I appreciate very much your highlighting the inherent issues in Hazony's national conservatism, especially as it relates to the United States and the precedent Hazony is trying to set for Israel. I would only add, speaking as a main-line Presbyterian Christian pastor, I am very concerned about the dangerous idea of "empowering a particular American Christianity" and I very much do mind "which" Christianity. And I could not agree with you more that this never has been and never should be the basis for our national identity. Thanks again for writing this article.
Good discussion. Just listened to his ezra interview and was shocked by the voluntary ignorance of history displayed.
Im surprised Ezra did not mention that not so long ago Texas if not 80% of the country was mexican, french, and even more natives. The creepy insistance on protestantism is running against all the evidence in toponymy that this country could have been way different than it is, and that despite 100 years of brainwashing there may still be more in it than a "tribal" core.
Btw his definition of a Nation is the stupidest i ever heard.
Of course the word "atheist" is limited. Who disputes that? So what? Are you setting requirements for the precision of words? Sam Harris is the first person I ever heard to complain that calling himself an atheist does not say what he does believe. If you take the trouble, you can learn what either Pinker or Harris are for. I could list a dozen things off the top of my head. You know little about either but insist on making supremely ignorant statements about them. I would be embarrassed to have written what you have.
Hazony’s project not only makes life precarious for Palestinians, it would have the same effect for diaspora Jews if implemented in their countries. It would therefore both pave the way for annexation in Israel and promote aliya (Jewish migration to Israel).
I've often wondered whether that's baked in. After all, the Israeli right has no respect for Diaspora Jews, whom they regard as living in "galut."
The one silver lining (pardon the mixed metaphor) is that an influx of Diaspora Jews would neutralize the so-called "demographic threat" -- and if they're American Jews, would be incorporated as a new Israeli population accustomed to (and familiar with) life in a multi-ethnic liberal democracy.
Under such circumstances, Israel could annex the Territories and (subject to some vetting) could grant full citizenship to all the inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity -- and under those circumstances, Palestinian Israelis could soon become the envy of the entire Arab world.
If the American Experiment fails, its fulfillment (like so much in history) might be left to the Jews -- and that fulfillment could be very different from what Hazony has in mind.
I'm not talking about the Kahanites that have come over from Boro Park -- who have indeed become violent, bigoted settlers.
I'm talking about the sorts of liberal Jews (from places like Park Slope, Westwood, or Shaker Heights) likely to be expelled by Trump (or Vance). No matter where they settle (even if it's in Judea & Samaria), they'll bring a very different attitude there. :-)
Israel (aka "Palestine") is the ancient homeland from which the Jews were exiled. That's been the core narrative defining Jews throughout the world for 2,000 years. ("Palestine" is the name the Romans gave the area when they expelled the Jews. (Were we supposed to save the house-keys?) Or are you claiming that Jewishness is (based on) a fraud?
"Jews not welcome here"? That's as perverse a variant of "anti-colonial" discourse as Hazony's ethnocratic "Jewish nationalism."
See my comment ("I've often wondered...") preceding the one to which you replied. Got a problem with that?
Partition (i.e., segregation) is no "solution." "Israel" and "Palestine" are the same place, from the river to the sea. This is a bloody civil war, and ("with malice toward none, and charity toward all") Israel needs a Lincoln.
All these ethno-nationalist myths do not interest me one bit. We all know anyway that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who stayed. What is important is this. There is a state of Israel recognised by the international community inside the borders of 1967. Every Israeli settlement outside of those borders is illegal and is part and parcel of a colonial project that is literally genocidal. It does not matter if the settlers in those colonial outposts are crazies who believe to be on a mission from God or if they are secular racists. They have no right to be there and should pack their bags asap. The idea that genocidal Israel would ever want to be a democratic state with equal rights for non-Jews is self-evidently ridiculous, and as for “vetting” the Palestinian population, I suppose with more violence and killings, that is an obscenity for which I have no words.
The inclusion of the following sentence makes the entire remainder of this piece moot:
“[T]he American Founders’ constitutional framework for republican self-government depends for its proper functioning on the virtue in the public that Christianity provides.”
If you think “virtue” is dependent on religion, you are not endorsing secular liberalism. End of story.
Is it appropriate to call someone who gets as much fundamentally wrong as Hazony about the subject of politics a "political theorist?"
Why is it that politics is the only profession where anyone with a random opinion they want to articulate is considered the same as someone who actually understands the subject of political theory?
What other field of human endeavor treats randoms with random opinions as experts, or something?
But try applying that to any other field and see how you go. Do you think 1+1=2 because we voted on it democratically, or something?
Politics is like any other subject, it can be understood and applied correctly, producing consistent results.
I think the whole swathe of issues that we face today is the result of the field of politics being overrun with laughably unqualified people, all using similar excuses of "democracy" to justify their nonsense random opinions. (Not directing that at you specifically, but just at the people in this field in general.)
