What’s new is the left’s outward embrace of decidedly illiberal policies and positions - so much so that it prompts one to wonder whether the left was ever sincere, or using liberalism as a convenient excuse/post-hoc rationalization for degeneracy. Gosh, that’s a tough one. A real puzzler . . .
Thank you for this discussion. It got me stirred up on several points: Dear Mr. French, Some say the deists who wrote our founding document, acknowledged divinity so as not to lose the populace. Can the same be said about the following comment? “There is nothing inconsistent between liberalism and a devout religious faith. But what the post-liberals will say is that liberalism inherently denigrates your faith.”
Of course liberalism denigrates faith that relies on supreme law from a god? It is antithetical to liberal secular existence where the individual is sovereign and empowered to define government under majority rule.
And can you truly believe liberalism is a home for religious faith? Be careful with language; liberalism as defined under “Liberty” by Jefferson and the founders is merely tolerant of individual faith, not a home that nurtures faith.
And I have a final response to your final comments: please stop defining left illiberalism as within the historical family of liberal democracy. Any party that shuts down legal speech is not liberal in any sense. Just say it, please.
Dear Mr. Galston, I also believe that the liberty espoused by Jefferson and others in the Declaration of Independence must be carefully defined as the liberty of the individual to seek virtue, happiness and a full life. (Epicurus, Spinoza) There is not now or will there ever be uninhibited liberty for individuals as they must negotiate the parameters of communal life. And the parameters, as our founders knew, must be determined by the sovereign voters (which change in various directions over time).
Dear Mr. Lila, I think you hit the nail on the head while stating: “…“liberalism is liberalism—you get a life;”
And if I can add, “so use it well and to your utmost out of respect for yourself and all with whom you live.
I honestly feel like I’m going bonkers seeing some of these debates, look everything I’m about to say comes with the massive caveat of housing costs being a real problem, and I accept that’s a real incredibly tough to solve problem that is a huge public policy failure, though having said that….
All this talk from post-liberals and the hard left and some others make it sound like we’re living in some kind of Hellscape, so I think it is worth pointing out that in the west currently we live in the wealthiest, most free society humans have ever built. If you took someone from the seventies, never mind the 30s or 1860s or my god the 1400s and showed them the stunning material abundance that even the lowest paid westerner lives in these days they would think that true utopia had been achieved. Information from anywhere on earth in our pocket at all times, stunning audio visual equipment delivering basically endless choices of entertainment options, sport or theatre or music from around the world to suit any tastes available on demand, intellectual publications of any language at your fingertips for the cost of about 20 minutes work, I could go on and on and on
Is life perfect? No far from it, but it never was perfect and in so many ways we are much closer to perfect now than ever before, the average working family these days sees an overseas holiday as a standard annual activity, this was unthinkable to the working class as recently as the 80s, I know because our camping holidays to South Australia as a kid were considered a remarkable treat in my family
So for all the people screaming to tear everything down, before telling us what you’re going to give us in replacement of the status quo, be sure to recognise how remarkable the status quo truly is
Trump creates a reality-distortion field. Trump is not anti-war and there WERE wars during his Administration. We were in Afghanistan, Biden got us out. And Trump wanted to start a war with Mexico. He asked the DoD about it several times. Trump was laughed at by world leaders, including Putin. We still don’t know what they discussed at their meeting. Why? Also, anti-war makes America weak. If the enemy knows you don’t want to fight he will take resources. Betraying allies makes us weak and Trump betrayed NATO. He wants to be friends with Russia and wrote love letters to Kim Jung Un.
[Galston] Ordinary people judged liberal democracy much more by its fruits than by its roots. They may believe in the principles, but those principles are going to be measured against what a form of government at a particular time actually does for them.
Galston cuts to the heart of the issue IMO. In the US, liberalism comes in a rightwing form (pre-1933 classical and post-1980 neoliberalism) and a leftwing form (New Deal liberalism over 1933-1980 and Progressivism since 1980). Liberal democracy delivered fruits until 1973 and then it did not, barring a brief period under Trump).
