On the other hand it is liberalism that maintains every form of immunity and unaccountability of leaders -- the sovereign immunity, prosecutorial discretion, qualified immunity, professional courtesy, and so forth, but even attempts to shield state agents from naming and shaming in the name of civility. The bloodiest torturer will walk free under liberalism if his crimes were done as politics, because no liberal will sanction spitting on a king, much less hanging a president. Charge soldiers and commanders and cabinet members with premeditated murder for the boat bombings; it is ever-so-worried proceduralist liberals who will stop you.
People sour on liberalism because they see an unaccountable liberal state bearing down on them, and if there's going to be a muscular state of legally privileged tribunicians, they would prefer that it smite their enemies rather than themselves. The only question a loaded gun asks is which way it is pointed.
Liberalism must shed its attachment to state power and a legally distinct political class if it is to overcome the cynical authoritarian promise that "since there's going to be a sovereign political class anyway; wouldn't you prefer that it were your own"? The authoritarians will always play that game better than we do.
This is a thought-provoking take on what modern liberalism needs to regain its confidence and sense of purpose. I especially liked the emphasis on defending individual freedom while still recognizing the challenges societies face today. Clear and accessible public information, such as https://tulsacountyassessors.org can also play an important role in helping people better understand their communities and institutions. Overall, a strong argument for a more ambitious and practical liberalism.
If you want liberty you'd better come up with a more passionate and moral defense of it than this. Liberty is not, contrary to the author's view, just something that everyone wants the benefits of but somehow fails to recognize that liberty is what provides those benefits. No, people are turning away from liberty because they don't value property, reason, independence, wealth and prosperity. They don't value individualism and self-interest. This is what pro-liberty people need to be fighting for, not some vague "human dignity" slogan. Liberty is a radical idea in the history of mankind -- an idea that depends on a dedication to reason, individualism and self-interest. These are the values that one must work to understand and fight for if there's any hope for liberty.
I think what you’re picking up on is that the average person values these things to a degree, on a personal level. But they don’t value these things “all the way down,” in principle, as a moral ideal.
This is because they don’t understand these values intellectually. They don’t because the so-called defenders of liberty and Americanism have surrendered the intellectual / moral realm to anti-liberty, anti-American forces, primarily through the universities, but also in popular culture and politics.
Capitalism, individualism and liberty today is associated with religion, faith, humility and tradition, not science, reason and progress. While collectivism, egalitarianism, socialism and sacrifice for the “common good” is associated with higher education, youthful idealism and progress, liberty and Americanism only has “common sense” and tradition. This is a disaster.
It’s true that people don’t know the history of America and how liberty was fought for, but more importantly, they don’t know the intellectual history. Namely, they don't know the philosophical and moral ideas that liberty is based on.
Instead of being taught that America is the product of the Enlightenment (the age of reason) and the moral principle of individual rights and self-interest, they are told that America is a Christian nation and that rights come from a supernatural being. Instead of being taught that capitalism is moral because it’s the system that protects each individual’s right to pursue his or her self-interest (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”), they’re taught that capitalism (while needing to be constrained and regulated because it’s morality tainted by evil self-interest) "works." It’s socialism that’s noble in intent, only it doesn’t work in practice.
This is not going to win any hearts or minds to the cause of liberty. And yet, this is what the so-called defenders of liberty argue!
So what does the average person do? They compromise – they seek the middle-of-the-road, everything in moderation, don’t go to extremes. A little freedom, a little statism, individualism sometimes, sometimes collectivism, no socialist grocery stores, but a socialist welfare state, freedom of speech, but not “hate” speech and not freedom to run a business, except if its a small business, because “Big” is bad.
Being a radical, or that dirty word, an “extremist,” is regarded as bad on its face. This rules out being for extreme liberty or a radical for rights. What this really means for pro-liberty types is: don’t think in terms of principles or ideals, just use “common sense.” Radical ideas and idealism, they are taught, belong to the socialists, fascists, totalitarians, etc. On this kind of view, liberty has no chance.
The truth is that liberty and Americanism is what’s radical and idealistic. Extreme liberty and individualism that what actually has the moral high-ground and is intellectually defensible on the basis of reason and reality. While it is collectivism, socialism and yes, altruism, that is indefensible, anti-reason and anti-reality.
As a political movement, liberalism has always had two faces. You have described one of them. Yet liberalism was always the ideology of the propertied bourgeoisie; the freedoms it championed were those of the rising capitalist class, which sought to break free from feudal constraints. Liberalism meant free trade and economic activity unencumbered by restrictions such as legally mandated working conditions, the right to strike, or the right to organize. Liberalism also served as the ideological superstructure for 19th-century imperialism.
The worst aspect of liberalism is its extreme individualism and destruction of identity and intermediate institutions between state and the individual. Liberalism has some positive aspects regarding individual rights and freedom of speech but it is destroying Europe and what is left of The West and must go if we are to salvage anything of our heritage.
The question for you then is quite simple. Do you want to improve Liberal Democracy or do you want to overthrow it? If the former, how? And if the latter, what do you want to replace it with?
