“i’d ask the liberal on what basis she believes that slavery (think sex trafficking), sorcery, torture, and persecution are any less prevalent today than in the past…”

But that is no part of the liberal argument. Their whole point is that we are still living with the legacy of tyranny and oppression bequeathed us by our ancestors; more than that, what they object to is the rule of the dead hand.

This is the point of Jefferson’s argument, “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished themselves, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”

Reno senses a “latent contradiction” in Rawls: “our freedom depends on its proper development, and “proper development” necessarily requires judgments that are “metaphysical.” And thus the idea of public reason only works if people are guided in their reason by more than public reason.”

It may be a little unfair to respond to a parenthetical remark an author explicitly says he doesn’t want to pursue, but this is interesting I think, as I don’t see a contradiction here. Rawls is not assuming that the “proper development” of freedom requires no metaphysical commitments, or, to put it more concretely, that an upbringing and education within the constricted world of public reason is adequate to the development of freedom. Rather he is assuming that there is an array of ‘comprehensive doctrines’ that can provide the framework necessary for this development. And of course he’s is arguing that it’s not the place of the state to adjudicate the disagreements between them.

As for the remainder, I don’t see anything here that raises problems for Rawls. In fact, to the extent the posed difference between progressives and conservatives is accurate, a Rawlsian framework seems a good one for allowing these disagreements to play out politically in a way both sides ought to accept.

Given that so much of journalism, the media biz, Hollywood, the arts, and academia are disproportionately staffed by modern liberals and the hard-left, how could this be true?

How much power do the storytellers and bards and interpreters of our culture have? How much do the “experts” have? That’s soft power alright.

i’d ask the liberal on what basis she believes that slavery (think sex trafficking), sorcery, torture, and persecution are any less prevalent today than in the past. ok, maybe sorcery exempted, if formally defined. besides, what makes her think things won’t get worse in the future? why all the optimism?

i suspect the real problem has always been what theologians call the fall — a post-lapsarian world filled with post-lapsarian people. and the fundamental “government” that counts at the end of the day within the context of the fall is “self-government” or “self-mastery”, aka virtue.

for some strange reason, liberals skip right over aristotle/thomas to rousseau and hobbes…. but can anything other than self-mastery lead to a “better world,” which is what we all want?

notice, of course, that these days, only traditionalists believe in the fall, in disordered appetites, in vice, and in virtue. if progressives had their way, all we’d need is more therapy, more social projects, more science, and more technology.