Why Liberalism Can’t Endure
Jun 6, 2011
R.R. Reno
What makes life worth living? For the most part Western society has settled on an individualistic answer: whatever I decide or desire. It’s judgmental—an act of cultural imperialism, as we’re taught to say at fancy colleges—to suggest that there’s a right answer to this question. Rather, we are told, people should be able to organize their lives around what they feel or think best. We’re happiest, the present-day liberal presumes, when we can make up our own minds about what makes life worth living—or even if life is worth living. 
The commitment to freedom seems complete, yet paradoxically this liberalism tends toward an anti-democratic authoritarianism. The promise of freedom stems from the fact that we’re not to be constrained by objective moral truths. It’s a form of freedom that comes with a very strong disciplinary warning—you are not to impose your view of moral truth on anyone. Thus the paradox: the dictatorship of relativism.
The abortion license stems directly from this view of freedom. If I think that the satisfactions of sexual intimacy are what make life worth living, and if I don’t wish to intermix these satisfactions with the complex realities of children, then my liberty is threatened by a legal regime that prohibits abortion.
The same liberal reasoning holds for a wide range of issues: from euthanasia to same-sex marriage, from pornography to restrictions on religion in the public square. Law professors come up with all sorts of concepts and categories: a right of privacy, a right to equal protection, the Establishment clause, and so forth. But this patchwork largely serves to bring ever more fully into the law the modern liberal consensus: human life is enlarged and fulfilled insofar as we enjoy the freedom to define for ourselves what makes life worth living.
Nobody thinks this freedom should be absolute. We worship the gods of health and wealth, both of which are lawgivers of sorts, as the no-smoking and calorie-counting Jihadists here in New York demonstrate, as well as the gimlet-eyed consultants who are constantly warning us that we need to save for retirement. Liberalism also insists that our freedom does not include a freedom to harm others—a seemingly modest but in fact elastic limitation. Is the professor who teaches the natural law arguments against homosexuality inflicting harm? The pastor who preaches on Romans 1:26-28?
Thus we find ourselves returning to the paradoxical dictatorship of the liberal consensus that promises a profound existential freedom. It’s not easy to be tolerant, non-judgmental, and inclusive. As most liberals recognize, we’re not naturally inclined to back off and let everyone do their own thing. On the contrary, we need to be subjected to a sustained discipline, which is why the modern liberal view of existential freedom has given rise to the diversity bureaucrats and multi-cultural harpies who staff the dictatorship of relativism.
Can the paradox endure? One wonders. When it comes to abortion, the liberal consensus seems positively willful in its refusal to open its eyes. Reality—the child in the womb—is eclipsed by the liberal ideal. The fact of life is erased by our supposed need to have the power to define everything (even the universe, according to the soaring rhetoric of our legal sages).
I’m the first to admit that belief in the God of Abraham admits of all sorts of objections. But the more I think about the predominant contemporary liberal ideal of freedom—to define the meaning of my own life—the more absurd it seems. There is nothing about modern science that remotely suggests that I have the capacity to define my own concept of existence. The biological sciences teach that our experiences of consciousness emerge out of neural patterns very likely organized in accord with the principles of evolution. The social sciences testify to how deeply embedded we are in culture.
Yet somehow our present-day liberal view of existential freedom remains the default position, so much so that social and religious conservatives have difficulty getting oxygen. By and large we bend to the default position, making essentially liberal arguments in the public square: divorce harms children; promiscuity has social costs, the traditional family provides the basis for prosperity. All true, but these are essentially prudential arguments designed to limit the damage of contemporary liberalism rather than propose an alternative.
This approach isn’t sufficient. By my reckoning, the deepest public significance of modern liberalism rests in its view of existential freedom: we are happiest and most fully ourselves when we have the freedom to make up our own minds about the meaning of life. If we’re to promote a sane view of public life, then we need to confront this view directly.
St. Paul thought that in the ordinary course of affairs we are in bondage to our disordered desires. We are, as he puts it, slaves of sin. Aristotle and other ancient thinkers did not have a Christian (or Jewish) concept sin, but they held a similar view. Left to our own devices, we end up barbarians in the thrall of untutored passions.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that a common view of human flourishing emerges, which is why so much of ancient thought could be used in Christian moral teaching. Aristotle thought we should be shaped by the norms of a Greek city. Ancient Stoics thought that universal reason ought to govern our lives. And St. Paul preaches submission to the life-giving authority of Christ. Profound differences indeed, but in comparison to modern liberalism not all that different. In each case we achieve our fullest humanity when we are disciplined by proper authority.