Politics, unlike mathematics, is largely contingent on one's values -- on what one believes makes life worthwhile. In a liberal democracy, such matters are left to all individuals to judge for themselves.
Ironicallly, my problem with Hazony is his lack of respect for that very aspect of liberal democracy.
If the right to swing one's arms ends where someone else's nose begins, an "expert" might respond to crowded conditions by putting everybody in a straitjacket (rather than recognizing a need for more space). I think the whole swathe of issues that we face today is the result of such authoritarian overreach -- and the equally-authoritarian backlash.
"Competence" (vs incompetence) is downstream from that -- and from values (including [but not only] your own).
Every human endeavor is contingent on one's values. People invented mathematics because they wanted to improve their lives, same with politics. The only difference is that politics is much more abstract.
I think this is why the entire field is overrun by people who are just pretending they know what they're talking about, while this would be much harder to do in subjects that deal with more concrete matters.
So, no expert liberal would advocate putting people in straitjackets as that would violate their rights and be authoritarian/anti-liberal.
Similarly, there's no such thing as "liberal democracy" which I think is a contradiction. Liberal means rights-protecting. Democracy means mob rule. It is also authoritarian, replacing the tyranny of a small group, with the tyranny of the majority.
This is why the Founders were so specific about America being a "Constitutional Republic" and explicitly *not* a democracy.
They were politically literate intellectuals that understood that the function of government is to protect individual rights, and that this is *not* up for a vote.
"Liberal democrats" are mostly just a hodge podge of statists, who think having a coherent ideology is the problem with everything in politics, and think their random disjointed opinions = liberal political theory. Sorry, no.
I think these people might be the guiltiest of all for the current state of dismal political discourse. Being on the right side for the wrong reasons is worse than being on the wrong side.
No one helps authoritarians more than the politically illiterate destroying liberal ideas from the inside.
"People invented mathematics because they wanted to improve their lives, same with politics" -- but the problem for politics (unlike math, which is actually far more abstract!) is that real people have divergent notions of what it might mean to "improve their lives."
Whether there can be any such thing as "liberal democracy" (vs "mob rule") has long been debated, and we're not going to agree on the provenance or legitimacy of either side, let alone settle that debate here.
Nonetheless, I'm surprised (and disheartened) to see such dogmatism (or ideological rigidity) coming from a professed liberal: That's the sort of thing I'd sooner expect to encounter in a Marxist (claiming "You have no analysis" merely because I don't share theirs). One can certainly find greater tolerance for ambiguity (and more humility) in, say, an Isaiah Berlin.
We obviously have very different views on hierarchy. Suffice it to say that I share much of my perspective with the KKK -- Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka -- and (as for democratic vistas) that I grew up, happily, ten minutes' drive from the Walt Whitman Mall. ;-)
"(unlike math, which is actually far more abstract!)"
Abstract means removed from sense perception. Math can be illustrated with symbols, and the basics can even be performed on your fingers.
You can't show basic political concepts, like individual rights, on your fingers. This requires abstract thinking skills. Politics is the fourth branch of philosophy and the most abstract subject that we know of.
It's the only subject where people who literally have no idea what they're talking about, think that their "democratic opinion" is the same as people who *do* know what they're talking about. Something you will never see in a concrete subject, like math.
"real people have divergent notions of what it might mean to "improve their lives.""
It's not that they have divergent views, it's that they have *wrong* views and think any opinion is equal to actual correct answers in this subject due to its abstract nature.
For example, there are those who think central planning will improve lives. They are wrong and this is proven by the collapse of the standard of living in centrally planned societies.
Then there are those who think rights-protecting government, and capitalism will improve lives. They are right and this is proven by the sky-high standard of living in rights-protecting societies.
It's not an issue of "long been debated" it's an issue of competence in this subject.
"to see such dogmatism (or ideological rigidity) coming from a professed liberal:"
This is why I brought up a concrete math example. Imagine telling someone who says 1+1=2 that they are being "dogmatic and ideologically rigid."
The issue in politics is not that we need to debate anything, any more than it is in any other subject. The issue is the total political illiteracy of the mainstream discourse.
It's reached all new lows and people aren't even pretending anymore. Openly stating that no one knows what any what words mean, don't be ideological, etc, as if these are valid points as opposed to disqualifying statements showing no grasp of the subject.
This is what needs to change, or civilization is going down.
This article is interesting as a polemic, but unfortunately, it's a superficial critique.
The heart of Hazony's ideology is ethno-nationalism -- his conflation of ethnicity with nationhood (or "self-determination") -- whereas the heart of liberal democracy (or civic nationalism) is a recognition that the right to "self-determination" inherently belongs to the individual -- that the State exists to provide equal protection to all individual citizens, regardless of ethnicity -- not to a specific collective or group.
