From Curtis W. Reese, The Content of Present-Day Religious Liberalism

The outstanding characteristic of modern liberalism, and indeed of all modern thinking, is the evaluation of personality as the thing of supreme worth. Hence liberalism now affirms in terms unmistakable that institutions are only the tentative and temporary expressions of personality, that they are frequently outgrown and must, like the hull of the chrysalis, be burst asunder and left only to mark an epoch past. Institutions- religious, capitalistic, socialistic, or what not-must now stand or fall as they are able or unable to serve effectively and efficiently in building of free and positive human souls.

From Richard Feynman, The Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society

People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified-how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know.

Meditation-from The Book of the Hopi

The fourth World, the present one, is the full expression of man's ruthless materialism and imperialistic will; and man himself reflects the overriding gross appetites of the flesh. With this turn man rises upward, bringing into predominant function each of the higher centers. The door at the crown of the head then opens, and he merges into the wholeness of all Creation, whence he sprang. It is a Road of Life he traveled by his own free will, exhausting every capacity for good or evil, that he may know himself at last as a finite part of infinity.

From John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration

I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other...It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general, and to every one of his subjects in particular, the just possession of those things belonging to his life.

Confessions of a Liberal

Prelude

I want to share with you some of my thinking about living as a Liberal. I will express myself in the form of a verbal Fugue in four parts. Part one will set the main theme by describing this Liberal's self-concept: which I see as the foundation and framer of my thinking and behavior. The second part is a variation on the theme looking at my day to day behavior particularly as it relates to family, friends and community. Part three will talk about the ways in which this Liberal relates the larger world. In the last strand of my verbal fugue I will look at my view of universe; known, knowable and unknowable.

The noun "Liberal" comes from the old French "liber" meaning "a person who is free" It holds a meaning similar to the middle English word, "franklyn": "a free and independent tradesman"

Atop the state house in Providence, Rhode Island there is a statue. Most tourists believe it to be a statue of Roger Williams the founder of the colony (and the 1st American Baptist Church). Actually, it represents "The Independent Man". This may be the first formal monument in the United States dedicated to a Liberal.

By the by, the person usually thought of as the first philosophical liberal was a 14th century Arab administrator and historian by the name of Ibn Khaldun.

Part One: a statement of theme

From the wisdom of Popeye the Sailor, "I yam what I yam and thass all what I yam".

Each of us, I think, has a concept of self. Much of it is real, some of it is wishful thinking and some of it reflects what others perceive out of their own realities and fantasies. Each of us holds our self concept most dear and lives to it. It shapes our reaction to the world about us, it frames our emotions and our rational processes. I believe it is the foundation of the structures we build of our lives. As we grow and mature we test that self concept against the realities of the world, if we are emotionally healthy and mentally alert we modify it. But, always it is the foundation-strengthened and perhaps reshaped.

My self-concept begins with an overriding belief that I have free will, that I can choose, that I can decide how I shall behave. Our universe appears to be well ordered, it's determined by its nature, but within that inevitable dynamic I remain free to choose my own behavior. Now, I accept my genetic limitations-I am not as tall, as smart, as pretty, as wealthy, as my self-concept would have it, but I am still free to decide my own values, my own actions.

With this, it must follow that I accept the consequences of my behavior, both positive and negative. My self-concept does not permit me to blame others, or some fate, or whatever for the bad stuff. For example, I chose to smoke. As a consequence I have passed through bladder and lung cancer. It also lets me accept the good stuff as mine.

Additionally, the exercise of my freedom of choice carries with it the burden (or privilege) of self reliance: a willingness to be independent of the crowd, to abjure the fashionable, to ignore the fad, to avoid the latest truth and never to "go along to get along." To do so would diminish my freedom or surrender it to others. It also obliges me actively to keep informed, to be open to other perspectives, to broaden my knowledge and experience.

I believe that I have "an unalienable right" to life, liberty and property and with these three the right to pursue my own happiness. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, "Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

My life is mine alone. I alone have the right to control it and to maintain it as I see fit. I choose how I shall live that life given the limitations imposed by talent, energy and opportunity. I choose to live that life as an independent, free man, indentured servant neither to the state nor to any person.