Yes, yes, I can hear the objections: Which authority? Who is to decide? They’re not stupid concerns. Who is not profoundly aware of the many abuses of authority? And it’s evident that we live in a pluralistic society where many authorities compete for our souls.
But these are the perils of traditional and religious views of human flourishing, not paradoxes. That’s one reason I find myself thinking that the unifying vision of social or cultural conservatism—the primacy of authority—is more plausible than the liberal presumption in favor of an existential freedom. And it’s also why I think the conservative view holds out more promise as a social philosophy. If we acknowledge the role of proper authority, then we can deliberate about its purposes and limits—something we can’t do under the paradoxical dictatorship of relativism.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Comments:
6.6.2011 | 1:54am
Steve says:
That philosophers, sociologists, and even economists from the 18th and then the premature area of the 19th one particular hundred year created an important politics package the fact that made being a facts on ethnical coverage to start with throughout The united kingdomt along with the America, now in the Eu region, last but not least from the other areas with the inhabited globe on top of that. Nowhere was this software possibly definitely accomplished. During The united kingdom, which is called the birthplace involved with liberalism and therefore the type open-handed nation, all of the proponents of open-handed regulations certainly not been successful during being successful all their needs. In your world exclusively areas of this liberal course were followed, although some, no less significant, have been sometimes rejected from your initially and also dumped searching for minimal time. Simply with quite a few exaggeration is one able to state that the world after existed by using a open-handed years. Liberalism was not ever able to reached comprehensive being.
6.6.2011 | 3:37am
Alex says:
I think this perceptive commentary explains why liberalism ought not to endure, but not that it can't endure.
It's all very well said and well written, and I agree with virtually every word. However, many commentators (like R.R. Reno) keep hitting the nail on the head with great accuracy. The trouble is, it never goes further in.
It's all very well said and well written, and I agree with virtually every word. However, many commentators (like R.R. Reno) keep hitting the nail on the head with great accuracy. The trouble is, it never goes further in.
6.6.2011 | 5:51am
Gordon Hackman says:
Good stuff. I read Philippe Beneton's "Equality by Default" at the beginning of the year, and this column echoes one of the fundamental themes of that book. While he argued at a slightly more abstract philosophical level and didn't speak in the specific terms of liberalism and conservatism, one of his fundamental themes was to distinguish between a view of human equality that was rooted in something substantial and a view of human equality that sees us as essentially nothing but will and desire.
6.6.2011 | 6:01am
Emina Melonic says:
Wonderful essay, professor Reno. Really enjoyed reading it. I have no objections, although I would like to add a few things, if I may. This "existential freedom" of liberalism is of course an illusion. There is no freedom; only a constraint and coercive nature of existence. Liberalism's manifestations change throughout the time but of course, they are grounded in the same principles (or I should say lack thereof). This is I am sure obvious, but it's worth mentioning that these "principles" most definitely come from Hobbes (a kind of utilitarian/"scientific" materalism) and Rousseau (a kind of "primitive emotionalism" and justice without truth). This is the bag of inheritence, which any liberal carries.
I would also like to add that liberalism's idea of "existential freedom," as you mention in your essay, is nothing but psychological suicide. It is true, that we always have to act according to our conscience and according to the capacity that we are given at a time. However, one thing, which liberalism takes away and paradoxically calls it freedom, is our human ability to examine our lives and to make a choice. Judgment is suspended (esp. any type of value judgment) and as a result, the culture begins to decline.
I do not wish to sound pessimistic or fatalistic (rather, staying in reality), but there will always be some form of leftist thought. But more importantly, Truth remains a constant presence even after I'm (we) long gone.
I would also like to add that liberalism's idea of "existential freedom," as you mention in your essay, is nothing but psychological suicide. It is true, that we always have to act according to our conscience and according to the capacity that we are given at a time. However, one thing, which liberalism takes away and paradoxically calls it freedom, is our human ability to examine our lives and to make a choice. Judgment is suspended (esp. any type of value judgment) and as a result, the culture begins to decline.
I do not wish to sound pessimistic or fatalistic (rather, staying in reality), but there will always be some form of leftist thought. But more importantly, Truth remains a constant presence even after I'm (we) long gone.
6.6.2011 | 6:24am
Gary Keith Chesterton says:
Indeed. I'm encouraged, from time to time, when I meet thoughtful people who seem willing to listen when I lay out a position similar to this; but that willingness to listen, rare as it is, is usually about as far as they're willing to go. Most folks won't even listen. I wonder how we are to gain traction.
