as old as liberalism itself.

The first prominent advocate of this position was 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose musings have recently been revived by some in the environmental movement who see an opportunity, during the current “climate change” panic, to overturn centuries of progress toward liberalism and markets.

No Exaggeration

This can hardly be exaggerated. My conclusion becomes obvious when we review the statements made over the years by the green movement’s most influential thinkers and leaders. It’s also doubtful that the publication of the infamous “Climategate” e-mails, hacked from the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) or the United Nation’s Himalayan glacier scandal will change this; the desire to attack markets and liberalism runs too deep.

The response of the alarmist community to these stunning revelations that undermine the case for catastrophic climate change is to simply carry on as though nothing has happened. But why have alarmists ignored the new evidence? Why aren’t they at least a little bit relieved by news that the climate crisis they warn of may not materialize?

The answer to this question is suggested by a remark made by Al Gore the day his Nobel Peace Prize win was announced. “It [climate change] is the most dangerous challenge we’ve ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes.”

Van Jones, a prominent American environmentalist and a former adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, hinted at the nature of this “opportunity” during a speech in 2009, in which he stated, “This movement is deeper than a solar panel. No, we’re going to change the whole system. We want a new system.”

Jones makes clear the “system” in question is liberal capitalism. He goes on to suggest that, unless the underlying disease of our “system”—the overconsumption and greed of liberal civilization—is addressed, solving climate change will do little good, as new symptoms will arise to take its place.

Why have climate change alarmists ignored the new evidence?

The purpose of the liberal project, as stated by Francis Bacon, was to “relieve man’s estate” through scientific progress and economic growth. But many modern greens find their inspiration in Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, in contrast to Bacon, argued classical liberalism made human life miserable by releasing an unnatural and destructive desire for power and wealth. Rousseau argued that, far from relieving man’s estate, classical liberalism created violent competition between men leading to war, overconsumption, and environmental problems.

Descendants of Rousseau such as Van Jones hope that public concern over environmentalism will provide a “teaching moment” in which others will see the damage wrought by our supposedly evil “system” of market liberalism and join them in demanding comprehensive change. This is the “opportunity” that climate change presents in the minds of these activists.

Examples of green activists who seek to use the green movement to achieve broader objectives abound. Bill McKibben, a prominent activist, wrote in 2007 that we shouldn’t fear the economic consequences of rapidly reducing carbon emissions because such reductions will “Change [life] for the better, as we learn once more to rely on those around us.”

To paraphrase, McKibben thinks emission reductions will be beneficial to us whether or not climate change exists at all because such reductions will restore a lost sense of community to our lives.

Spiritual Energy Unleashed

Al Gore may have the most ambitious goals of all. In a speech given immediately after Hurricane Katrina, Gore complained that our society is lacking in “moral health” because so many people waste their time following the trivial “sound-and-light show” of popular culture. But, by taking aggressive, drastic, and self-sacrificial actions to fight climate change, Gore suggests we can unleash a spiritual energy that will restore a sense of meaning and purpose to modern life.

Gore believes we have much to gain spiritually from taking extreme, self-sacrificing measures to combat climate change. It is therefore unsurprising that he is hostile to any suggestion that such sacrifices may be unnecessary.

However, for those of us who are interested in more prosaic concerns such as the improvement of human life in physical and material terms, the recent wave of scandals in the climate science community should be taken seriously. Carbon reduction plans are expensive, and take away resources that could be used to directly benefit people in need. We should insist that such policies be enacted only when they are backed by disinterested scientific research, and supported by sound, honest cost-benefit analysis.

Ben Eisen is a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author of Opportunism and Exploitation: Climate Change Activism and Hostility to Liberal Civilization—an analysis of selected green rhetoric, available at www.fcpp.org. Copyright Troy Media Corporation.

During the past few years there was considerable unity among those of us with a wide variety of beliefs in opposing the reactionary policies of the Republican Party. Labels of liberal and conservative have become partially redefined by where one stands on the Iraq War and a handful of social issues, with economics, which used to be a primary distinction, no longer being as significant. Patricia Cohen tackles the question of what liberalism now means in The New York Times.

Political labels are necessary in political discussion but have many faults. They frequently lump people together who have quite disparate beliefs, and can even separate those who are in agreement on many issues. The right has become particularly skilled at using labels as weapons, as they redefine liberalism to be something derogatory and define conservativism to mean something quite different from what has been practiced when conservatives have been in power.

Recently I’ve discussed more what liberals are not than what they are. In April I wrote that the characteristics of liberals described by John Hawkins has no relationship to my actual views. I dismissed George Will’s description of liberals more recently.

