Page    1   2    of this article.

Ideology is a Secondary Factor . . . , Robert A. Harman, Vol 35, No 1

The Modern Liberal Versus the True Liberal

Baker used Burnham's ideologically-based definition (4:89-97) to distinguish between the true liberal (what Burnham called the "classic liberal") and the modern liberal. Burnham's definition of the classic liberal vs. the "modern liberal" can be summarized as follows:

1. The classic liberal is one whose beliefs are based on the 19th century liberal ideology which was individualistic and opposed to intervention in personal life by the aristocratic, hierarchical governments of the time ( i.e., classic liberal ideology was laissez faire or libertarian).

2. The "modern liberal," according to Burnham, is simply a liberal whose ideology has changed with the times to a more collectivist viewpoint, in favor of massive intervention in individual life by the government, which is now perceived to be a government expressing the "popular or general will."

Burnham's description of the shift in liberal ideology is true, as far as it goes, but does not really discriminate between the true liberal and the modern liberal as sociopolitical character types. It only points out the fact that, in the democracies of the West, many true liberals and nearly all characterological modern liberals have changed their ideology. Burnham's explanation, above, of the cause of the change is deduced from his analysis of liberal ideology and therefore misses the essence of the change in the nature of government in modern times:

1. National governments in past centuries were, in fact, governments, i.e., organizations whose function was to govern. Present day "governments" are a mixture in which half-hearted attempts to govern take second place to efforts at reengineering society in accordance with various ideologies. Following the important distinction made by Konia (2) we can say that the older governments functioned in the realm of politics and that modern "governments" have begun to function in the realm of sociopolitics.

2. The older governments were not merely hierarchical, but authoritarian. Modern governments are not merely democratic, but are becoming anti-authoritarian.  5

3. The anti-authoritarian trend, in both government and in society as a whole, has transformed social contact from a process of "simple (attractive) opposition"

where opposing forces make direct contact and confront each other in a manner that produces a constructive resolution, to "antagonistic (mutually exclusive) opposition"

where opposing forces react to each other in such a manner as to pull the social fabric apart (7). In recent years there has been a functional transformation from:

Thus we can see that the shift in the nature of government, the shift in the nature of social authority itself, and the corresponding superficial shift in liberal ideology described by Burnham are a result of centuries-long sociopolitical (emotional plague) activity, primarily by the modern liberal.  6 Sowell describes the relation between liberal and conservative that exists in the present state of antagonistic opposition:

These different ways of conceiving mankind and the world lead not merely to different conclusions but to sharply divergent, often diametrically opposed, conclusions on issues ranging from justice to war. There are not merely differences of visions but conflicts of visions. (6:309)

It has always been true that the two different forms of perception and thought are "diametrically opposed" and lead to "conflict" in the form of opposition. Sowell does not mention, however, that opposition, even diametric opposition, does not have to be "divergent" (moving away from each other). The present day divergence is a manifestation of antagonistic opposition. In the past, there have been periods when the views of true liberals and conservatives met in simple opposition (came together, i.e., attractive opposition) to lead to a satisfactory resolution of social conflicts. For example:

1. In the framing of the United States Constitution, conservatives and liberals came together in disagreement about one crucial question: Should the United States become a nation or continue as a confederation of independent states? The framers set up a working arrangement for themselves (which included no publicity of the debates) which made it possible for the conflict to be resolved successfully: the United States became a nation. Various compromises were made which satisfied the legitimate concerns of the losing side without compromising the essential decision that was made.

2. The war (1861-1865) between the United States and the rebelling southern confederacy, the so-called "Civil War," in which the North and South came together, after years of drifting apart, to resolve the primary issue of union and the important secondary issue of slavery. Lincoln had to contend constantly with two elements working to make the conflict an antagonistic one:

a. Those, including most of his commanding generals prior to Grant, who regarded the South as a separate nation, an attitude which by definition perceived the parties as mutually exclusive, i.e., antagonistic. This manifested itself repeatedly in failure to "engage" with the opponent militarily.

b. Radical elements who wished to exact a vicious revenge on the South, i.e., pure antagonism.

Thanks to Lincoln, the ultimate outcome of the war was to bring the nation together in permanent unity. This example shows that it is not the superficial qualities of the interaction, e.g., the presence or absence of physical violence, but the essential interrelation between the contending functions, that determines whether there is simple, attractive opposition or antagonistic, mutually exclusive opposition. Pre-war, nonviolent interaction between North and South, particularly after 1854, had been essentially antagonistic.

Returning to the question of the distinction between the true liberal and the modern liberal, a great deal of confusion can be resolved by considering that the term "modern liberal" is used with three different meanings:

1. generically, to refer to a liberal who happens to live in modern times, just as we would say a "modern automobile" or a "modern physician," etc.,

2. in Burnham's sense of the term, to refer to a liberal who has adopted one particular variety of modern ideology (collectivism), and

3. as a biophysical description of the deep (protoplasmically based) sociopolitical structure of an individual, i.e., the emotional plague character on the left. The reader should be aware that when the term "modern liberal" is used in the Journal of Orgonomy it is usually with this specific meaning.