6.6.2011 | 6:48am
Jim Bell says:
Thanks Mr Reno. You've unraveled the Liberals' "Mystery of Faith."
The paradox of modern Liberalism can be summed up thusly:
"We are non-judgmental; we believe people should be free to live their lives any way they choose; we don't impose our beliefs on others; we don't believe we should harm others; there's no such thing as "absolute truth" and anyone who says otherwise is trying to impose their beliefs on us and limit our freedoms.
We believe the world would be a better place if everyone lived by these laissez-faire principles, and we will pass laws to force you to live by them if we have to."
This is the paradox of modern Liberalism. It's so contradictory I get a headache trying to find logic in it.
The paradox of modern Liberalism can be summed up thusly:
"We are non-judgmental; we believe people should be free to live their lives any way they choose; we don't impose our beliefs on others; we don't believe we should harm others; there's no such thing as "absolute truth" and anyone who says otherwise is trying to impose their beliefs on us and limit our freedoms.
We believe the world would be a better place if everyone lived by these laissez-faire principles, and we will pass laws to force you to live by them if we have to."
This is the paradox of modern Liberalism. It's so contradictory I get a headache trying to find logic in it.
6.6.2011 | 7:18am
Steve Martin says:
All political sysytems or ideologies cannot endure. The life of this world and all that is in it, is not progressing...but coming to an end (no...not on the 21st of any particular month).
When we put our hopes in any person, no matter what party they are from, we will be dissapointed.
The Word alone, will endure.
Of course most of you realize this, but a reminder never hurts.
Now...back to politics. Modern liberals do not understand nor take seriously the fallen nature of this place (earth) and those who inhabit it.
Thanks!
When we put our hopes in any person, no matter what party they are from, we will be dissapointed.
The Word alone, will endure.
Of course most of you realize this, but a reminder never hurts.
Now...back to politics. Modern liberals do not understand nor take seriously the fallen nature of this place (earth) and those who inhabit it.
Thanks!
6.6.2011 | 7:20am
Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ says:
Sed contra: people have been saying liberalism can't endure since the beginning of liberalism. It has proved remarkably resilient. It's possible that its critics have even become less fierce over time. Where is our Rousseau, Nietzsche or Strauss?
6.6.2011 | 7:35am
mcasey says:
The modern liberalism you're attempting to euthanize here is really a reaction to thousands of years of conservative authoritarianism that ruled up till the enlightenment, often with dark consequences (although with certain benefits as well). The idea that people are free to form their own beliefs and judgments, using God-given reason as well as more primal instincts (also God-given), is the governing idea of modern life, especially in America, where we based our whole system on the belief that people can think for themselves. There are certain groups (the Taliban comes to mind) where religious "authority" still serves to crush free thought and keep people in line.
Liberals who attempt to shove their beliefs on others are no better (although they tend to have healthier motives than the Taliban- keeping people from smoking is different than stoning them alive). True modern liberalism should allow free people to think for themselves, but elect representative governing bodies to sanely balance individual desires with the common good. Authority, as Jefferson pointed out, must come from the bottom up (the consent of the governed) to be legitimate.
Liberals who attempt to shove their beliefs on others are no better (although they tend to have healthier motives than the Taliban- keeping people from smoking is different than stoning them alive). True modern liberalism should allow free people to think for themselves, but elect representative governing bodies to sanely balance individual desires with the common good. Authority, as Jefferson pointed out, must come from the bottom up (the consent of the governed) to be legitimate.
6.6.2011 | 8:05am
Joe DeVet says:
I've noted also: liberals devour their own young. The ones who are not aborted live to discover the self-contradictions in their parents' lives, and respond by either abandoning liberalism for something more real, or staying liberal, and in the ultimate nihilism of that stance, contracept their line out of existence.
Many of my liberal Catholic friends, as an example, have found it impossible to pass on the faith to their children.
The most important line in the piece: "This approach isn't sufficient." That is, arguing the conservative side from liberal "first things", particularly that the liberal program won't work. There needs to be a more robust foundation for the argument. Talk-show host Dennis Prager, for example, bases his [very strong and heartfelt] opposition to "gay marriage" on the fact that it has never been a societal norm anywhere before. He's already lost the argument!
Many of my liberal Catholic friends, as an example, have found it impossible to pass on the faith to their children.