For Hazony, ethno-nationalism additionally becomes conflated with religion because of the unique situation of the Jews, for whom religion and ethnicity, overall (notwithstanding subcultural or theological disparities), are congruent. A Catholic might be Italian or Polish (as Swedes or Dutch might be Protestant), but in being (religiously) Jewish, one defines oneself (and is defined) as (ethnically) a Jew -- and vice-versa. (A Jew who rejects Judaism [as per the "Wicked Son" of the Passover Seder] is regarded as having excluded himself from his People.) Jews (by their very Scripture [as history]) are regarded (and, in identifying as Jews, regard themselves) as sharing a unique and singular tribal narrative inextricable from religion.
(To some extent, this also applies to "Hindutva" [per India's Modi and his BJP], to Putin's relationship with Russian Orthodoxy, and [also, for that matter] to the political character of Tibetan Buddhism.)
Thus, Hazony speaks of "THE Jewish People" while the liberal democrat need merely acknowledge the existence (and self-determination) of Jewish PEOPLE (plural)-- in a State that respects and protects their right to their beliefs (and to freely associate), without assigning it privileged status in the political sphere. Until 1948, in fact, Judah Magnes, like this article's author, a Reform Jew -- who considered himself a "spiritual Zionist" -- strove to create an Israel (welcoming Jews returning from Exile to their ancient homeland) that would be a multi-ethnic, liberal and fully democratic State (in contrast to the "Jewish nationalism" of political Zionism [with Hazony at its ideological extreme]).
Further complicating all of this, however, Hazony views multi-ethnic States (even liberal democracies, by their very universalism!), not as legitimate "nations," but as "empires." This is, indeed, his most pernicious doctrine -- since ironically (as a perverse turn in "anti-colonial" discourse), it requires Jewish supremacy within Israel in order for it to be a legitimate "nation" (by his definition) rather than an imperialist "settler-colonial State."
This merely scratches the surface of our current predicament.
The interview with Klein was truly scary. He’s clearly very pleased to be able to talk about his “friend” JD, not addressing him as VP, and “Marco” who has betrayed every advantage he enjoyed because of his privileged status as a Cuban American. He is the intellectual veneer covering the dark intentions of those who will be glad to discard him when they have the power they seek.
Since Klein obviously realized that he was free to raise his countervailing points elsewhere, I think that (in the interview) he was simply willing to let Hazony use all the rope he might need to hang himself -- while appearing to be merely polite. ;-)
Is there really a "mountain of historical evidence" the founders did not want America to be an officially Christian nation? Yes there is. Start with "God" not being mentioned in the Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence "Nature's God" is not the Christian God. Nature's God is the Deist God. The first five Presidents were likely Deists. I write "likely" because Deism was something not admitted in polite company - it was often used interchangeably with atheism.
Even those that were Christian, were very non-serious variants of Unitarian and the like. For a culture that existed before electricity, clean drinking water, the theory of evolution and the industrial revolution, they were incredibly rational and secular.
When George Washington said, "religious and moral people" (the only mention of religion in a 6K word speech btw) he meant "moral." The Founders often used religion and morality interchangeably. He did not mean belief in supernatural nonsense.
Even then, they separated what religious beliefs they had from the subject of politics, which they approached scientifically, producing revolutionary advancements in the field and creating the world's first rights-protecting republic (which then created the necessary conditions of electricity, clean drinking water, industrial revolution, etc).
No religious kooks have ever come up with anything that has benefitted mankind, so suggesting the US founding is in any way religious is wrong on the face of it.
Deists were in fact advocates of reason which makes them a step up than mere atheists.
They still had a god as their explanation for the origins of the universe, which leaves the door open for people to mistakenly claim that they were another type of religious people, but they just hadn't yet figured out that the universe does not require an origin.
OTOH Atheists are just anti-religion, but they're not for anything, often ending up believing in secular irrational nonsense as bad as any religion.
This is why I don't think it's atheism vs religion, it is reason vs religion.
The only thing you can say in general about atheists is they don't believe in a god. Where do you come by these ridiculous "believe in anything" claims? Are they true of Spinoza, Einstein, Steven Pinker, or Sam Harris? I don't think of a crystal worshipping fool who doesn't believe in a god as an atheist, he's a crystal worshiping fool. Reason is one way to get to atheism, not the only way.
But that's my point. The ONLY thing you can say about atheists is what they don't believe. But that's not as important as what you *do* believe, which can be anything for atheists. Your list of names is a good example.
First you have someone like Einstein, who was a genius in his field, and made enormous contributions to science. This is only possible by competent rational thinking.
Then you have people like Pinker, or Sam Harris (who doesn't even understand the axiomatic concept of free will.) These people are not geniuses, to put it politely, and don't belong in the same list as Einstein. For all intents and purposes, Pinker and Harris are not different from religious people.
This is why I think "atheist" is a useless descriptor and is not the end goal of thinking. It's about reason vs mysticism (in all its forms, including that advocated by Harris types).
We agree the only thing you can say about atheists is they don't believe in God. You said more. You went on to generalize "atheists will believe anything." "Atheist" is not useless, it means exactly what we both said. Just like "Christian" isn't useless because there Baptists and Catholics.
