Every time you say you are a liberal, you have to explain what you mean by that. Such diversity of meaning should allow for a big tent--and maybe one day, it did--but today it causes an almost constant need to explain and defend oneself. It all gets too complicated. Somehow, "liberals" need to agree on three or four principles as core and tell themselves and the rest of the world that is it period. Quite and illiberal approach? Maybe. But maybe necessary anyway.
I agree. For my part, in the book I try to do that and identify three key liberal values: a commitment to personal freedom, to fairness, and to reciprocity. Granted, those are very high-level and general, but it's a core to build off.
"Captured by capitalism (and for some critics, racism and patriarchy too), utopian possibilities no longer seem to inhere in [Liberalism]."
But was Liberalism ever about "utopian possibilities"? Liberalism, as best I understand it, promises people opportunity to freely chart their own course through life. That in itself is fairly revolutionary (with the long view of history in mind), but little if anything about it promises utopia as an outcome.
Utopianism, rather, appears to be a far Left, or Leftist, aspiration: one in which societies basically mandate proportional economic and/or racial outcomes in all spheres of society. And, more or less by definition, the only way to achieve those ends is through illiberal means. Liberalism and Utopia, therefore, may be inherently opposed to one another; but, seeing as how any expectation of a Utopia on Earth is clearly childish, that's probably a good thing.
"How would you feel if someone more powerful told you to keep quiet? How about if they told a stranger the same?"
I think these are good questions, and I'd add some more. How would we feel if our elders told us that they would decide on our marriage for us (and, if we refused, that we would face threats of banishment from the family and/or physical violence)? How would we feel if we were told that our profession in life was predetermined by our birth, and that not only was there nothing we could do about that but in fact that we might place ourselves and our family in danger by questioning the established order of things? How would we feel if we were told there was only one spiritual/religious understanding of the world and that if we questioned it, we would face excommunication or death?
The fact that Liberal societies have largely evolved beyond these issues is, in my experience, largely taken for granted even by the most vociferous critics of Liberal societies. And that just goes to show: the main threat faced by Liberalism may be a loss of perspective on just how much it has accomplished and just how important it remains.
Well said. This whole talk of liberalism is so devoid of historical context that it's impossible to grasp its meaning, let alone its soul. The economist Dani Rodrik showed real humility when he said in a podcast a couple of weeks ago that his profession is more successful in generating models than knowing when/how to apply these models. Perhaps the same is true with political scientists. All these doomsday forecasts are just as absurb as the utopia of permanent world peace or end of history when the Soviets imploded several decades ago.
"Have we reached a similar tipping point today? Many smart observers seem to think so."
"Governance in many liberal democracies is mired in dysfunction,"
Yes. Ironically thank the liberals.
"inequality continues its relentless march, "
Yes and no. Liberalism and capitalism along with the US-funded Global Order have exploded the global standard of living. But people want more... they always want more... and many have been getting less. But in the US compared to several decades ago, almost nobody goes hungry except for their inability to do the simple work to access public benefits.
"environmental catastrophe is the new normal,"
Absolutely not. And this establishment lie about environmental crisis and fatalism is contributing to the government dysfunction and rising inequity. Irony #2... the same globalist establishment that pushes the climate crisis cult has exploded industrialism and consumerism in Asia, Africa and South America that is responsible for the jump in ocean pollution and carbon emissions. The same people wringing their hands over global warming are responsible making it worse.
"mass migration destabilizes international politics,"
Yes. However, the liberals in charge deny it.
"ideological polarization generates alternative epistemic realities."
Yes, but the liberals in charge exploit political divisiveness as their primary strategy.
Some of the readers comments already ask "explain what is meant by "liberalism?"
So Humpty Dumpty is reported to have fallen off the wall. He has had a great fall" and reportedly "All the Kings horses and all the Kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again!" A very sorry state of affairs, if you know what Humpty actually was? And why he should be put together again and more to the point - should he be put together again and ...how?