The most important line in the piece: "This approach isn't sufficient." That is, arguing the conservative side from liberal "first things", particularly that the liberal program won't work. There needs to be a more robust foundation for the argument. Talk-show host Dennis Prager, for example, bases his [very strong and heartfelt] opposition to "gay marriage" on the fact that it has never been a societal norm anywhere before. He's already lost the argument!
6.6.2011 | 8:24am
Richard says:
This is a nice summary of theoretical notions which is similar to the recent study of the abuse scandal. Just pigeon-hole liberals as permissive libertines, place this concept into convenient philosophical tautologies, and you have truth.
Well some of us don't quite see it that way. There is a sliver of truth to the idea that the sexual revolution of the sixties and resulting cultural phenomena demonstrate a certain mindset in this country. But rather consider this issue in the practical study of the recent history of post WW II America, the unprecedented prosperity, the permissiveness of parents, the leisure time glut, the erosion of discipline in schools, etc., etc., etc. I wish people that consider themselves "conservatives" and consistently congratulate themselves for being such would wake up and see what is really happening, what has really happened. And all of a sudden most of these push button issues such as abortion become much harder to fit into some nice philosophical/theological concept. And the idea of liberals being at the source of much of our corruption becomes nonsense. How many conservatives are also corrupt???
Well some of us don't quite see it that way. There is a sliver of truth to the idea that the sexual revolution of the sixties and resulting cultural phenomena demonstrate a certain mindset in this country. But rather consider this issue in the practical study of the recent history of post WW II America, the unprecedented prosperity, the permissiveness of parents, the leisure time glut, the erosion of discipline in schools, etc., etc., etc. I wish people that consider themselves "conservatives" and consistently congratulate themselves for being such would wake up and see what is really happening, what has really happened. And all of a sudden most of these push button issues such as abortion become much harder to fit into some nice philosophical/theological concept. And the idea of liberals being at the source of much of our corruption becomes nonsense. How many conservatives are also corrupt???
6.6.2011 | 8:52am
Roy M. Postel says:
The paradox of today's brand of liberalism in the U.S. is an inability to grant individual freedom while recognizing what makes up the "common good." The mindset of too many of our elected representatives discounts the consensus of a constituency in favor of a liberal relativism. Under this rubric, a grassroots system of granting consent to be governed is choked.
Those office holders are given cover by a court system and government-media complex aimed at transferring to the state all the authority rightly belonging to the family.
Those office holders are given cover by a court system and government-media complex aimed at transferring to the state all the authority rightly belonging to the family.
6.6.2011 | 8:54am
Sophia Mason says:
Wonderful piece!--but I'm going to pick a nit with the following quote.
"By and large we [social and religious conservatives] bend to the default position, making essentially liberal arguments in the public square: divorce harms children; promiscuity has social costs, the traditional family provides the basis for prosperity. All true, but these are essentially prudential arguments designed to limit the damage of contemporary liberalism rather than propose an alternative."
I understand the frustration, but I think prudence is getting a bit of a bad rap here. To say simply "These ("conservative/religious") behaviors are useful to society" may sound like sheer utilitarianism. But in that statement there is embedded a kind of argument for natural law. What is natural law, after all, but a statement that such-and-such behaviors will make men happy, and such-and-such will not? Aristotle didn't ground his Ethics in duty (like Kant!) but in the pursuit of happiness. Of course, he chose to consider that pursuit rationally and not with the (un)intellectual promiscuity of moderns who use that phrase. But despite his ultimately stringent notions of how humans ought to behave, in his "pursuit of happiness" Aristotle was a kind of utilitarian too. The only final defense of a traditionalist socio-ethical system is that it IS TRUE: that is, that it fits with human nature. But one great sign that it is true, that it fits with human nature, is that IT WORKS.
"By and large we [social and religious conservatives] bend to the default position, making essentially liberal arguments in the public square: divorce harms children; promiscuity has social costs, the traditional family provides the basis for prosperity. All true, but these are essentially prudential arguments designed to limit the damage of contemporary liberalism rather than propose an alternative."