[Galston] Another way of putting this is that liberalism is a kind of modus vivendi among differences. But some people ask themselves, “Why should I co-exist with what I believe to be false and evil? Why is tolerance of difference so good?” And the classic answer to that question is that the alternative to the tolerance of difference is bloody conflict. And there are some people who are not going to take that as a knockdown argument against engaging that conflict.
produces rising instability that if not resolved by financial crisis, external war or political coup is eventually resolved in the bloody conflict Galson mentions.
[French] I think that the something new that was going on was, as Mark was saying, like the smell of the rain … you remember Occupy Wall Street? A lot of it was really incoherent. People took over a plot of ground to protest things that were not going right post the Great Recession. You’re still in Iraq. You had this sense that things had not been working.
Things were not working see above. But the smell in the rain was the harbinger of the coming Creedal Passion Period (2013-27). In just a few years the really incoherent crazy-ass shit would begin. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/cycles-of-radicalization
[French] For young men in particular who felt that there was something wrong in this country, especially about what it means to be a man, they really scratched where it was itching. Before anyone was talking about this in elite circles, it was very apparent that we were already into a crisis of masculinity. The deaths of despair, which disproportionately hit single men, were already rising among single and divorced men. We were seeing men falling behind in school to women. We were seeing widespread prescriptions of medication just being handed out to young men who were, in many ways, often just kind of going through what young boys do. So you actually had a lot of negative things occurring.
I think the center of the problem circles around dating and marriage and lack of male role models. Both are connected to neoliberalism. Two posts on this issue:
What’s new is the left’s outward embrace of decidedly illiberal policies and positions - so much so that it prompts one to wonder whether the left was ever sincere, or using liberalism as a convenient excuse/post-hoc rationalization for degeneracy. Gosh, that’s a tough one. A real puzzler . . .
I think everyone is pretty well familiar with these right-lane critiques of liberalism. They aren't exactly complicated.
Can we have a little defense of liberal society from left-lane critique? If you weren't aware, the ball can gutter on either side.
Thank you for this discussion. It got me stirred up on several points: Dear Mr. French, Some say the deists who wrote our founding document, acknowledged divinity so as not to lose the populace. Can the same be said about the following comment? “There is nothing inconsistent between liberalism and a devout religious faith. But what the post-liberals will say is that liberalism inherently denigrates your faith.”
Of course liberalism denigrates faith that relies on supreme law from a god? It is antithetical to liberal secular existence where the individual is sovereign and empowered to define government under majority rule.
And can you truly believe liberalism is a home for religious faith? Be careful with language; liberalism as defined under “Liberty” by Jefferson and the founders is merely tolerant of individual faith, not a home that nurtures faith.
And I have a final response to your final comments: please stop defining left illiberalism as within the historical family of liberal democracy. Any party that shuts down legal speech is not liberal in any sense. Just say it, please.
Dear Mr. Galston, I also believe that the liberty espoused by Jefferson and others in the Declaration of Independence must be carefully defined as the liberty of the individual to seek virtue, happiness and a full life. (Epicurus, Spinoza) There is not now or will there ever be uninhibited liberty for individuals as they must negotiate the parameters of communal life. And the parameters, as our founders knew, must be determined by the sovereign voters (which change in various directions over time).
Dear Mr. Lila, I think you hit the nail on the head while stating: “…“liberalism is liberalism—you get a life;”
And if I can add, “so use it well and to your utmost out of respect for yourself and all with whom you live.
I honestly feel like I’m going bonkers seeing some of these debates, look everything I’m about to say comes with the massive caveat of housing costs being a real problem, and I accept that’s a real incredibly tough to solve problem that is a huge public policy failure, though having said that….