There are those that really don't know by definition, who or what Humpty was - a libertarian? There are those who don't know he has taken a "great fall" and there are those who don't know why he should be put together again, and finally those that ask how to put him together again?
Ask ten different people "What is libertarianism?" and you would get overlapping opinions as to this question. But would there be an absolute agreement? Most likely not.
Ask ten different people not only "is" Humpty actually falling off the wall but why is Humpty is actually "falling off the wall?" There most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
Ask ten different people as to "was this a very great fall?" and again there most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
And ask ten different people "should Humpty be put together again?" and again there most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
An finally. if "all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again?" the question is "why should Humpty actually be put together again, and why is it seemingly an insurmountable task to do so?"
Don't get me wrong, if Humpty Dumpty truly represents "liberaltarianism" then we all who are in a free, democratic society have to hope that if he is falling off the wall -- if?-- and --if?-- he is about to have a great fall and --if? -- he can't be put together easily, we who believe in the values, of meritocracy and capitalism and the other principles and moral code of libertarianism, better work out pretty soon how we can reverse this Woke driven tragedy unfolding in the Western world.
Not only that, we need to be ready, willing and able to assist "all the kings horses and all the kings men"- those journalists, politicians, and those of us hoi polloi - who are striving to put Humpy together again and put Humpty Dumpty, back on his wall. 😊
Good start. You and I probably would agree on approximately how to define those generalities. In a sentence, how would you define each? I'll give it a try, too.
Liberalism gave rise to pacifism in the 1930’s and to the gestation of critical theory in the 21st century. This capacity to put individual self-indulgence ahead of societal order led to one world war and we are heading for another crisis now.
Yes, I know that illiberalism is worse but at certain times like now liberalism needs to take a back seat and we need to learn again that our actions often have very negative consequences. Saying you are a liberal does not absolve you of guilt.
Every time you say you are a liberal, you have to explain what you mean by that. Such diversity of meaning should allow for a big tent--and maybe one day, it did--but today it causes an almost constant need to explain and defend oneself. It all gets too complicated. Somehow, "liberals" need to agree on three or four principles as core and tell themselves and the rest of the world that is it period. Quite and illiberal approach? Maybe. But maybe necessary anyway.
I agree. For my part, in the book I try to do that and identify three key liberal values: a commitment to personal freedom, to fairness, and to reciprocity. Granted, those are very high-level and general, but it's a core to build off.
"Captured by capitalism (and for some critics, racism and patriarchy too), utopian possibilities no longer seem to inhere in [Liberalism]."
But was Liberalism ever about "utopian possibilities"? Liberalism, as best I understand it, promises people opportunity to freely chart their own course through life. That in itself is fairly revolutionary (with the long view of history in mind), but little if anything about it promises utopia as an outcome.
Utopianism, rather, appears to be a far Left, or Leftist, aspiration: one in which societies basically mandate proportional economic and/or racial outcomes in all spheres of society. And, more or less by definition, the only way to achieve those ends is through illiberal means. Liberalism and Utopia, therefore, may be inherently opposed to one another; but, seeing as how any expectation of a Utopia on Earth is clearly childish, that's probably a good thing.
"How would you feel if someone more powerful told you to keep quiet? How about if they told a stranger the same?"
I think these are good questions, and I'd add some more. How would we feel if our elders told us that they would decide on our marriage for us (and, if we refused, that we would face threats of banishment from the family and/or physical violence)? How would we feel if we were told that our profession in life was predetermined by our birth, and that not only was there nothing we could do about that but in fact that we might place ourselves and our family in danger by questioning the established order of things? How would we feel if we were told there was only one spiritual/religious understanding of the world and that if we questioned it, we would face excommunication or death?
The fact that Liberal societies have largely evolved beyond these issues is, in my experience, largely taken for granted even by the most vociferous critics of Liberal societies. And that just goes to show: the main threat faced by Liberalism may be a loss of perspective on just how much it has accomplished and just how important it remains.