I understand the frustration, but I think prudence is getting a bit of a bad rap here. To say simply "These ("conservative/religious") behaviors are useful to society" may sound like sheer utilitarianism. But in that statement there is embedded a kind of argument for natural law. What is natural law, after all, but a statement that such-and-such behaviors will make men happy, and such-and-such will not? Aristotle didn't ground his Ethics in duty (like Kant!) but in the pursuit of happiness. Of course, he chose to consider that pursuit rationally and not with the (un)intellectual promiscuity of moderns who use that phrase. But despite his ultimately stringent notions of how humans ought to behave, in his "pursuit of happiness" Aristotle was a kind of utilitarian too. The only final defense of a traditionalist socio-ethical system is that it IS TRUE: that is, that it fits with human nature. But one great sign that it is true, that it fits with human nature, is that IT WORKS.
6.6.2011 | 9:18am
Blake says:
Read the book "Doubt: A History" by Jennifer Michael Hecht and you will see documentation suggesting that this "tolerance for everything except whatever conservatives value" is hardly a new idea.
It is basically negativity. It is rejecting whatever is holding society together. It is questioning whatever everyone else believes and values.
The argument is that this is the nature of "progress". You have to question everything to get new information. You have to tear down whatever conservatives value before you can build a newer, better world.
And it's part of history: people tear down, and people rebuild. Then people tear down some more, and people rebuild.
Wherever there is society, there is accumulated rage, and that accumulated rage is destructive - in a good way, the way forests need fire.
Or you could describe the same thing less charitably, and point out that wherever there is stable or affluent society, there's always a certain class of people who are spoiled and resent being asked to give back in measure equal to what they've taken. After all, they say, to be supported by one's society is just a basic "right", isn't it?
But this relies on a peculiar act of dissociation: society is "us" when it comes to deciding who is entitled to what, and the citizen is a full and equal member of society - but when it comes time to speak of obligations, and support, then society becomes "them", someone else, "out there", and the citizen is not equal, and can provide a thousand arguments (all mostly variants of that time he wanted X but everyone else voted for Y) to prove his case.
There are two sets of values in play: their values are individualistic values. The other values are social values - notice how liberals tend to demand fidelity, loyalty, civility, obedience to authority, hard work, and other social values from conservatives, even as liberals exempt themselves.
It is basically negativity. It is rejecting whatever is holding society together. It is questioning whatever everyone else believes and values.
The argument is that this is the nature of "progress". You have to question everything to get new information. You have to tear down whatever conservatives value before you can build a newer, better world.
And it's part of history: people tear down, and people rebuild. Then people tear down some more, and people rebuild.
Wherever there is society, there is accumulated rage, and that accumulated rage is destructive - in a good way, the way forests need fire.
Or you could describe the same thing less charitably, and point out that wherever there is stable or affluent society, there's always a certain class of people who are spoiled and resent being asked to give back in measure equal to what they've taken. After all, they say, to be supported by one's society is just a basic "right", isn't it?
But this relies on a peculiar act of dissociation: society is "us" when it comes to deciding who is entitled to what, and the citizen is a full and equal member of society - but when it comes time to speak of obligations, and support, then society becomes "them", someone else, "out there", and the citizen is not equal, and can provide a thousand arguments (all mostly variants of that time he wanted X but everyone else voted for Y) to prove his case.
There are two sets of values in play: their values are individualistic values. The other values are social values - notice how liberals tend to demand fidelity, loyalty, civility, obedience to authority, hard work, and other social values from conservatives, even as liberals exempt themselves.
6.6.2011 | 10:04am
Charlie Collier says:
This essay is a nice combination of what I appreciate and what I don't understand about Reno's "conservatism." The critique of the autonomous modern subject is spot on, but it comes mixed with a reactionary side: "The abortion license stems directly from this view of freedom." This claim is surely every bit as reductionistic as the claim that sexual abuse by the clergy "stems directly" from the idea of a celibate clergy. Commenter mcasey's point about the history of abusive authoritarianism is relevant, and one would think that if modernity is to be understood as an over-reaction to abuses of traditional authority, as Reno no doubt believes, he would want to be vigilant in warding off the next round of reactionary distortions.
Reno might also look for bad accounts of freedom closer to to the heart of American conservatism. He suggests that conservatives often and regrettably make liberal arguments in the public square, but what of the quasi-theological claim that America is "the home of the free," or that we are free to be Christian because of the blood sacrifice of American soldiers? No theologically serious Christian can accept an account of uniquely American freedom, or such a rival version of the atonement lurking in claims about blood sacrifice and political freedom. Yet when these claims are advanced most forcefully, they tend in my experience to be advanced by American Christians. Surely these problems go back at least to the founding of this most-modern republic; consider only the Enlightenment-inspired incoherence of the claim of the "self-evidence" of all men being created equal and of their possession of inalienable rights, claims enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. It would be interesting to know if Reno's conservatism entails a rejection of the liberalism of America's founding.
