The label “liberal” – as a category of political affiliation
or orientation – is highly ambiguous, depending very much on the context. Outside
of America (notably Europe) it retains
much of its original significance emphasizing the importance of property rights
and free trade; while in America it is completely devoid of such connotations,
resembling the social democrats of Europe. In other places, matters might be
still further confused.
As an expatriate South African (an America by choice) I have
seen a particular confusion among my fellow emigrants of roughly the same, and
contiguous generations. I see my South African American friends (almost all
Jewish) affiliating naturally with American “liberals” because in South Africa,
growing up under Apartheid, they were on the “liberal’ side of the political spectrum
- simply because they were opposed to the Apartheid government.
I think they are confused. I think they are mistaken. I
think that if they could be persuaded to do some research and soul searching,
they would find out that they have never been “liberal” in the American sense
of that word, and would not have supported the policies which it connotes back
in South Africa – where American liberals would have been identified more as a species
of “socialists” – something almost never encountered in the light of day.
The reason for the confusion is that, in the South African
context of Apartheid, politics was never about the appropriate role and scope
of government as such, but, rather, it was almost exclusively about race policy
– about the appropriate rights that should be granted to non-whites, and what
their place in South African society should be. The Nationalist Apartheid
government maintained a lot of the inherited British parliamentary constitutional
form of government, but, also, in large part, ran a police state in which
non-whites had very few legal and human rights and were subject to frequent
exploitation and abuse. The ruling party and its supporters were overwhelmingly
Afrikaans and inherited a bitter resentment of the British, that they visited
upon the English speaking portion of the white population (who dominated the business
leadership of the robust private sector economy). So while there was an uneasy
peace between the two white language groups, they constituted two distinct
political factions. To be English-speaking was to be opposed to the Nationalists
and, therefore, to be “liberal”. Anyone who was not pro-Nationalist was “liberal”
– and this shaded into various degrees of “communist” as your sympathies for
the rights of non-whites rose.
The two main political parties were the Nationalist
(Afrikaans) and the United (English) parties. My parents were in a third, extremely
small, group of English speakers who voted Liberal (later called the
Progressive party – not to be confused with American Progressives). It is
important to realize that the United Party, for whom most of my friends and
their parents, would have voted, was in no way similar to the “liberals” of
today’s American Democratic Party. The only similarity is the misleading
description “liberal” that English-Speaking South Africans would have
unconsciously worn, and thus continue to wear. The only thing they have in
common is a more liberal attitude about racial discrimination and human rights.
The truth is there was no discussion about the proper role
and scope of government in the economy and the connection between human rights
and economic freedom. Economic freedom was just not considered. It was
completely eclipsed by the race issue, put on the back burner for if and until when
the Nationalists were ever unseated. No doubt it was part of the United and Progressive
Party platforms, but I do not recall anyone paying any attention to that or talking
about it. Yet, I feel sure that if these party platforms had contained the kind
of massive state intrusions into the economy and private life that current
Democratic Party policies have and are proposing to have, they would have been
rejected by South Africa’s English speaking liberals – as they should be
rejected now.
The natural home of these anti-Apartheid folks, is not the
current Democratic Party. Neither is it the Republican Party (for different
reasons – different intrusions into the economy), though some third option,
much closer to the original meaning of liberal as someone in favor of equal
individual liberty for all regardless of race, color, creed, … , and all the
freedom it implies, especially freedom of expression, movement, employment,
trade and so on.