Cohen’s attempts to find a definition for liberalism is complicated by the fact that attempts to divide most opinions outside of the extremes as liberal or conservative will lump many people together with diverse views. While I can define what liberalism means to me, there may be others who define their views in a very different manner.

Liberalism stems from liberty, and above all else liberalism stands for individual liberty. Therefore liberals are united in opposing the violations of civil liberties seen under the Republicans who believe that the Bill of Rights is limited to the Second Amendment and see the American Civil Liberties Union as their enemy. Liberals defend both the basic liberties defended by the founding fathers, and seek to restore the checks and balances on government power were eroded under Republican one party rule.

Liberals are concerned about fundamental liberties including freedom of speech, the press, and religion. There is no uniform position with regards to the right to own guns, with many liberals supporting reasonable precautions as opposed to abolition. Liberals understand, as did the founding father and religious leaders of the past, that freedom of religion is only possible with strict separation of church and state. This is not an anti-religion viewpoint as the propagandists of the right would claim. Nor does this represent a lack of values as liberals may be religious, or may hold moral and ethical values outside of a religious framework. Liberal support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion, or for homosexuals to marry, stems from a belief in individual liberties, not out of a lack of morals as conservative propagandists would claim.

Liberals support a free market economy, but this leaves room for a variety of interpretations ranging from classical liberals supporting laissez-fair capitalism to those supporting increased government action. Liberals oppose both socialism and the system of government/corporate collusion promoted by conservatives, and I see neither as capitalist system. If not for the many other negative connotations of the word, fascism would be a far more accurate description of the economic policies being promoted by many Republicans, but using this label would denote an extremism which even the Bush administration has not reached.

Conservative propagandists would define liberalism based upon the most extreme advocates of big government, but I see this as more of an aberration in liberal belief. My position is sometimes referred to as a big tent libertarianism, or as being socially liberal and economically conservative. This label has failings too as I might agree with conservatives on some economic issues and disagree on others.

In reality there is considerable pragmatism as opposed to ideology on economic issues among liberals. Liberals do not necessarily desire higher taxes as conservatives would argue, but neither would liberals accept a Grover Norquist pledge against raising taxes regardless of the situation. While Cohen considers a support for proactive government to be a fundamental belief of liberals, this is more a matter of pragmatism. Liberals will utilize government where necessary, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism about government. Liberals neither must advocate bigger government in all cases as conservative propagandists would claim, or oppose government in virtually all situations as many conservatives do. Liberals can support the necessary social safety net for those who need it without supporting a net so big that it strangles us all.

This pragmatism comes as liberalism is largely a way in which problems are viewed as opposed to holding a strict set of unchangeable beliefs. Liberals have a reality-based viewpoint, where conservatives view the world biased by ideology and their religious beliefs. Liberals accept the findings of science on evolution and climate change, where conservatives believe they can ignore scientific evidence which conflicts with their beliefs.

This failure to accept a reality-based outlook also intrudes upon politics, with many conservatives continuing to claim that Saddam threatened us with WMD and had ties to 9/11. These views are largely fed by conservatives obtaining their information from propaganda outfits of the right, leading them to see anything which presents facts conflicting with their imaginary world view as liberal bias. In this context, Stephen Colbert was right about reality having “a well-known liberal bias.”

Views on foreign policy are harder to divide based upon the liberal versus conservative spectrum. Liberals are fairly united in opposing the current war, but I would differ with Cohen’s quotes of some anti-war liberals that “dislike of the Bush administration colored their judgment of the war and affirm that ‘we are not realists.’” While this may be true of some, for many of us it was the realization that the war was such a tremendous blunder which led to our dislike and distrust of George Bush. As time has gone on, the facts have only strengthened the case that opposition to the war was the correct position for those of us who are realists.

Viewing past wars makes the distinctions between liberals and conservatives less clear. Vietnam was escalated by Lyndon Johnson and other liberals, but many claim that John Kennedy would have never done this. Ultimately the war was opposed by most liberals and backed by most conservatives. Therefore the Vietnam war cannot easily be used to differentiate liberals from conservatives but might demonstrate another important difference. While some liberals may have supported the war initially, many learned from this mistake. Conservatives attack “flip-flopping” as a great evil, while liberals will change their policies as new information is available and conditions change. The desire to “stay the course,” even when clear that the course is wrong, far too often defines conservative thought.

Cohen refers to many additional works on the meaning of liberalism which will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with my definition. This diversity of thought is yet another important element of liberalism.

Update: Further discussion from Michael P.F. van der Galiën