I'll bet my house Pinker and Harris have genius level IQs, though like everyone else, maybe not Einstein level. If you want to hang your reputation on saying they aren't among the very brightest public figures, go ahead. By the way Einstein, like Spinoza, didn't believe in "free will."
But regardless of Christian sect, these are still all defined by what they are *for*, while atheists are only defined by what they are *against*, so I don't think it's the same.
If I was to describe myself, I would say something like "advocate of reason." This makes me an atheist, of course, but that's not a defining detail.
As for Einstein, whatever his flaws in other fields, in his area of expertise, he is a giant that achieved truly singular results. For that he deserves his place in history.
Pinker and Harris types are very silly people who have no idea what they're talking about and represent the total rot of government funding of education and academia.
Even to the extent that they are well meaning (e.g. they are anti-Trump, anti-Putin, etc.) they are in fact a problem because what they are *for* is just nonsense. So instead of helping the right ideas, they make it seem like anti-MAGA are just as bad. All they are capable of doing is contributing to the Idiocracy of our political discourse, which of course helps all the enemies of Western civilization by default.
Personally, I think the incompetent intellectuals are even worse than just the outright evil ones, and cause way more damage.
There you go again, trying to hijack pantheists like Einstein and Spinoza and enlist them as atheists. They were not. (And that doesn't make them crystal-worshippers, either.)
I disagree. I think most Spinoza scholars consider him an atheist. Steven Nadler and Edwin Curley for example. Jacobi and Lessing (in the great philosophical debate over pantheism in18th century Germany) labeled him a Pantheist, but this has not stood up over time. If Spinoza's monism makes him a pantheist, OK, I agree he was a monist.
Reason can exist (and can be exercised) within the context of religion (depending on how one defines "religion") or belief in God (whom [or which] we don't get to define).
An agnostic is not merely a stunted atheist: In fact, the agnostic might (in all humility) wonder why they should be expected to define "God," let alone to determine whether "God" exists. God might (or might not) "exist" merely to suggest that an agnostic (as a human being, fully equipped with reason) is not God. (In that sense, "God" is a psychological construct, not a physical entity. Epistemology is not -- and by definition, cannot be -- a science.)
Meanwhile, how can reason establish that Time exists? (As with Mr Schrödinger, my cat wants to know.) ;-)
Yes, deists were not atheists as we use the words today. Deists believe in a creator God that does not intervene in the world. Atheists don't believe there is a God. Deists and atheists do agree on rejecting supernatural events, rejecting divine providence, and rejecting scripture as a source of truth. At the time of the Declaration, this heterodoxy of deists was lumped together with atheism.
I consider Spinoza an atheist. I am one myself, and find little in Spinoza - who I know well - to alter my belief. Spinoza's God is not the Christian God, it is Einstein's God.
Einstein's God is God (whose name [as indicated in Hebrew] is the sound of one hand clapping -- known to us as existence in Time). If you were Jewish, you might understand. ;-)
I am Jewish, not unlike Einstein and Spinoza (in my ethnicity and religious views, not my intellectual capacity). I don't understand. To me "God" is not something that exists, but something Christians and Muslims claim exists. That is not what Spinoza's God (=Einstein's) is.
You're beating a dead horse. Last I noticed, Spinoza and Einstein weren't Christians -- but (as a Jew, you must realize) that didn't make them atheists, either -- nor did either of those figures claim to be.
(Pantheism and/or panentheism aren't atheism -- which one might view as flawed by hubris regarding the limits of human consciousness [in handling information, our ecological niche]. This is coming to a head as we come to realize that "homo sapiens" might soon cease to be this planet's apex predator -- and that what follows [by definition] won't be for us to decide.)
And no, a Jew (or an agnostic) is not merely a half-realized atheist.
FWIW, I tend to see Judaism as the oldest branch of a religion (i.e., monotheism) currently known as Islam -- but that's a whole other discussion. In my view, the Israel/Palestine conflict likely won't be settled until al-Aqsa (or an edifice atop the Temple Mount, by whatever name) is emblazoned with the words, "My House shall be a House of Prayer for All People."
Conversely, one (ethnically Jewish) atheist friend of mine recommends (half in jest), "Nuke Jerusalem!"
Your mileage may vary. If so, you're welcome to hang out in Beijing! ;-)
Can you name one thing Spinoza wrote that disqualifies him from being an atheist? His life's work was centered on redefining "God" as something natural, without intentions, personhood, desires, or cares - the natural universe, something to understand by applying reason. Ditto Einstein.
This type of nationalism used to be known as “völkisch”.
I appreciate very much your highlighting the inherent issues in Hazony's national conservatism, especially as it relates to the United States and the precedent Hazony is trying to set for Israel. I would only add, speaking as a main-line Presbyterian Christian pastor, I am very concerned about the dangerous idea of "empowering a particular American Christianity" and I very much do mind "which" Christianity. And I could not agree with you more that this never has been and never should be the basis for our national identity. Thanks again for writing this article.
