A tremendous piece of writing, thank you Matthew. As a liberal (in the UK sense) and social democrat (in the broad sense) I particularly like the specific acknowledgement of the liberal tradition as part of the broader progressive movement.
The tension between Hayek's "The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are" and "defending liberal principles of securing equality, freedom, and solidarity for all lies where it always has: with liberals, and the leftists who hold a mirror up to liberal society by asking it to live up to those principles" - really captures where I am (and believe where we should be) in forming a united front against the radical right.
Many official conservatives as in Europe are not interested in conserving but in "restoring" or even re-creating something from the past. But collectivism is still collectivism and dangerous for freedom and human rights
I'm coming to this entry once more and quite late but deserve to be gifted this remarkably clear and forceful and brutally honest assessment of what I choose now to label Libertarian writ large, following Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains. Trevor Jackson just reviewed Martin Wolf's latest book saying "oops" to his declaring the victory of democratic liberal capitalism complete. I like all three but all three seem to be on the back foot or coming apart somehow. More such contributions to understanding and action will be forthcoming in The Unpopulist I am sure.
As time goes on, as fascists consolidate power within the GOP, I expect that the question of "continuity" or "aberration" will be decided pretty clearly in favor of continuity. More so, the idea that there ever was a question will be considered uninteresting and short sighted! We should remember, as this happens, that we did not reach an answer ourselves, the fascists chose their own answer.
Robin was a great read. Ideologues on both the left and right make the same mistake Stetson makes, believing virtue or superiority bunch up in one person. The most elementary understanding of both biology and history shows the contribution of persons and organisms "of many parts." This great man approach to human interaction is indeed a kind of hero worship. On a trip to Europe with friends they will manage the technology and we will manage the languages. It's a team effort. Odd, though, the hero worshippers seem satisfied with being road-kill on the Great March forward.
This and Robin's formulation of the "Right" or conservatism is amusing to me because it will mean whoever comprises the Right will always be political winners. Regardless of whatever past hierarchies are upended or changed, inequality is an inexorable feature of human societies, especially advanced ones.
Humans are primates, social animals with a particular evolutionary history. There will always be social hierarchies - elites and non-elites (so long as there are humans). Part of this is due to their being innate variation in traits (the substrate for selection). And there will certainly be selection pressures (environmental tumult, scarcity, status threat, mate competition, etc).
In this formulation, the Right just needs to do more front-running.
There have been and are many ideas concerning the spirit of conservativism especially important among which and probably best is that of E Burke.......conservation of tradition........but the citation of Hayek merely highlights the instinct of anyone who gives a moment's thought to it...
A tremendous piece of writing, thank you Matthew. As a liberal (in the UK sense) and social democrat (in the broad sense) I particularly like the specific acknowledgement of the liberal tradition as part of the broader progressive movement.
The tension between Hayek's "The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are" and "defending liberal principles of securing equality, freedom, and solidarity for all lies where it always has: with liberals, and the leftists who hold a mirror up to liberal society by asking it to live up to those principles" - really captures where I am (and believe where we should be) in forming a united front against the radical right.
Many official conservatives as in Europe are not interested in conserving but in "restoring" or even re-creating something from the past. But collectivism is still collectivism and dangerous for freedom and human rights
I'm coming to this entry once more and quite late but deserve to be gifted this remarkably clear and forceful and brutally honest assessment of what I choose now to label Libertarian writ large, following Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains. Trevor Jackson just reviewed Martin Wolf's latest book saying "oops" to his declaring the victory of democratic liberal capitalism complete. I like all three but all three seem to be on the back foot or coming apart somehow. More such contributions to understanding and action will be forthcoming in The Unpopulist I am sure.
Excellent work!
As time goes on, as fascists consolidate power within the GOP, I expect that the question of "continuity" or "aberration" will be decided pretty clearly in favor of continuity. More so, the idea that there ever was a question will be considered uninteresting and short sighted! We should remember, as this happens, that we did not reach an answer ourselves, the fascists chose their own answer.
Robin was a great read. Ideologues on both the left and right make the same mistake Stetson makes, believing virtue or superiority bunch up in one person. The most elementary understanding of both biology and history shows the contribution of persons and organisms "of many parts." This great man approach to human interaction is indeed a kind of hero worship. On a trip to Europe with friends they will manage the technology and we will manage the languages. It's a team effort. Odd, though, the hero worshippers seem satisfied with being road-kill on the Great March forward.
This and Robin's formulation of the "Right" or conservatism is amusing to me because it will mean whoever comprises the Right will always be political winners. Regardless of whatever past hierarchies are upended or changed, inequality is an inexorable feature of human societies, especially advanced ones.
Humans are primates, social animals with a particular evolutionary history. There will always be social hierarchies - elites and non-elites (so long as there are humans). Part of this is due to their being innate variation in traits (the substrate for selection). And there will certainly be selection pressures (environmental tumult, scarcity, status threat, mate competition, etc).
In this formulation, the Right just needs to do more front-running.
There have been and are many ideas concerning the spirit of conservativism especially important among which and probably best is that of E Burke.......conservation of tradition........but the citation of Hayek merely highlights the instinct of anyone who gives a moment's thought to it...
it is based on selfishness