SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1980

Liberalism Is Not Dead

By Robert S. McElvaine

PROVIDENCE -- It has become fashionable of late to comment on the demise of liberalism. Senator Edward M. Kennedy's speech at the Democratic National Convention, a Time magazine article commented, "may have been the last great liberal call to arms" and "the final chapter" of liberalism. Many political analysts have expressed similar opinions.

Such assessments are based upon a failure to perceive two important points about American history. First, the United States has always been a basically liberal nation. Second, the country's political history has been one of periods of liberal reform punctuated by conservative breathing spaces. These facts have often been missed because the term "liberalism" has been used in the past to designate two distinct approaches to the proper relationship among individuals, society and government. What made the same word applicable to both systems of thought was a common objective. Jeremy Bentham stated it most succinctly: "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."

The Jeffersonian liberalism that dominated the Republic during its first century was grounded in the notion that governments were the foremost dangers to the liberty and well-being of individuals. Unfortunately, by the late 1800's it was becoming plain that the laissez-faire approach, while somewhat successful in curbing Government abuses was ineffective against private interests and hence was not producing the common good.

Early in the present century, liberals changed course. Big government began to arise to control big business and protect the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt later brought to fruition the paternalism that had begun under his cousin, Theodore. Although the methods were diametrically opposed to the 19^th century concepts, the fundamental liberal goal remained. Hamiltonian means were used to reach Jeffersonian ends. The culmination of this trend came in the 1960's.

It is now apparent that paternalism, like laissez-faire before it, has not achieved the elusive liberal ends. The problems associated with the big government approach have led to an increasing distaste for "liberals." But the attacks on laissez-faire at the turn of the century did not herald the collapse of liberalism; neither does the current onslaught against bureaucracy.

We are in a period of reaction. Throughout our history, Americans have alternated between periods of reform and times in which people tired of thinking of social problems and withdrew into more personal concerns. The peaks of reform during the Revolution, and in the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, the Abolitionist crusade and the Civil War, Populism and Progressivism, the New Deal and the New Frontier/Great Society, have taken place between times of inaction or reaction: the Federalist Era, the "Era of Good Feelings," the 1840's and early 1850's, the Gilded Age, the 1920's and the 1950's. It is clear enough that people grow weary of the activism of such leaders as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, Kennedy and Johnson. It should also be noticed that the public eventually becomes bored with the Adamses, Fillmores, Harrisons, Coolidges, Eisenhowers and Fords.

Either of the current major-party nominees seems capable of boring the people to the point where reform will again be popular later in the decade. It is not likely, however, to be liberalism as it has been known since Theodore Roosevelt's days. Instead, we are now in a transitional period like that at the turn of the century. Means that have proved inadequate are being rejected. The goal of liberalism in its new form will remain unchanged, but the exclusive reliance upon bigness appears already to be ending. This in no sense means a return to Adam Smith, even if some of those supporting Ronald Reagan would like nothing better. Rather, the new form of liberalism is likely to emphasize ways in which Jeffersonian means can be adapted to an industrial society. These might include greater Government encouragement for employee-owned companies, a Federal incorporation statute placing limits on the market shares of corporations and insuring competition, rethinking the welfare and tax systems, and placing a stronger emphasis on citizen participation in decisions affecting their lives.

The contours of the new liberalism are far from clear; what is definite is that we are now experiencing not the death of liberalism but a combination of a pause between reform eras with a period of transition between liberal approaches. We may confidently predict that by the election of 1988 or, at the latest, that of 1992, liberalism will, like all of this year's leading candidates, be born again.

Robert S. McElvaine is associate professor of history at Brown University.