It's also curious that Reno fails to mention the role of capitalism in all of this. For surely the simultaneous rise of the autonomous modern subject and the pleasure-seeking maximizer known as homo economicus is not merely a coincidence. And surely there is no greater enemy of traditional authority in our culture than the drive for profit maximization, a drive that cuts down traditional moral norms as swiftly and as easily as it removes mountaintops in Appalachia and dumps them into the surrounding streams and valleys.
Godless secular academic liberals are not, to my knowledge, running Massey Energy.
Reno might also look for bad accounts of freedom closer to to the heart of American conservatism. He suggests that conservatives often and regrettably make liberal arguments in the public square, but what of the quasi-theological claim that America is "the home of the free," or that we are free to be Christian because of the blood sacrifice of American soldiers? No theologically serious Christian can accept an account of uniquely American freedom, or such a rival version of the atonement lurking in claims about blood sacrifice and political freedom. Yet when these claims are advanced most forcefully, they tend in my experience to be advanced by American Christians. Surely these problems go back at least to the founding of this most-modern republic; consider only the Enlightenment-inspired incoherence of the claim of the "self-evidence" of all men being created equal and of their possession of inalienable rights, claims enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. It would be interesting to know if Reno's conservatism entails a rejection of the liberalism of America's founding.
It's also curious that Reno fails to mention the role of capitalism in all of this. For surely the simultaneous rise of the autonomous modern subject and the pleasure-seeking maximizer known as homo economicus is not merely a coincidence. And surely there is no greater enemy of traditional authority in our culture than the drive for profit maximization, a drive that cuts down traditional moral norms as swiftly and as easily as it removes mountaintops in Appalachia and dumps them into the surrounding streams and valleys.
Godless secular academic liberals are not, to my knowledge, running Massey Energy.
6.6.2011 | 10:52am
R.R. Reno argues against the "dictatorship of relativism" at the heart of Liberalism in this article, yet about a week ago he himself appealed to premises of moral relativism in order to justify the killing of Osama bin Laden. I pointed out precisely where in his essay he did this, yet received no response.
It is in view of such glaring inconsistencies as the ones in these two blog posts that the Christian intellectual champions of objective truth in today's cultural square are dismissed with disdain. Those who urge our society to adopt fixed principles lack fixed principles themselves.
It is in view of such glaring inconsistencies as the ones in these two blog posts that the Christian intellectual champions of objective truth in today's cultural square are dismissed with disdain. Those who urge our society to adopt fixed principles lack fixed principles themselves.
6.6.2011 | 11:57am
Tony Esolen says:
Liberalism, by now, is a name lacking a reality. Or maybe it still enjoys a debased reality, in unexpected places. When a Sean Hannity, who is to an intellectual what Mr. Obama is to a statesman, says to his callers that they should enjoy the freedom to "be all that they can be," without regard to what it is that a human being should be, or to what we are meant to be for one another, he's just talking a tired old liberal line.
What is called "liberalism" in this country is instead a poisonous brew of sexual libertinism and state management; a marriage of Narcissus and the Leviathan. Thus the "liberal" believes that he should be cheered for dressing up as a woman, or snuffing out the babies that poor women, and rich women more destitute than the poor, don't want. At the same time, he cheers when his fellows in state bureaucracies invade the home "for the sake of the children," and pass laws ever more minutely prescribing for things that human beings used to do well enough on their own. It is a stunning development, but it's been underway since Romano Guardini coined the term "mass man."
What are called "conservatives" in America believe that they believe in freedom, but they have no vision of what that freedom is for, or even what the inner structure of human freedom is. They could learn about these things from the Gospel, or from the great Christian poets and philosophers over the last two thousand years. They could learn about a great measure of them from Aristotle and the best of the Stoics. But that's too much to expect from public discourse that is childish and barbaric, and an educational system that leads millions of children to a uniform illiteracy -- able to read, in the sense that they can decode the letters on the page, but unable to follow the thoughts of somebody once as popular as Dickens -- no systematic thinker at that.
Isaiah Berlin, whom both liberals and conservatives claim as their own -- and they can have him, for all I care, defined freedom in essentially nihilistic terms. It's the freedom to do as one pleases without interference from anyone else. With that as the default, we shouldn't be arguing about whether liberalism produces a barbaric society. It produces no society at all.