Well said. This whole talk of liberalism is so devoid of historical context that it's impossible to grasp its meaning, let alone its soul. The economist Dani Rodrik showed real humility when he said in a podcast a couple of weeks ago that his profession is more successful in generating models than knowing when/how to apply these models. Perhaps the same is true with political scientists. All these doomsday forecasts are just as absurb as the utopia of permanent world peace or end of history when the Soviets imploded several decades ago.
"Have we reached a similar tipping point today? Many smart observers seem to think so."
"Governance in many liberal democracies is mired in dysfunction,"
Yes. Ironically thank the liberals.
"inequality continues its relentless march, "
Yes and no. Liberalism and capitalism along with the US-funded Global Order have exploded the global standard of living. But people want more... they always want more... and many have been getting less. But in the US compared to several decades ago, almost nobody goes hungry except for their inability to do the simple work to access public benefits.
"environmental catastrophe is the new normal,"
Absolutely not. And this establishment lie about environmental crisis and fatalism is contributing to the government dysfunction and rising inequity. Irony #2... the same globalist establishment that pushes the climate crisis cult has exploded industrialism and consumerism in Asia, Africa and South America that is responsible for the jump in ocean pollution and carbon emissions. The same people wringing their hands over global warming are responsible making it worse.
"mass migration destabilizes international politics,"
Yes. However, the liberals in charge deny it.
"ideological polarization generates alternative epistemic realities."
Yes, but the liberals in charge exploit political divisiveness as their primary strategy.
Some of the readers comments already ask "explain what is meant by "liberalism?"
So Humpty Dumpty is reported to have fallen off the wall. He has had a great fall" and reportedly "All the Kings horses and all the Kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again!" A very sorry state of affairs, if you know what Humpty actually was? And why he should be put together again and more to the point - should he be put together again and ...how?
There are those that really don't know by definition, who or what Humpty was - a libertarian? There are those who don't know he has taken a "great fall" and there are those who don't know why he should be put together again, and finally those that ask how to put him together again?
Ask ten different people "What is libertarianism?" and you would get overlapping opinions as to this question. But would there be an absolute agreement? Most likely not.
Ask ten different people not only "is" Humpty actually falling off the wall but why is Humpty is actually "falling off the wall?" There most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
Ask ten different people as to "was this a very great fall?" and again there most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
And ask ten different people "should Humpty be put together again?" and again there most likely would be some overlapping agreement, but a consensus?
An finally. if "all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again?" the question is "why should Humpty actually be put together again, and why is it seemingly an insurmountable task to do so?"
Don't get me wrong, if Humpty Dumpty truly represents "liberaltarianism" then we all who are in a free, democratic society have to hope that if he is falling off the wall -- if?-- and --if?-- he is about to have a great fall and --if? -- he can't be put together easily, we who believe in the values, of meritocracy and capitalism and the other principles and moral code of libertarianism, better work out pretty soon how we can reverse this Woke driven tragedy unfolding in the Western world.
Not only that, we need to be ready, willing and able to assist "all the kings horses and all the kings men"- those journalists, politicians, and those of us hoi polloi - who are striving to put Humpy together again and put Humpty Dumpty, back on his wall. 😊
Good start. You and I probably would agree on approximately how to define those generalities. In a sentence, how would you define each? I'll give it a try, too.
Martin
Liberalism gave rise to pacifism in the 1930’s and to the gestation of critical theory in the 21st century. This capacity to put individual self-indulgence ahead of societal order led to one world war and we are heading for another crisis now.
Yes, I know that illiberalism is worse but at certain times like now liberalism needs to take a back seat and we need to learn again that our actions often have very negative consequences. Saying you are a liberal does not absolve you of guilt.
Agreed. Dyed in the wool. Suckled by FDR worshippers.