"Where have all the liberals gone?"
by Scott Thompson

When I was a little boy, I always enjoyed going to my grandparent's house. There were two reasons for my enthusiasm. First and primarily, grandma was an excellent cook. But also I enjoyed my grandpa's sense of humor. One of my visits brings back special memories of my relationship with them.

We were about to sit down for a wonderful dinner with chicken, gravy and grandma's delicious homemade biscuits when a neighbor stopped by to speak with grandpa. After they had talked too long, grandma said, "Children I am tired of waiting and the dinner is getting cold, we'll eat without your grandfather." Thirty minutes later Grandpa came in, took one look at the table and exclaimed, "Where have all the biscuits gone?" Grandma looked up at him and said, "Your grandchildren have eaten them all so you will have to go without biscuits tonight." When grandpa heard this he chased us around the dinner table laughing and shouting and pretending to be mad at us.
It was fun to go to my grandparent's house to visit.

In the last half of the 19th century, Herbert Spencer, the father of today's public education system, was asking the same question my grandfather was asking. Spencer wanted to know, "where all the liberals had gone." In his book, "The Man Versus the State", Spencer was lamenting the absence of Liberals in the political parties of England. He spoke of how the liberals of the 19th century had become just like the Tories in that both of these parties were advocating government induced social ideas to get the people to cooperated together for a better society.

Spencer was very clear in what he was suggesting had happened to the Liberal party in England. He said, "Manifestly the implication is that, in so far as it has been extending the system of compulsion, what is now called Liberalism is a new form of Toryism." The last sentence in "The Man Versus the State" explains the kind of liberalism which Spencer saw fading away. Spencer spoke of the function of liberalism for the future by stating, "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of Liberals in the future will be that of putting a limit on parliaments."

Herbert Spencer would have been shocked if someone had told him that he was the one who killed liberalism and its ideas of limiting governments in their powers. Spencer is known for his devotion to "Social Darwinism" and the false idea that the force of morality can be derived from the fact of evolution and natural selection.

If the world is progressing to better and stronger ideas and species through the process of natural selection then Spencer is wrong in his idea of limitations and therefore limiting the strong makes no sense. As a matter of fact, we should stand aside and not allow anyone to stop the strong from doing whatever they want. Neitsche had the right idea in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" when he said that the Christian idea of meekness and the protection of the weak is destroying the world because it limits the strong and in the process allows the weak to live.

Spencer was correct in his definition of Liberalism. The foundational basis of liberalism was the limitation of governmental powers, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These freedoms were given so the weak and those not in power could limit and check the progress of those who had powerful positions in the government. The reason liberalism was failing in England was because the philosophy of natural selection was not consistent with the idea of limiting the powerful.

As we observe contemporary politics, democrats call themselves liberal yet they are against the limiting of government. On the contrary, today's "liberal" is dedicated to giving the powerful government more power to control the lives of the weaker citizens. As a matter of fact, today's liberal believes we should give those in power the authority to exterminate those babies who are in the wombs of poor women who are too weak minded to support them. The "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer has destroyed the liberalism he thought his country needed. Natural Selection is not consistent with the limitation of powers.

The only way one can consistently hold to the limitation of powers is to believe in the Biblical doctrine of sin. If a person believes that all are born in sin, then it is entirely consistent to want to limit the power of even our most intellectual and strongest people. Those who believe in the Biblical doctrine of sin do not have a false optimism that the the world is progressing by itself to higher and more complex forms. The doctrine of sin teaches us that all are to be judged by a just and merciful God and thus we should live in humility with one another. On the other hand, the doctrine of natural selection teaches that we will be judged by the most intellectual and fit people in society. Our strongest and most capable people should not be limited in their power to govern the weaker elements in society.

When grandpa asked grandma, "where have all the biscuits gone?," she replied, "your grandchildren ate them." Herbert Spencer was wondering "Where all the Liberals had gone" in the later part of the 19th century. A quick look at today's political landscape will reveal the same absence of the true liberal. If I could speak to Herbert Spencer today, I would tell him exactly what grandma told my grandpa, "your grandchildren, who were begat through natural selection have destroyed all of the liberals and have left a ruling elite in its place."



ChristianWorldview.com Home
149 Avenue B
New York, NY 10009

Go to the top of this page Write Us