What is called "liberalism" in this country is instead a poisonous brew of sexual libertinism and state management; a marriage of Narcissus and the Leviathan. Thus the "liberal" believes that he should be cheered for dressing up as a woman, or snuffing out the babies that poor women, and rich women more destitute than the poor, don't want. At the same time, he cheers when his fellows in state bureaucracies invade the home "for the sake of the children," and pass laws ever more minutely prescribing for things that human beings used to do well enough on their own. It is a stunning development, but it's been underway since Romano Guardini coined the term "mass man."
What are called "conservatives" in America believe that they believe in freedom, but they have no vision of what that freedom is for, or even what the inner structure of human freedom is. They could learn about these things from the Gospel, or from the great Christian poets and philosophers over the last two thousand years. They could learn about a great measure of them from Aristotle and the best of the Stoics. But that's too much to expect from public discourse that is childish and barbaric, and an educational system that leads millions of children to a uniform illiteracy -- able to read, in the sense that they can decode the letters on the page, but unable to follow the thoughts of somebody once as popular as Dickens -- no systematic thinker at that.
Isaiah Berlin, whom both liberals and conservatives claim as their own -- and they can have him, for all I care, defined freedom in essentially nihilistic terms. It's the freedom to do as one pleases without interference from anyone else. With that as the default, we shouldn't be arguing about whether liberalism produces a barbaric society. It produces no society at all.
6.6.2011 | 12:15pm
CTCOnservative says:
The late historian Balint Vazsonyi (see "America's 30 Years War") drew an illuminating contrast between America's founding principles, derived from the Anglo-American political tradition, and the Franco-Germanic political tradition which is the ideological underpinning of statist liberalism and its more totalitarian offshoots.
(a) The Anglo-American political tradition champions the rule of law, individual rights, limited government, the diffusion of power (separation of powers and federalism), the guarantee of private property, and a common American identity. The Anglo-American tradition holds that human ability to comprehend, adjudicate and arrange the world around us is limited, and that the only attainable goal is continuously to improve the conditions which enable individuals to achieve their personal best. Conservatism is a philosophy, a way of looking at the world, but is not an ideology because it does not proceed from an idea and attempt to impose it on others.
By contrast, the Franco-Germanic political tradition is rooted in ideology rather than experience. In other words, in the Franco-Germanic tradition, political leaders attempt to impose an idea on society from on high. This may take the form of statist liberalism now increasingly called "Progressivism"), collectivism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism, bolshevism, or Maoism. All represent attempts to submerge the individual into the collective, whether of the democratic soft variety (exemplified by modern liberalism or welfare statism), or the hard variety which employs brute force (fascism or communism). The Franco-Germanic tradition, whether practiced in Europe or the United States, supports group rights, centralized government, an activist role for government, income redistribution, more limited property rights, the right to government benefits, the regulatory state, and limitations on private enterprise. The Franco-Germanic view places human reason at the center of our existence, claiming that certain people--political elites--are capable of comprehending, adjudicating, and arranging the world around us, and that such people are called upon to guide all others toward an increasingly just and perfect world in which all desires are either eliminated or satisfied.
Ironically, these so-called "liberals" have gotten away with the illusion of being open, free, tolerant when, in reality, their program is all about a continuing tightening of the government screws to force citizens to conform to their idea of the perfect society. The last few years have witnessed the hypocrisy of modern liberalism, which seeks to ban all manner of personal choices, from smoking in public parks, salt use, dietary choices, etc. The abortion issue is the one they use against conservatives in an attempt to distract attention away from their statist and collectivist agenda, and the reason they invest so much time, money, and political attention on it. But even many libertarians (e.g. Ned Hentoff) oppose abortion because they grant the humanity of the fetus and extend the same rights to the unborn as they do those out of the womb. Modern liberalism has little to do with the root word from which it is derived, and is a reflection of a confused mental state.
(a) The Anglo-American political tradition champions the rule of law, individual rights, limited government, the diffusion of power (separation of powers and federalism), the guarantee of private property, and a common American identity. The Anglo-American tradition holds that human ability to comprehend, adjudicate and arrange the world around us is limited, and that the only attainable goal is continuously to improve the conditions which enable individuals to achieve their personal best. Conservatism is a philosophy, a way of looking at the world, but is not an ideology because it does not proceed from an idea and attempt to impose it on others.