All this talk from post-liberals and the hard left and some others make it sound like we’re living in some kind of Hellscape, so I think it is worth pointing out that in the west currently we live in the wealthiest, most free society humans have ever built. If you took someone from the seventies, never mind the 30s or 1860s or my god the 1400s and showed them the stunning material abundance that even the lowest paid westerner lives in these days they would think that true utopia had been achieved. Information from anywhere on earth in our pocket at all times, stunning audio visual equipment delivering basically endless choices of entertainment options, sport or theatre or music from around the world to suit any tastes available on demand, intellectual publications of any language at your fingertips for the cost of about 20 minutes work, I could go on and on and on
Is life perfect? No far from it, but it never was perfect and in so many ways we are much closer to perfect now than ever before, the average working family these days sees an overseas holiday as a standard annual activity, this was unthinkable to the working class as recently as the 80s, I know because our camping holidays to South Australia as a kid were considered a remarkable treat in my family
So for all the people screaming to tear everything down, before telling us what you’re going to give us in replacement of the status quo, be sure to recognise how remarkable the status quo truly is
Trump creates a reality-distortion field. Trump is not anti-war and there WERE wars during his Administration. We were in Afghanistan, Biden got us out. And Trump wanted to start a war with Mexico. He asked the DoD about it several times. Trump was laughed at by world leaders, including Putin. We still don’t know what they discussed at their meeting. Why? Also, anti-war makes America weak. If the enemy knows you don’t want to fight he will take resources. Betraying allies makes us weak and Trump betrayed NATO. He wants to be friends with Russia and wrote love letters to Kim Jung Un.
This is a fascinating exchange, Some comments:
[Galston] Ordinary people judged liberal democracy much more by its fruits than by its roots. They may believe in the principles, but those principles are going to be measured against what a form of government at a particular time actually does for them.
Galston cuts to the heart of the issue IMO. In the US, liberalism comes in a rightwing form (pre-1933 classical and post-1980 neoliberalism) and a leftwing form (New Deal liberalism over 1933-1980 and Progressivism since 1980). Liberal democracy delivered fruits until 1973 and then it did not, barring a brief period under Trump).
https://mikebert.neocities.org/Real%20Wage%201875-2022.gif
[Galston] Another way of putting this is that liberalism is a kind of modus vivendi among differences. But some people ask themselves, “Why should I co-exist with what I believe to be false and evil? Why is tolerance of difference so good?” And the classic answer to that question is that the alternative to the tolerance of difference is bloody conflict. And there are some people who are not going to take that as a knockdown argument against engaging that conflict.
Rising inequality generated by rightwing liberalism (neoliberalism) https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/why-i-dont-think-neoliberalism-is
produces rising instability that if not resolved by financial crisis, external war or political coup is eventually resolved in the bloody conflict Galson mentions.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-current-crisis-era
[French] I think that the something new that was going on was, as Mark was saying, like the smell of the rain … you remember Occupy Wall Street? A lot of it was really incoherent. People took over a plot of ground to protest things that were not going right post the Great Recession. You’re still in Iraq. You had this sense that things had not been working.
Things were not working see above. But the smell in the rain was the harbinger of the coming Creedal Passion Period (2013-27). In just a few years the really incoherent crazy-ass shit would begin. https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/cycles-of-radicalization
[French] For young men in particular who felt that there was something wrong in this country, especially about what it means to be a man, they really scratched where it was itching. Before anyone was talking about this in elite circles, it was very apparent that we were already into a crisis of masculinity. The deaths of despair, which disproportionately hit single men, were already rising among single and divorced men. We were seeing men falling behind in school to women. We were seeing widespread prescriptions of medication just being handed out to young men who were, in many ways, often just kind of going through what young boys do. So you actually had a lot of negative things occurring.
I think the center of the problem circles around dating and marriage and lack of male role models. Both are connected to neoliberalism. Two posts on this issue:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/two-visions-of-america-bedford-falls
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/social-consequences-of-economic-evolution