The problem with Liberal Democracy is the control concentrated individual and corporate wealth exert over the political process which is especially acute in Anglosphere countries, most notably the United States. Another problem with liberalism in general is the creation of an out of touch, elitist, Professional Managerial Class which works in its own interests and largely opposes the social and economic interests of the broad masses of the population.
Due to neoliberal economic policies of the past 45-50 years, mass immigration, social and cultural decline, the political process is breaking down and society is fragmenting due to lower social trust, cultural cohesion, and widening income disparities between haves and have nots.
All political systems decline at some point along with cultures and nations. I’d like to preserve the positive aspects of liberalism within a post-liberal society to come.
Sorry, folks, but you need to turn off System 1 and engage System 2.
This is correlation and not causation. Liberalism has nothing to say about the growth of government. Government grows because the known world grows. There is no country in the world that doesn't have a bureaucracy (OK, my bad. Haiti). The size is usually in some proportion to how much of the world the country wants to engage with. Sudan needs a hell of a lot less than S. Korea. Even Papua New Guinea has bureaucracy and government.
Is bureaucracy a PITB and does it tend to feed itself and do "professional, managerial classes" take over? Yeah. So if you'd rather have the non-professionals take over, move to Russia and see how that works. Do those classes make mistakes? Sure. Is that a function of liberalism or human/group/agency errors? Hint: It's NOT liberalism. Hell yes, FIX the problems. But don't shoot liberalism too.
This is a case of throwing out the baby (the source of all the progress and good per the Substack itself) with the bath water (the difficulties of living in a large world.) Ever since we went from intersections to traffic lights we've simply *had* to have administration and government.
Russia is better run in some ways than the U.S. the Professional Managerial Classes in the U.S., Britain, and Western Europe have inflicted incalculable and possibly irreversible damage on western societies in myriad ways. We need radical changes in the United States. Some of you think we can go back to the days of LBJ or Carter. Not a chance.
Does the post liberal society allow for the the peaceful transition of power every few years? And does it allow for bargaining in pursuit of compromise? And does it unambigiously allow the separation of powers and the existence of competing power centres to check the power of the executive?
I would hope so. Subsidiarity, decentralization of power to local and regional levels, and economic populism might preserve the better qualities of liberalism.
Liberalism needs to fight for individual rights. That was the foundation id the US, even if greatly flawed. The flaw was not applying individual rights to all individuals.
On the other hand it is liberalism that maintains every form of immunity and unaccountability of leaders -- the sovereign immunity, prosecutorial discretion, qualified immunity, professional courtesy, and so forth, but even attempts to shield state agents from naming and shaming in the name of civility. The bloodiest torturer will walk free under liberalism if his crimes were done as politics, because no liberal will sanction spitting on a king, much less hanging a president. Charge soldiers and commanders and cabinet members with premeditated murder for the boat bombings; it is ever-so-worried proceduralist liberals who will stop you.
People sour on liberalism because they see an unaccountable liberal state bearing down on them, and if there's going to be a muscular state of legally privileged tribunicians, they would prefer that it smite their enemies rather than themselves. The only question a loaded gun asks is which way it is pointed.
Liberalism must shed its attachment to state power and a legally distinct political class if it is to overcome the cynical authoritarian promise that "since there's going to be a sovereign political class anyway; wouldn't you prefer that it were your own"? The authoritarians will always play that game better than we do.
This is a thought-provoking take on what modern liberalism needs to regain its confidence and sense of purpose. I especially liked the emphasis on defending individual freedom while still recognizing the challenges societies face today. Clear and accessible public information, such as https://tulsacountyassessors.org can also play an important role in helping people better understand their communities and institutions. Overall, a strong argument for a more ambitious and practical liberalism.
Isn't Indivisible.org exactly the organization you're asking for? Isn't #NOKINGS an Enlightenment slogan?
If you want liberty you'd better come up with a more passionate and moral defense of it than this. Liberty is not, contrary to the author's view, just something that everyone wants the benefits of but somehow fails to recognize that liberty is what provides those benefits. No, people are turning away from liberty because they don't value property, reason, independence, wealth and prosperity. They don't value individualism and self-interest. This is what pro-liberty people need to be fighting for, not some vague "human dignity" slogan. Liberty is a radical idea in the history of mankind -- an idea that depends on a dedication to reason, individualism and self-interest. These are the values that one must work to understand and fight for if there's any hope for liberty.
I think what you’re picking up on is that the average person values these things to a degree, on a personal level. But they don’t value these things “all the way down,” in principle, as a moral ideal.
This is because they don’t understand these values intellectually. They don’t because the so-called defenders of liberty and Americanism have surrendered the intellectual / moral realm to anti-liberty, anti-American forces, primarily through the universities, but also in popular culture and politics.
Capitalism, individualism and liberty today is associated with religion, faith, humility and tradition, not science, reason and progress. While collectivism, egalitarianism, socialism and sacrifice for the “common good” is associated with higher education, youthful idealism and progress, liberty and Americanism only has “common sense” and tradition. This is a disaster.