Good discussion. Just listened to his ezra interview and was shocked by the voluntary ignorance of history displayed.
Im surprised Ezra did not mention that not so long ago Texas if not 80% of the country was mexican, french, and even more natives. The creepy insistance on protestantism is running against all the evidence in toponymy that this country could have been way different than it is, and that despite 100 years of brainwashing there may still be more in it than a "tribal" core.
Btw his definition of a Nation is the stupidest i ever heard.
Of course the word "atheist" is limited. Who disputes that? So what? Are you setting requirements for the precision of words? Sam Harris is the first person I ever heard to complain that calling himself an atheist does not say what he does believe. If you take the trouble, you can learn what either Pinker or Harris are for. I could list a dozen things off the top of my head. You know little about either but insist on making supremely ignorant statements about them. I would be embarrassed to have written what you have.
Hazony’s project not only makes life precarious for Palestinians, it would have the same effect for diaspora Jews if implemented in their countries. It would therefore both pave the way for annexation in Israel and promote aliya (Jewish migration to Israel).
I've often wondered whether that's baked in. After all, the Israeli right has no respect for Diaspora Jews, whom they regard as living in "galut."
The one silver lining (pardon the mixed metaphor) is that an influx of Diaspora Jews would neutralize the so-called "demographic threat" -- and if they're American Jews, would be incorporated as a new Israeli population accustomed to (and familiar with) life in a multi-ethnic liberal democracy.
Under such circumstances, Israel could annex the Territories and (subject to some vetting) could grant full citizenship to all the inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity -- and under those circumstances, Palestinian Israelis could soon become the envy of the entire Arab world.
If the American Experiment fails, its fulfillment (like so much in history) might be left to the Jews -- and that fulfillment could be very different from what Hazony has in mind.
Well unfortunately American Jews migrating to Israel today are more likely to head towards colonies in cisjordanie than in multicultural centers...
I'm not talking about the Kahanites that have come over from Boro Park -- who have indeed become violent, bigoted settlers.
I'm talking about the sorts of liberal Jews (from places like Park Slope, Westwood, or Shaker Heights) likely to be expelled by Trump (or Vance). No matter where they settle (even if it's in Judea & Samaria), they'll bring a very different attitude there. :-)
No matter where they settle in the occupied territories they are engaged in an illegal and genocidal colonial project.
Israel (aka "Palestine") is the ancient homeland from which the Jews were exiled. That's been the core narrative defining Jews throughout the world for 2,000 years. ("Palestine" is the name the Romans gave the area when they expelled the Jews. (Were we supposed to save the house-keys?) Or are you claiming that Jewishness is (based on) a fraud?
"Jews not welcome here"? That's as perverse a variant of "anti-colonial" discourse as Hazony's ethnocratic "Jewish nationalism."
See my comment ("I've often wondered...") preceding the one to which you replied. Got a problem with that?
Partition (i.e., segregation) is no "solution." "Israel" and "Palestine" are the same place, from the river to the sea. This is a bloody civil war, and ("with malice toward none, and charity toward all") Israel needs a Lincoln.
All these ethno-nationalist myths do not interest me one bit. We all know anyway that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who stayed. What is important is this. There is a state of Israel recognised by the international community inside the borders of 1967. Every Israeli settlement outside of those borders is illegal and is part and parcel of a colonial project that is literally genocidal. It does not matter if the settlers in those colonial outposts are crazies who believe to be on a mission from God or if they are secular racists. They have no right to be there and should pack their bags asap. The idea that genocidal Israel would ever want to be a democratic state with equal rights for non-Jews is self-evidently ridiculous, and as for “vetting” the Palestinian population, I suppose with more violence and killings, that is an obscenity for which I have no words.
The inclusion of the following sentence makes the entire remainder of this piece moot:
“[T]he American Founders’ constitutional framework for republican self-government depends for its proper functioning on the virtue in the public that Christianity provides.”
If you think “virtue” is dependent on religion, you are not endorsing secular liberalism. End of story.
Is it appropriate to call someone who gets as much fundamentally wrong as Hazony about the subject of politics a "political theorist?"
Why is it that politics is the only profession where anyone with a random opinion they want to articulate is considered the same as someone who actually understands the subject of political theory?
What other field of human endeavor treats randoms with random opinions as experts, or something?
Why is it that politics is the only profession where anyone with a random opinion is considered the equal of anyone else?
That's called democracy.
But try applying that to any other field and see how you go. Do you think 1+1=2 because we voted on it democratically, or something?
Politics is like any other subject, it can be understood and applied correctly, producing consistent results.
I think the whole swathe of issues that we face today is the result of the field of politics being overrun with laughably unqualified people, all using similar excuses of "democracy" to justify their nonsense random opinions. (Not directing that at you specifically, but just at the people in this field in general.)
Politics, unlike mathematics, is largely contingent on one's values -- on what one believes makes life worthwhile. In a liberal democracy, such matters are left to all individuals to judge for themselves.