I claim the right to my personal liberty. The freedom to live where I wish, associate with whom I wish, enter into whatever occupation I choose, speak my mind openly and choose to whom I will listen. All of this within the constraints of my own talents, energy and opportunities. And, if my exercise of this right should violate the will of the state I will accept the consequences.

I believe I have the right to the fruits of my labor. Without the right to earn, accrue, hold and pass on my property I become the property of others. Ibn Khaldun proposed that labor was the source of all wealth, whether by the "direct labor of the body" or by the conversion of that labor into capital and that no person should be forced to labor for the benefit of a "tyrannical caliph"

My lifestyle is mine to choose; for no one else to determine no matter how well meaning or powerful they may be. As Thomas Babington put it, "Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from the birth, as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read and say and eat and drink and wear."

I believe that every person has these rights should he or she choose to exercise them. I also believe that each person has the right to relinquish or constrain these rights should he or she so choose. I do not believe any person or group of persons has the right to forcefully abridge the rights of another nor do I believe that the equality of rights implies the automatic right to be equal.

Part two: the first variation

Now, to part two: How this old fashioned Liberal's self- concept impacts his day to day behavior. This will require a shift from rights to obligations and responsibilities. It is a cliche that homo sapiens is a socializing animal, rarely surviving for long in isolation. To make it work we enter into many (and here comes another cliche) social contracts. The word "contract" has the stress. The parties to a contract commit to certain obligations, one party to another, in return for certain benefits. It seems to me, that from a Liberal's point of view any such contract must be freely entered into, with consideration of the balance between cost and benefit especially since most social contracts require giving up some of one's freedom.

This part of my fugue focuses on my near world-family, friends, neighbors, community; the transactions in which I regularly participate and where the consequences of my behavior have some impact on others.

I suppose one should begin with the social contract of domestic partnership. I don't think I want to go there. This is a contract entered into under a very heavy load of non- rational behavior requiring frequent modifications which also tend to loaded with non-rational behavior. I confess that this is an area where I sometimes take the extreme position of the Libertarians: "Keep nosey neighbors and an intrusive state out of my bedroom." I do have three suggestions for a successful contract. First, ensure an equitable division of labor and a fair distribution of benefit. Second, keep in mind the words of Fritz Perls, "I am not in this world to meet your expectations and you are not in this world to meet mine". Third, treat your partner with the same mutual respect and civility you expect from strangers.

'Nuff said.

I choose to live in a quiet suburban neighborhood. It is inhabited, as Ben Franklin put it, by "middling people". It contains a diverse mix; Hispanic, European, Asian and Afro- hyphenated Americans all. We prefer it to a neighborhood dedicated to "Seniors". Being older than most of the householders we don't "neighbor" much, but we share with them mutual respect and we share with them responsibility for the safety of the kids and the security of our homes and property.

We are close enough to one next door neighbor to share time and energy. Valentino or one of the boys has on occasion mowed our lawn. They have our hedge clippers. Mary and Bev talk some about child raising. Point being-we "neighbor". We intrude on their lives only on invitation and they treat us in the same civilized manner.

Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments wrote,

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it". This interest in the welfare and happiness of others is also part of a Liberal's self-concept and thus impacts her or his behavior.

Let me widen my circle. This church community contains most of our local friends; people with whom we regularly interact. I take the social contracts I enter into here seriously. I value the benefits I receive here highly and I willingly invest my labor to support this community. I think the balance is in my favor and following Ibn Khaldun's proposal, the surplus is converted to further investment of talent, time and energy. And of course, currency.

I will again defer to Adam Smith, who elegantly summarized my view,

The great pleasure of conversation and society, besides, arises from a certain correspondence of sentiments and opinions, from a certain harmony of minds, which like so many musical instruments coincide and keep time with one another. But this most delightful harmony cannot be obtained unless there is a free communication of sentiments and opinions. We all desire, upon this account, to feel how each other is affected, to penetrate into each other's bosoms and to observe the sentiments and affections which really subsist there. The man who indulges us in this natural passion, who invites us into his heart, who, as it were, sets open the gates of his breast to us, seems to exercise a species of hospitality more delightful than any other. No man, who is in ordinary good temper, can fail of pleasing, if he has the courage to utter his real sentiments as he feels them and because he feels them."

The same rules of conduct apply here as in the neighborhood: Civility, mutual respect and the assumption of good will.