In defining the "modern liberal" Baker was, at least to some extent, following Burnham's definition, to which he added definitions of the socialist and communist to the left and formulated a symmetric set of four ideological categories on the right. When the emphasis on ideology is eliminated, it becomes clear that in most cases any particular "modern liberal" (in Burnham's sense of the term) and any particular socialist could be either a characterological true liberal or a characterological modern liberal. Similarly, a typical conservative living in Alabama in 1967 might have met, based on his ideology, Baker's criteria for "extreme conservative" or "reactionary." But this ideology was more a function of the individual's time and place, i.e., his environment, than of his degree of biophysical conservatism. That same individual (some are still alive today) most likely now has a more moderate set of beliefs without necessarily having experienced any change in his biophysical structure. In short, the biophysical character type is innate but the ideology varies greatly depending on the individual's environment. Ideology (which shifts with time, place, circumstances, and other environmental influences) is not wholly reliable as an indication of the degree of sociopolitical armoring.

A Revised Version of the Sociopolitical Spectrum

A more reliable, and simpler, description of the sociopolitical spectrum can be constructed as follows:

A description of the detailed characteristics of each sociopolitical character type and how each type can be defined without relying primarily on ideology will be presented in part 2 of this paper.

Examples of the Discrepancies Between Ideology and Sociopolitical Character Type

We can give several examples of how the emphasis on ideology confuses the perception of sociopolitical character:

1. For many years there have been, in the European socialist democracies (Britain, Sweden, etc.), many biophysical true liberals (and even a few biophysical conservatives) who adhere to socialist ideology. Conversely, there have been, in the American academic and media environments, many modern liberals (emotional plague on the left) who adhere to ideologies to the right of socialism. This is dramatically illustrated by the reactions to the publication of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (8), the masterpiece of a lifetime of work deeply critical of socialism, work for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 1974. Hayek was surprised at the contrast in the way the book was received by European socialists and American liberals. Hayek found "the thoughtful and receptive manner in which it was generally examined by [some of the European socialists] who must have found its conclusions running counter to their strongest convictions…deeply impressive." (8:iv) In stark contrast, the American liberal establishment tried to suppress publication of The Road to Serfdom as a book "unfit for publication by a reputable house" and, when the book was finally published, they "rejected it out of hand as a malicious and disingenuous attack on their finest ideals," excoriating Hayek in cleverly and contemptuously titled critiques with a level of "abuse and invective which is probably unique in contemporary academic discussion." (8:iv-v) Hayek was baffled by the profound differences in the two reactions. However, the origin of the discrepancy in reactions is deeply rooted and straightforward-some of the European socialist critics (despite their ideology which was further to the left) were characterological true liberals whereas the American academics and publishers were modern liberals (ideologically to the right of the socialists, but characterologically to the left).

2. Thomas Jefferson was almost certainly a characterological modern liberal but his ideology was that of classic (libertarian) liberalism. If one examines only Jefferson's writings (i.e., his expressed ideology) one will conclude that Jefferson was a classic liberal or even a "libertarian conservative." If one examines Jefferson's actions when he held vital social responsibilities, as described in accurate detail in Frederick Scott Oliver's Alexander Hamilton, an Essay on American Union (9), or Henry Adams's History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson (10), an unmistakable picture of Jefferson's characterological modern liberalism emerges. For example: a. He promoted the principle of a devitalized federal government in the form of "States Rights," via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (the latter of which he wrote himself, secretly), which was essentially the principle of the non-existence of the United States as a nation. This sowed the seeds of the Civil War. Had it not been for Jefferson, it might have been possible to maintain simple opposition of North and South with less extreme measures than war. b. He opposed Hamilton's efforts to create a national system of banking and a stable currency. This led to near disaster for the nation during the War of 1812, to the installation of the Little Man as a permanent fixture in American politics during the period of Jacksonian democracy, and to the crippling of the economic and social development of the South for more than a century. This illustrates that the modern liberal can adopt any variety of liberal ideology, depending on his time and place. In different situations the ideology of the modern liberal character has been classical laissez faire, populist/social reform, "modern liberal" (in Burnham's sense), socialist, or frankly communist.

3. James Burnham himself was, in his idealistic youth, a Trotskyite communist, but no one could reasonably conclude that he was a modern liberal. His thought process, as expressed in Suicide of the West, indicates that he was most likely a biophysical conservative. In Burnham's case the clarity of his thought process, resulting from contact with his core, makes his writings a more reliable indicator of his character than in Jefferson's case.

4. Many true liberal individuals who attended lectures on the science of orgonomy some years ago read and were inspired by Burnham's Suicide of the West to give up their modern liberal ideology and to identify themselves as conservatives. One occasionally sees these individuals in medical orgone therapy and is struck with the paradox of the patient, a staunch Republican, expressing his biophysical liberalism in, say, matters of child-rearing, in conflict with his spouse, who consistently votes Democratic, but expresses her biophysical conservatism in the vital decisions of family life. The spouse is an "environmental liberal" as described by Baker and the patient is an "environmental conservative." It should be noted that Burnham dedicated his book "to all liberals of good will," and that is a precise description of many of those who changed their ideology upon reading Suicide of the West.