It’s true that people don’t know the history of America and how liberty was fought for, but more importantly, they don’t know the intellectual history. Namely, they don't know the philosophical and moral ideas that liberty is based on.
Instead of being taught that America is the product of the Enlightenment (the age of reason) and the moral principle of individual rights and self-interest, they are told that America is a Christian nation and that rights come from a supernatural being. Instead of being taught that capitalism is moral because it’s the system that protects each individual’s right to pursue his or her self-interest (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”), they’re taught that capitalism (while needing to be constrained and regulated because it’s morality tainted by evil self-interest) "works." It’s socialism that’s noble in intent, only it doesn’t work in practice.
This is not going to win any hearts or minds to the cause of liberty. And yet, this is what the so-called defenders of liberty argue!
So what does the average person do? They compromise – they seek the middle-of-the-road, everything in moderation, don’t go to extremes. A little freedom, a little statism, individualism sometimes, sometimes collectivism, no socialist grocery stores, but a socialist welfare state, freedom of speech, but not “hate” speech and not freedom to run a business, except if its a small business, because “Big” is bad.
Being a radical, or that dirty word, an “extremist,” is regarded as bad on its face. This rules out being for extreme liberty or a radical for rights. What this really means for pro-liberty types is: don’t think in terms of principles or ideals, just use “common sense.” Radical ideas and idealism, they are taught, belong to the socialists, fascists, totalitarians, etc. On this kind of view, liberty has no chance.
The truth is that liberty and Americanism is what’s radical and idealistic. Extreme liberty and individualism that what actually has the moral high-ground and is intellectually defensible on the basis of reason and reality. While it is collectivism, socialism and yes, altruism, that is indefensible, anti-reason and anti-reality.
All well and good but you state that our condition does not come down to philosophical defects..BUT IT DOES !!
As a political movement, liberalism has always had two faces. You have described one of them. Yet liberalism was always the ideology of the propertied bourgeoisie; the freedoms it championed were those of the rising capitalist class, which sought to break free from feudal constraints. Liberalism meant free trade and economic activity unencumbered by restrictions such as legally mandated working conditions, the right to strike, or the right to organize. Liberalism also served as the ideological superstructure for 19th-century imperialism.
The worst aspect of liberalism is its extreme individualism and destruction of identity and intermediate institutions between state and the individual. Liberalism has some positive aspects regarding individual rights and freedom of speech but it is destroying Europe and what is left of The West and must go if we are to salvage anything of our heritage.
The question for you then is quite simple. Do you want to improve Liberal Democracy or do you want to overthrow it? If the former, how? And if the latter, what do you want to replace it with?
The problem with Liberal Democracy is the control concentrated individual and corporate wealth exert over the political process which is especially acute in Anglosphere countries, most notably the United States. Another problem with liberalism in general is the creation of an out of touch, elitist, Professional Managerial Class which works in its own interests and largely opposes the social and economic interests of the broad masses of the population.
Due to neoliberal economic policies of the past 45-50 years, mass immigration, social and cultural decline, the political process is breaking down and society is fragmenting due to lower social trust, cultural cohesion, and widening income disparities between haves and have nots.
All political systems decline at some point along with cultures and nations. I’d like to preserve the positive aspects of liberalism within a post-liberal society to come.
Sorry, folks, but you need to turn off System 1 and engage System 2.
This is correlation and not causation. Liberalism has nothing to say about the growth of government. Government grows because the known world grows. There is no country in the world that doesn't have a bureaucracy (OK, my bad. Haiti). The size is usually in some proportion to how much of the world the country wants to engage with. Sudan needs a hell of a lot less than S. Korea. Even Papua New Guinea has bureaucracy and government.
Is bureaucracy a PITB and does it tend to feed itself and do "professional, managerial classes" take over? Yeah. So if you'd rather have the non-professionals take over, move to Russia and see how that works. Do those classes make mistakes? Sure. Is that a function of liberalism or human/group/agency errors? Hint: It's NOT liberalism. Hell yes, FIX the problems. But don't shoot liberalism too.
This is a case of throwing out the baby (the source of all the progress and good per the Substack itself) with the bath water (the difficulties of living in a large world.) Ever since we went from intersections to traffic lights we've simply *had* to have administration and government.
Russia is better run in some ways than the U.S. the Professional Managerial Classes in the U.S., Britain, and Western Europe have inflicted incalculable and possibly irreversible damage on western societies in myriad ways. We need radical changes in the United States. Some of you think we can go back to the days of LBJ or Carter. Not a chance.
‘Saved’ for what and whom? Unfortunately Trump never was serious about destroying the deep state.
Does the post liberal society allow for the the peaceful transition of power every few years? And does it allow for bargaining in pursuit of compromise? And does it unambigiously allow the separation of powers and the existence of competing power centres to check the power of the executive?
I would hope so. Subsidiarity, decentralization of power to local and regional levels, and economic populism might preserve the better qualities of liberalism.
Liberalism needs to fight for individual rights. That was the foundation id the US, even if greatly flawed. The flaw was not applying individual rights to all individuals.