Regarding modern liberalism’s conundrums, defenses, and propositions discussed by Mehta and Fukuyama: I think the hardest part of distinguishing liberalism’s present state is the same one faced since the ancient Greeks. If you shelter in a cave and subsist on whatever you find to eat, you can redefine yourself indefinitely; you have agency. But if you need even one other human (who is also a self defining individual with a different need) to help you remain an independent agent, you must each compromise some bit of autonomy. Political equality requires compromise to the needs of each party. Certainly, as we know, all people are not equally in possession of intellect, and higher levels of self awareness of their true needs, but in order for any grouping of people to peacefully exist while maintaining the freedom to make life choices, there must be political equality to adjust to the changes in the family, the tribe, community or any higher agreeable governing authority. The fluid nature of the choices required to address, say, institutional changes, demands a vibrant liberal democratic government.
How ineffably sad that there are almost no comments on this lovely discussion! Since apparently few read it, I'll keep my comment short.
Prof. Fukuyama's final comment about Haidt and emotionality is absolutely, positively central and something we have ignored for far too long. If, per Lefebvre and also Zakaria in his newest book, Liberalism is "the water in which we swim", who is teaching us to swim, teaching us what it means to live in a liberal society and why that matters? Since the Enlightenment and even before we were taught by family, church, school, guild, tribe, community, company and so on. Every industrial revolution (we are in the 4th, the Digital Revolution) is a tsunami in the 'water in which we swim', blasting apart the most recent of those stabilizing forces and throwing us pell mell into an even bigger, very confusing world. Who's doing the teaching now? We aren't, and we need to. From the brilliant, thoughtful and supremely knowledgeable Edmund Fawcett:
"For a liberal, left or right, the silence of liberal conservatism ought to worry them. That is true not just in Britain but in the rest of Europe and the US. Where are the speechwriters of the liberal right making sense of such turmoil, telling a convincing historic story of where we should be headed and what strategy would help us get there? They are there. They know the common liberal values they should be speaking for. Yet they have been silenced by the voices and vigour of the hard right.
I agree. We do need the voices of “conservative liberals” that are not just free marketeers but recognize in that there is a human nature we have inherited and even constructed for millennia that provides limits and therefore standards for individual and collective freedom and responsibility.
That does indeed require our understanding of human cognition in this new disruption of the digital revolution and perhaps new synthesis we are attempting to achieve within whatever we will call the fulfillment of “liberal democracy.” I trust that while history of human existence does not end, it has an end that we must continue to redefine.
Regarding modern liberalism’s conundrums, defenses, and propositions discussed by Mehta and Fukuyama: I think the hardest part of distinguishing liberalism’s present state is the same one faced since the ancient Greeks. If you shelter in a cave and subsist on whatever you find to eat, you can redefine yourself indefinitely; you have agency. But if you need even one other human (who is also a self defining individual with a different need) to help you remain an independent agent, you must each compromise some bit of autonomy. Political equality requires compromise to the needs of each party. Certainly, as we know, all people are not equally in possession of intellect, and higher levels of self awareness of their true needs, but in order for any grouping of people to peacefully exist while maintaining the freedom to make life choices, there must be political equality to adjust to the changes in the family, the tribe, community or any higher agreeable governing authority. The fluid nature of the choices required to address, say, institutional changes, demands a vibrant liberal democratic government.
How ineffably sad that there are almost no comments on this lovely discussion! Since apparently few read it, I'll keep my comment short.
Prof. Fukuyama's final comment about Haidt and emotionality is absolutely, positively central and something we have ignored for far too long. If, per Lefebvre and also Zakaria in his newest book, Liberalism is "the water in which we swim", who is teaching us to swim, teaching us what it means to live in a liberal society and why that matters? Since the Enlightenment and even before we were taught by family, church, school, guild, tribe, community, company and so on. Every industrial revolution (we are in the 4th, the Digital Revolution) is a tsunami in the 'water in which we swim', blasting apart the most recent of those stabilizing forces and throwing us pell mell into an even bigger, very confusing world. Who's doing the teaching now? We aren't, and we need to. From the brilliant, thoughtful and supremely knowledgeable Edmund Fawcett:
"For a liberal, left or right, the silence of liberal conservatism ought to worry them. That is true not just in Britain but in the rest of Europe and the US. Where are the speechwriters of the liberal right making sense of such turmoil, telling a convincing historic story of where we should be headed and what strategy would help us get there? They are there. They know the common liberal values they should be speaking for. Yet they have been silenced by the voices and vigour of the hard right.
No convincing narrative with rhetorical appeal is on offer either from an equally confused and silent liberal left. Well-identified problems and intelligent offers for their solution abound in a troubled liberal world but defences of that world itself and its values are barely heard. They are spoken for in well-hewn essays, yes, but not crowed and shouted as they ought to be." © The Financial Times Limited 2024
I agree. We do need the voices of “conservative liberals” that are not just free marketeers but recognize in that there is a human nature we have inherited and even constructed for millennia that provides limits and therefore standards for individual and collective freedom and responsibility.
That does indeed require our understanding of human cognition in this new disruption of the digital revolution and perhaps new synthesis we are attempting to achieve within whatever we will call the fulfillment of “liberal democracy.” I trust that while history of human existence does not end, it has an end that we must continue to redefine.