Ironicallly, my problem with Hazony is his lack of respect for that very aspect of liberal democracy.
If the right to swing one's arms ends where someone else's nose begins, an "expert" might respond to crowded conditions by putting everybody in a straitjacket (rather than recognizing a need for more space). I think the whole swathe of issues that we face today is the result of such authoritarian overreach -- and the equally-authoritarian backlash.
"Competence" (vs incompetence) is downstream from that -- and from values (including [but not only] your own).
Every human endeavor is contingent on one's values. People invented mathematics because they wanted to improve their lives, same with politics. The only difference is that politics is much more abstract.
I think this is why the entire field is overrun by people who are just pretending they know what they're talking about, while this would be much harder to do in subjects that deal with more concrete matters.
So, no expert liberal would advocate putting people in straitjackets as that would violate their rights and be authoritarian/anti-liberal.
Similarly, there's no such thing as "liberal democracy" which I think is a contradiction. Liberal means rights-protecting. Democracy means mob rule. It is also authoritarian, replacing the tyranny of a small group, with the tyranny of the majority.
This is why the Founders were so specific about America being a "Constitutional Republic" and explicitly *not* a democracy.
They were politically literate intellectuals that understood that the function of government is to protect individual rights, and that this is *not* up for a vote.
"Liberal democrats" are mostly just a hodge podge of statists, who think having a coherent ideology is the problem with everything in politics, and think their random disjointed opinions = liberal political theory. Sorry, no.
I think these people might be the guiltiest of all for the current state of dismal political discourse. Being on the right side for the wrong reasons is worse than being on the wrong side.
No one helps authoritarians more than the politically illiterate destroying liberal ideas from the inside.
"People invented mathematics because they wanted to improve their lives, same with politics" -- but the problem for politics (unlike math, which is actually far more abstract!) is that real people have divergent notions of what it might mean to "improve their lives."
Whether there can be any such thing as "liberal democracy" (vs "mob rule") has long been debated, and we're not going to agree on the provenance or legitimacy of either side, let alone settle that debate here.
Nonetheless, I'm surprised (and disheartened) to see such dogmatism (or ideological rigidity) coming from a professed liberal: That's the sort of thing I'd sooner expect to encounter in a Marxist (claiming "You have no analysis" merely because I don't share theirs). One can certainly find greater tolerance for ambiguity (and more humility) in, say, an Isaiah Berlin.
We obviously have very different views on hierarchy. Suffice it to say that I share much of my perspective with the KKK -- Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka -- and (as for democratic vistas) that I grew up, happily, ten minutes' drive from the Walt Whitman Mall. ;-)
"(unlike math, which is actually far more abstract!)"
Abstract means removed from sense perception. Math can be illustrated with symbols, and the basics can even be performed on your fingers.
You can't show basic political concepts, like individual rights, on your fingers. This requires abstract thinking skills. Politics is the fourth branch of philosophy and the most abstract subject that we know of.
It's the only subject where people who literally have no idea what they're talking about, think that their "democratic opinion" is the same as people who *do* know what they're talking about. Something you will never see in a concrete subject, like math.
"real people have divergent notions of what it might mean to "improve their lives.""
It's not that they have divergent views, it's that they have *wrong* views and think any opinion is equal to actual correct answers in this subject due to its abstract nature.
For example, there are those who think central planning will improve lives. They are wrong and this is proven by the collapse of the standard of living in centrally planned societies.
Then there are those who think rights-protecting government, and capitalism will improve lives. They are right and this is proven by the sky-high standard of living in rights-protecting societies.
It's not an issue of "long been debated" it's an issue of competence in this subject.
"to see such dogmatism (or ideological rigidity) coming from a professed liberal:"
This is why I brought up a concrete math example. Imagine telling someone who says 1+1=2 that they are being "dogmatic and ideologically rigid."
The issue in politics is not that we need to debate anything, any more than it is in any other subject. The issue is the total political illiteracy of the mainstream discourse.
It's reached all new lows and people aren't even pretending anymore. Openly stating that no one knows what any what words mean, don't be ideological, etc, as if these are valid points as opposed to disqualifying statements showing no grasp of the subject.
This is what needs to change, or civilization is going down.
This article is interesting as a polemic, but unfortunately, it's a superficial critique.
The heart of Hazony's ideology is ethno-nationalism -- his conflation of ethnicity with nationhood (or "self-determination") -- whereas the heart of liberal democracy (or civic nationalism) is a recognition that the right to "self-determination" inherently belongs to the individual -- that the State exists to provide equal protection to all individual citizens, regardless of ethnicity -- not to a specific collective or group.
For Hazony, ethno-nationalism additionally becomes conflated with religion because of the unique situation of the Jews, for whom religion and ethnicity, overall (notwithstanding subcultural or theological disparities), are congruent. A Catholic might be Italian or Polish (as Swedes or Dutch might be Protestant), but in being (religiously) Jewish, one defines oneself (and is defined) as (ethnically) a Jew -- and vice-versa. (A Jew who rejects Judaism [as per the "Wicked Son" of the Passover Seder] is regarded as having excluded himself from his People.) Jews (by their very Scripture [as history]) are regarded (and, in identifying as Jews, regard themselves) as sharing a unique and singular tribal narrative inextricable from religion.