5. The example above, of true liberals becoming "environmental conservatives" after reading Burnham's book, is a special case of a general tendency in American political thought. During the 1960s, a significant change occurred in the Republican party (and the "conservative movement") of the United States, partly under the inspiration of Senator Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. Libertarian elements were added to the conservative program and thus: a. many biophysical conservatives added these liberal (laissez faire) elements to their ideas; and b. many biophysical true liberals were able to comfortably identify themselves as "conservatives." Factors in this shift included the reaction to modern liberal sociopolitics-many conservatives found it a threat to their sense of individual responsibility and some true liberals found it repugnant to their sense of individual freedom. There was also the necessity (a matter of simple, electoral arithmetic) for any political party to attract supporters from both sides of the sociopolitical spectrum. This shift has obviously had advantages and disadvantages both for the Republican party and for the nation as a whole, but what is relevant here is to prevent the libertarian shift in conservative ideology from creating scientific confusion in our observations of the sociopolitical character types.

6. The conservative British statesman Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) enacted legislation involving industrial working conditions (child labor, number of hours in the work week, etc.) for which he was condemned by some of his liberal opponents as a "socialist." The conservative German statesman Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) enacted legislation, such as government sponsored old age pensions for industrial workers for which he is often identified by present-day libertarian writers as an arch-socialist. However, nothing could be further from the truth than labeling either Disraeli or Bismarck as socialist. They were not motivated by concern for "humanity," pity for "human suffering," outrage at "social injustice," or a desire to level and merge social classes. Nor did they imagine that such legislative policies would fundamentally alter human misery and helplessness. On the contrary, each was concerned primarily with increasing the vitality of his own nation, by enabling the class of industrial workers to be structuralized into society in a functional way based on identifying the responsibilities of this new and separate social class, and the rights necessary to discharge those responsibilities.

7. The most striking and prevalent example of the discrepancy between political ideas and sociopolitical character type is Baker's "environmental liberal."  7 An enormous segment of society has modern liberal ideas at variance with their conservative biophysical structure. Most individuals form their political ideas on the basis of their intellectual development. The intellectual environment at universities and colleges (the environment in which most Americans have their first experience of full-time functioning as an independent part of a larger social unit than the family) has played a major role in the development of modern liberal ideas in tens of millions of biophysical conservatives. Ongoing influence from the workplace, the media, the church, labor unions, professional societies, etc. continues to mold the individual's thinking and beliefs.

Conclusion

Examples such as those given above have led me to conclude that attempts to identify sociopolitical character types based on political beliefs, voting patterns, mannerisms, and even individual actions involving superficial life functions are prone to inaccuracy. It is often possible to make an accurate diagnosis only when one can observe the individual in a situation where he must exert authority to safeguard the core functions of life.

Page    1   2    of this article.

Footnotes

5. The term "anti-authoritarian" as used here means "acting to destroy authority itself," and not merely "opposed to authoritarianism." It would be less ambiguous, but grammatically awkward, to use the term, "anti-authority." back to text

6. There remains the question of how great a contribution to the current social deterioration has been made by right-wing sociopolitical "government," of which Nazi Germany is the clearest example, and the question of whether or not the Nazi government was, as this author believes, also anti-authoritarian (despite appearances). These questions are beyond the scope of this paper. back to text

7. "Environmental liberal" does not mean a liberal concerned with the preservation of nature, but rather a biophysical conservative who has liberal beliefs which he has picked up from his environment. When Baker first used "environmental liberal" in the mid-1960s it was clear and unambiguous. However, the subsequent widespread use of the catchy, but meaningless and confusing, term "environmentalism" makes clarification necessary. back to text

References

1. Baker, E. Man in the Trap. Princeton, NJ: ACO Press, 2000. (Originally published in 1967 by Macmillan, New York)

2. Konia, C. Neither Left nor Right, in preparation

3. Konia, C., In a personal communication to the author.

4. Burnham, J. Suicide of the West. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1964.

5. Reich, W. "Orgonometric Equations: I. General Form," Orgone Energy Bulletin 4(2), 1950, pp. 161-183.

6. Sowell, T. A Conflict of Visions, New York: William Morrow, 1987.

7. Harman, R. "Simple Opposition versus Antagonistic Opposition in Social Functioning," presentation to the Elsworth F. Baker Advanced Technical Seminar of the American College of Orgonomy, September 12, 1999.

8. Hayek, F. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1944.

9. Oliver, F. S. Alexander Hamilton, An Essay on American Union. London: Constable, 1906. p. 268.

10. Adams, H. History of the United States during the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson. New York: The Library of America (Penguin Books), 1986. (Originally published as four volumes, in 1889 and 1890, by Charles Scribner's Sons, New York)