I confess this is where I fail to uphold my beliefs most often. I have a hot button, easily triggering a visceral reaction to what I hear as polemic, hypocritical, or demagogic. I react sharply and emotionally, usually to my regret. To one whose self-concept requires rationality this becomes a serious area for introspection and self managed change.

In the larger theater of my life, my community: city and county, I view myself as an involved bit player. I invest my time in areas important to me and which make use of my knowledge and experience. Where I can enhance learning and can help build an informed citizenry, I am delighted to volunteer when the opportunity presents itself.

I respect the rights of my fellow citizens and understand the limits of my rights in relation to theirs. I believe that this mutuality is critical to a Liberal's world view. But, let me a go a short step further. There are times when I feel I must violate a rule imposed on me by others which trims away too much of my freedom. I also feel obliged to accept the consequences of my action.

The social contract I entered into when I chose to live in this community calls on me accept the obligations of a good citizen: to obey the laws, pay the taxes and participate as an informed citizen in its democratic processes. Oh, yes I vote! In my local elections I can meet, question and even break bread with those who wish to govern me. There is the opportunity to listen to real debate, where the candidates have time to prepare for specific questions and rebut. I confess that I have little patience for the sound bite, cliche sessions that pass as debates. It is in my best interest to participate, after all, these are people who for the next few years will directly affect my daily life.

Further, I believe I have some responsibility for the well-being of my fellows. I have an obligation to support, enhance and provide resource to enlarge my fellows' opportunities to exercise their rights to life, liberty and property and the free pursuit of their individual happiness. Yet, I resist intruding in the lives of others without invitation no matter how noble my intentions. I am no "philosopher king" self-anointed or appointed to determine what is "good for you".

Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, I am reluctant to respond to charitable solicitations and for the same reasons. I find the notion of supporting the indigent in a way that institutionalizes dependence on others; that creates a permanent entitled underclass antithetical to a Liberal's world view. And like Emerson I still contribute - I do not suffer the hobgoblins of foolish consistency.

Part three: The second variation

Let me widen my circle to include my larger surroundings. I shall be wary here. My principles do not permit me to attend political meetings on Sunday mornings, so I don't plan to convene one. I will move up one level of abstraction and talk about this Liberal's view of his relationship to the State (capitol "S")

I do not believe the State is sovereign over its individual members. The State is constituted for the benefit of its members and has little reason to exist except for that purpose. Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay, wrote, "There is surely no contradiction in saying that a certain section of the community may be quite competent to protect the persons and property of the rest, yet quite unfit to direct our opinions or to superintend our private habits".

As a practical matter we delegate our sovereignty to others, trusting them to protect, support and enhance the exercise of our rights. We expect and I hope accept that in making this social contract that necessary but limited constraints will be placed upon our exercise of those rights.

Within the political context in which we delegate our sovereignty, it seems to me that the Liberal occupies the rational center. In our current political context, I see low probability of the rational center being the recipient of the delegation of our power. The reasons, as I see them are obvious. It offers no simple solutions to problems, no easy resolutions of issues. It often confesses to not even knowing the questions. We are not a very colorful lot. We distrust manifestos, are rarely skilled in the tools of rhetoric and usually fail the litmus tests of the ideologues.

I see myself not even a bit player in this theater. At best I am a member of the chorus, commenting on the action. At worst I am a paying member of the audience. There was a time when I saw myself in a strong supporting role. I worked hard for those causes I felt would make for a better world. I was active in some of those "three initial" groups the Attorney General had on his list in the bad old days. And I was politically active-and yes, heaven forfend, was a member of a political party. Oddly, my principles and beliefs have not changed in their essentials. It is probable that the world has left me in the dust.

I find voting a difficult chore. I examine the candidates carefully, as best one can when all one can see is a slick well orchestrated dance of sound bites, commercials and content empty speeches. Since I began voting in 1952, only one candidate whom I supported ever got to be President. Most of them never made it past the primaries. Now I go to the voting booth and I confess, often vote for "none of the above". To vote for the lesser evil would trump principle. I'll go with Mercutio and call down "a pox on both their houses".

And, yes, I accept the consequences of my decisions. I give up my right to say, "Don't blame me, I told you so."