(To some extent, this also applies to "Hindutva" [per India's Modi and his BJP], to Putin's relationship with Russian Orthodoxy, and [also, for that matter] to the political character of Tibetan Buddhism.)
Thus, Hazony speaks of "THE Jewish People" while the liberal democrat need merely acknowledge the existence (and self-determination) of Jewish PEOPLE (plural)-- in a State that respects and protects their right to their beliefs (and to freely associate), without assigning it privileged status in the political sphere. Until 1948, in fact, Judah Magnes, like this article's author, a Reform Jew -- who considered himself a "spiritual Zionist" -- strove to create an Israel (welcoming Jews returning from Exile to their ancient homeland) that would be a multi-ethnic, liberal and fully democratic State (in contrast to the "Jewish nationalism" of political Zionism [with Hazony at its ideological extreme]).
Further complicating all of this, however, Hazony views multi-ethnic States (even liberal democracies, by their very universalism!), not as legitimate "nations," but as "empires." This is, indeed, his most pernicious doctrine -- since ironically (as a perverse turn in "anti-colonial" discourse), it requires Jewish supremacy within Israel in order for it to be a legitimate "nation" (by his definition) rather than an imperialist "settler-colonial State."
This merely scratches the surface of our current predicament.
Meanwhile, however, Ezra Klein has himself begun to address some of these same issues in another piece in the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/20/opinion/antisemitism-american-jews-israel-mamdani.html
The interview with Klein was truly scary. He’s clearly very pleased to be able to talk about his “friend” JD, not addressing him as VP, and “Marco” who has betrayed every advantage he enjoyed because of his privileged status as a Cuban American. He is the intellectual veneer covering the dark intentions of those who will be glad to discard him when they have the power they seek.
Well said. I’ve thought this about him and his ideology for years. Was hoping Klein would push him on this. Maybe he was too polite.
As I've noted in another comment, Klein had already begun to address some of the requisite issues in a separate piece in the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/20/opinion/antisemitism-american-jews-israel-mamdani.html
Since Klein obviously realized that he was free to raise his countervailing points elsewhere, I think that (in the interview) he was simply willing to let Hazony use all the rope he might need to hang himself -- while appearing to be merely polite. ;-)
Is there really a "mountain of historical evidence" the founders did not want America to be an officially Christian nation? Yes there is. Start with "God" not being mentioned in the Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence "Nature's God" is not the Christian God. Nature's God is the Deist God. The first five Presidents were likely Deists. I write "likely" because Deism was something not admitted in polite company - it was often used interchangeably with atheism.
Even those that were Christian, were very non-serious variants of Unitarian and the like. For a culture that existed before electricity, clean drinking water, the theory of evolution and the industrial revolution, they were incredibly rational and secular.
When George Washington said, "religious and moral people" (the only mention of religion in a 6K word speech btw) he meant "moral." The Founders often used religion and morality interchangeably. He did not mean belief in supernatural nonsense.
Even then, they separated what religious beliefs they had from the subject of politics, which they approached scientifically, producing revolutionary advancements in the field and creating the world's first rights-protecting republic (which then created the necessary conditions of electricity, clean drinking water, industrial revolution, etc).
No religious kooks have ever come up with anything that has benefitted mankind, so suggesting the US founding is in any way religious is wrong on the face of it.
Deists (and for that matter, Spinoza) were NOT atheists (but merely too shy to admit it). "Nature's God" is God.
Deists were in fact advocates of reason which makes them a step up than mere atheists.
They still had a god as their explanation for the origins of the universe, which leaves the door open for people to mistakenly claim that they were another type of religious people, but they just hadn't yet figured out that the universe does not require an origin.
OTOH Atheists are just anti-religion, but they're not for anything, often ending up believing in secular irrational nonsense as bad as any religion.
This is why I don't think it's atheism vs religion, it is reason vs religion.
The only thing you can say in general about atheists is they don't believe in a god. Where do you come by these ridiculous "believe in anything" claims? Are they true of Spinoza, Einstein, Steven Pinker, or Sam Harris? I don't think of a crystal worshipping fool who doesn't believe in a god as an atheist, he's a crystal worshiping fool. Reason is one way to get to atheism, not the only way.
But that's my point. The ONLY thing you can say about atheists is what they don't believe. But that's not as important as what you *do* believe, which can be anything for atheists. Your list of names is a good example.
First you have someone like Einstein, who was a genius in his field, and made enormous contributions to science. This is only possible by competent rational thinking.
Then you have people like Pinker, or Sam Harris (who doesn't even understand the axiomatic concept of free will.) These people are not geniuses, to put it politely, and don't belong in the same list as Einstein. For all intents and purposes, Pinker and Harris are not different from religious people.
