Very well put. A noteworthy element of the Ukrainian resistance to Kremlin collectivism and invasion has been the unity of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians in defending this very concept of pluralistic liberal democracy.
Very well written by Galston, regarding the importance and role of liberal ideas and institutions. One can also say that it is easier to be a communist and conservative in a liberal society while it is hard to be a communist in a conservative society or to be a conservative in a communist society. This is also because liberalism is one of the few ideologies recognising humans as individuals.
Three things to add:
- Ethnocracy is a fifth problem, and has similarities with illiberal majoritarianism. One difference is that illiberal majoritarianism is compatible with civic nationalist ideas as well, while ethnocracy is mainly about ethno-nationalism.
- Liberals, and others who care, cannot only "defend democracy". I understand for example Anne Appelbaum, but things are not going back to 1990s and 2000s "before populism". Democracy has to be renewed, reformed and improved all the time.
- Liberalism can have a future but not if liberals limit themselves to the nation-state idea and framework. Instead, liberals and others need to be complex and cosmopolitan in their minds and actions. Partly because our world is both more complex and complicated regarding different problems and challenges.
Liberalism does not have a consistent answer of what the rights of individuals should be, how to resolve clashes between different rights, what the basis for individual rights are and who are entitled to those rights. Do unborn children in the womb have rights? Should children have the same rights as adults and how old should people be to be considered adults? Does the right to life of the unborn trump the individual autonomy of the mother or vice versa and why? Do people have the right to disagree with transgenderism or is this a violation of the "right" to choose your own gender identity? Do religious institutions like churches have the right to only appoint men as clergy and to refuse to conduct gay marriages? These are only a view examples of conflicting rights and different liberals have different answers as to which rights should take precedence over which. Liberalism is thus largely arbitrary. Liberals also do a poor job of justifying their claims about rights. Why should the liberal conception of rights be accepted over some other conception of rights be they secular or religious or a combination of the two. You also made no effort to defend your claim that liberalism is better than the alternatives you listed.
Very well put. A noteworthy element of the Ukrainian resistance to Kremlin collectivism and invasion has been the unity of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians in defending this very concept of pluralistic liberal democracy.
Very well written by Galston, regarding the importance and role of liberal ideas and institutions. One can also say that it is easier to be a communist and conservative in a liberal society while it is hard to be a communist in a conservative society or to be a conservative in a communist society. This is also because liberalism is one of the few ideologies recognising humans as individuals.
Three things to add:
- Ethnocracy is a fifth problem, and has similarities with illiberal majoritarianism. One difference is that illiberal majoritarianism is compatible with civic nationalist ideas as well, while ethnocracy is mainly about ethno-nationalism.
- Liberals, and others who care, cannot only "defend democracy". I understand for example Anne Appelbaum, but things are not going back to 1990s and 2000s "before populism". Democracy has to be renewed, reformed and improved all the time.
- Liberalism can have a future but not if liberals limit themselves to the nation-state idea and framework. Instead, liberals and others need to be complex and cosmopolitan in their minds and actions. Partly because our world is both more complex and complicated regarding different problems and challenges.
https://accidentaleuropean.com/tripadvisor-inspiration-for-our-digital-democracy/
Liberalism does not have a consistent answer of what the rights of individuals should be, how to resolve clashes between different rights, what the basis for individual rights are and who are entitled to those rights. Do unborn children in the womb have rights? Should children have the same rights as adults and how old should people be to be considered adults? Does the right to life of the unborn trump the individual autonomy of the mother or vice versa and why? Do people have the right to disagree with transgenderism or is this a violation of the "right" to choose your own gender identity? Do religious institutions like churches have the right to only appoint men as clergy and to refuse to conduct gay marriages? These are only a view examples of conflicting rights and different liberals have different answers as to which rights should take precedence over which. Liberalism is thus largely arbitrary. Liberals also do a poor job of justifying their claims about rights. Why should the liberal conception of rights be accepted over some other conception of rights be they secular or religious or a combination of the two. You also made no effort to defend your claim that liberalism is better than the alternatives you listed.