I would sum up my relationship with the State with a quotation from Ludwig von Mises, "This, then, is freedom in the external life of man - that he is independent of the arbitrary power of his fellows".

I was once a World Federalist. I look back and wonder how I could have espoused and actively spoken for a world view that supposed that the people of the world would come flocking to join a world government based on a constitution like ours and a structure of laws like ours. Ah, the "hubris" of the American undergraduate. It strikes me that the notion that somehow we know what is best for the people of the world is both immoral and naive.

That any State can or should be the policeman, arbitrator and nation builder for the world is to me a futile and wasteful position. No matter how noble or well intentioned the goals, its actions are intrusive and the exercise of "arbitrary power". Rarely if ever has outside intervention resolved the issues underlying tribal, ideological, religious, or racial conflicts. These conflicts have been repressed with the constant and long term application of arbitrary power but on the withdrawal of that power have exploded with more virulence than before. In his Study of History, Arnold Toynbee described the phases and processes in the evolution of states. He found them to be fairly consistent with economic growth and the distribution of the fruits of that growth being key. This speaks well to me to the need for those nations and agencies which control economic growth to modify their positions.

I find any nation's intrusion into the internal affairs of another state, regardless of how that intrusion is mandated to be contrary to the value I place on self determination.

Part Four: The third variation

Permit me now, briefly, to speak to what I believe is a Liberal's view of her or his place in the larger play of things; known, knowable and perhaps not knowable.

As I consider our 13 dimensioned universe and those other possible parallel ones, I am amazed and enthralled by what we have learned and are on the brink of learning about our physical universes. During my lifetime our understanding has grown at least geometrically. I have not the slightest doubt that the elusive TOE, "Theory of Everything" will soon be derived and tested. I am fairly certain that within my few remaining years we will resolve the "black matter" issue and understand the complete mass-energy content of our universe. Given my optimism about our ability to understand the nature of the physical universe I retain an old fashioned Liberal's skepticism and wonder what may be beyond our human ken.

The theoretical mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated that within any formal system, some propositions and some theorems, while true statements, cannot be proven. (You can get a look at his proof and its implications in Godel, Escher and Bach, by Douglas Hofstetter) Theoretical physics is a formal system with a formal system of inquiry and might, I think, be included in the scope of Godel's proof.

It follows that I must remain open to the possibility that there is what is true but not provable.

In biology, research at the molecular level is bringing us closer to full understanding of the nature of life in general. Developments in neuroscience as it focuses on the mechanics of the brain has mapped its functions, described its physics and demonstrated its chemistry. Research in Artificial Intelligence is coming closer to duplicating, if not replicating these processes.

Yet, the nature of the mind as opposed to nature of the brain eludes us. We are fairly certain it exists but we can't prove it directly or without inference and extrapolation.

Some conclude that we are "hard wired" by genetics and neural structure with a need for linkage with something or someone "out there"-a universal gestalt of which we are part and which is part of us. It may be that hard wiring causes us to create gods (lower case g) in our image whether or not there is "something out there" Or, it may be, that we are hard wired precisely because there is "something out there"

I suggest that we have as much possibility of understanding the nature of god (lower case g) as the bacteria in my gut have of understanding my nature. I can visualize Mary and Joe Coli, if they could conceptualize, relating to a great, omniscient and benevolent Germ (upper case G). I don't see that as precluding my existence as I am any more than my inability to understand the nature of god (Lower case g) preclude its existence.

It does seem to me that to take an absolute position that there is nothing and can be nothing beyond what is immediately perceived is as dogmatic as an insistence on an anthropomorphic God (upper case G).

Blaise Pascal set forth a wager. To paraphrase, "If there is no God and you believe in him, there is neither gain nor loss. If there is a God and you do not believe in him the consequences could be dire. Therefore, your best bet is to believe". I reject the wager on the face of it. If I make this bet I must surrender my freedom to learn, to grow. I surrender my free will. I give up any hope of finding a deeper meaning in my life in exchange for someone else's.

I don't pretend to know the answers I willingly confess that I don't even know most of the questions.

Well then, there you have it: the Confessions of a Liberal.

I close this as good fugues close; with a return to original statement of theme. I believe that the essential requisite of a good life is the freedom to choose.

[Delivered 28 September 2003. Malcolm Warren was a member of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County.]