This is why I think "atheist" is a useless descriptor and is not the end goal of thinking. It's about reason vs mysticism (in all its forms, including that advocated by Harris types).
We agree the only thing you can say about atheists is they don't believe in God. You said more. You went on to generalize "atheists will believe anything." "Atheist" is not useless, it means exactly what we both said. Just like "Christian" isn't useless because there Baptists and Catholics.
I'll bet my house Pinker and Harris have genius level IQs, though like everyone else, maybe not Einstein level. If you want to hang your reputation on saying they aren't among the very brightest public figures, go ahead. By the way Einstein, like Spinoza, didn't believe in "free will."
But regardless of Christian sect, these are still all defined by what they are *for*, while atheists are only defined by what they are *against*, so I don't think it's the same.
If I was to describe myself, I would say something like "advocate of reason." This makes me an atheist, of course, but that's not a defining detail.
As for Einstein, whatever his flaws in other fields, in his area of expertise, he is a giant that achieved truly singular results. For that he deserves his place in history.
Pinker and Harris types are very silly people who have no idea what they're talking about and represent the total rot of government funding of education and academia.
Even to the extent that they are well meaning (e.g. they are anti-Trump, anti-Putin, etc.) they are in fact a problem because what they are *for* is just nonsense. So instead of helping the right ideas, they make it seem like anti-MAGA are just as bad. All they are capable of doing is contributing to the Idiocracy of our political discourse, which of course helps all the enemies of Western civilization by default.
Personally, I think the incompetent intellectuals are even worse than just the outright evil ones, and cause way more damage.
There you go again, trying to hijack pantheists like Einstein and Spinoza and enlist them as atheists. They were not. (And that doesn't make them crystal-worshippers, either.)
I disagree. I think most Spinoza scholars consider him an atheist. Steven Nadler and Edwin Curley for example. Jacobi and Lessing (in the great philosophical debate over pantheism in18th century Germany) labeled him a Pantheist, but this has not stood up over time. If Spinoza's monism makes him a pantheist, OK, I agree he was a monist.
Reason can exist (and can be exercised) within the context of religion (depending on how one defines "religion") or belief in God (whom [or which] we don't get to define).
An agnostic is not merely a stunted atheist: In fact, the agnostic might (in all humility) wonder why they should be expected to define "God," let alone to determine whether "God" exists. God might (or might not) "exist" merely to suggest that an agnostic (as a human being, fully equipped with reason) is not God. (In that sense, "God" is a psychological construct, not a physical entity. Epistemology is not -- and by definition, cannot be -- a science.)
Meanwhile, how can reason establish that Time exists? (As with Mr Schrödinger, my cat wants to know.) ;-)
Yes, deists were not atheists as we use the words today. Deists believe in a creator God that does not intervene in the world. Atheists don't believe there is a God. Deists and atheists do agree on rejecting supernatural events, rejecting divine providence, and rejecting scripture as a source of truth. At the time of the Declaration, this heterodoxy of deists was lumped together with atheism.
I consider Spinoza an atheist. I am one myself, and find little in Spinoza - who I know well - to alter my belief. Spinoza's God is not the Christian God, it is Einstein's God.
Einstein's God is God (whose name [as indicated in Hebrew] is the sound of one hand clapping -- known to us as existence in Time). If you were Jewish, you might understand. ;-)
I am Jewish, not unlike Einstein and Spinoza (in my ethnicity and religious views, not my intellectual capacity). I don't understand. To me "God" is not something that exists, but something Christians and Muslims claim exists. That is not what Spinoza's God (=Einstein's) is.
You're beating a dead horse. Last I noticed, Spinoza and Einstein weren't Christians -- but (as a Jew, you must realize) that didn't make them atheists, either -- nor did either of those figures claim to be.
(Pantheism and/or panentheism aren't atheism -- which one might view as flawed by hubris regarding the limits of human consciousness [in handling information, our ecological niche]. This is coming to a head as we come to realize that "homo sapiens" might soon cease to be this planet's apex predator -- and that what follows [by definition] won't be for us to decide.)
And no, a Jew (or an agnostic) is not merely a half-realized atheist.
FWIW, I tend to see Judaism as the oldest branch of a religion (i.e., monotheism) currently known as Islam -- but that's a whole other discussion. In my view, the Israel/Palestine conflict likely won't be settled until al-Aqsa (or an edifice atop the Temple Mount, by whatever name) is emblazoned with the words, "My House shall be a House of Prayer for All People."
Conversely, one (ethnically Jewish) atheist friend of mine recommends (half in jest), "Nuke Jerusalem!"
Your mileage may vary. If so, you're welcome to hang out in Beijing! ;-)
Can you name one thing Spinoza wrote that disqualifies him from being an atheist? His life's work was centered on redefining "God" as something natural, without intentions, personhood, desires, or cares - the natural universe, something to understand by applying reason. Ditto Einstein.