By contrast, the Franco-Germanic political tradition is rooted in ideology rather than experience. In other words, in the Franco-Germanic tradition, political leaders attempt to impose an idea on society from on high. This may take the form of statist liberalism now increasingly called "Progressivism"), collectivism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism, bolshevism, or Maoism. All represent attempts to submerge the individual into the collective, whether of the democratic soft variety (exemplified by modern liberalism or welfare statism), or the hard variety which employs brute force (fascism or communism). The Franco-Germanic tradition, whether practiced in Europe or the United States, supports group rights, centralized government, an activist role for government, income redistribution, more limited property rights, the right to government benefits, the regulatory state, and limitations on private enterprise. The Franco-Germanic view places human reason at the center of our existence, claiming that certain people--political elites--are capable of comprehending, adjudicating, and arranging the world around us, and that such people are called upon to guide all others toward an increasingly just and perfect world in which all desires are either eliminated or satisfied.
Ironically, these so-called "liberals" have gotten away with the illusion of being open, free, tolerant when, in reality, their program is all about a continuing tightening of the government screws to force citizens to conform to their idea of the perfect society. The last few years have witnessed the hypocrisy of modern liberalism, which seeks to ban all manner of personal choices, from smoking in public parks, salt use, dietary choices, etc. The abortion issue is the one they use against conservatives in an attempt to distract attention away from their statist and collectivist agenda, and the reason they invest so much time, money, and political attention on it. But even many libertarians (e.g. Ned Hentoff) oppose abortion because they grant the humanity of the fetus and extend the same rights to the unborn as they do those out of the womb. Modern liberalism has little to do with the root word from which it is derived, and is a reflection of a confused mental state.
6.6.2011 | 12:44pm
TeaPot562 says:
As has been demonstrated more than once in recent centuries, a culture founded on the belief that people are naturally "good" or "perfect" falls of its own weight.
Only the acknowledgment that something like Original Sin exists will let reasonable laws be enacted and administered. Since we are all sinful, no authority, no court, no president can be trusted with total authority.
My freedom to swing my arm must be restricted when it gets near your nose. The professor who pushes the ideal of total freedom will reject it when it causes problems in his/her classroom.
A culture that prefers abortion will be replaced by a culture that really does consider women to be second class citizens, because that culture has far more children.
"Conservatives" will only endure if they have enough children to educate and dominate the next generation.
TeaPot562
Only the acknowledgment that something like Original Sin exists will let reasonable laws be enacted and administered. Since we are all sinful, no authority, no court, no president can be trusted with total authority.
My freedom to swing my arm must be restricted when it gets near your nose. The professor who pushes the ideal of total freedom will reject it when it causes problems in his/her classroom.
A culture that prefers abortion will be replaced by a culture that really does consider women to be second class citizens, because that culture has far more children.
"Conservatives" will only endure if they have enough children to educate and dominate the next generation.
TeaPot562
6.6.2011 | 12:50pm
"What are called "conservatives" in America believe that they believe in freedom, but they have no vision of what that freedom is for, or even what the inner structure of human freedom is."
Well Tony, since I'm a fellow follower of Christ, I totally agree with you there.
Unfortunately, the majority of people aren't Christ-followers. Furthermore, many within Catholicism would not even agree with the bulk of your comment.
Well Tony, since I'm a fellow follower of Christ, I totally agree with you there.
Unfortunately, the majority of people aren't Christ-followers. Furthermore, many within Catholicism would not even agree with the bulk of your comment.
6.6.2011 | 12:50pm
Bob G says:
Prof Reno: That was an excellent summary but not generally something we haven't heard before. Rev. Kev Kevin (above) is correct: we hear it over and over but liberalism still chugs along.
I think the reason is one we seldom notice. The reason is economic. For various causes we can't go into here, our economic system is phobic toward labor--ceaselessly striving to evict as much of it as possible in the name of efficiency. In earlier times Nature (in the form of almost free land) afforded an escape for the excluded. But those days are gone. And today the economy is ejecting more people than ever, whose only recourse is Gummint benefits liberals hold out to them. That cohort is steadily increasing, and the more it does the more liberalism will be their only recourse, faulty as it may be. My proposition: the main appeal of liberalism is not a false freedom; it is salvation from impoverishment.
Many Republicans think the faltering economy will undermine Obama. Maybe not. It may make his type of nostrums more attractive--until the whole economy and democracy founder, and authoritarian tyranny seems to become our only recourse.
Look to the material factor first. Follow the money, as the cynics say. In this case, they're correct.
I think the reason is one we seldom notice. The reason is economic. For various causes we can't go into here, our economic system is phobic toward labor--ceaselessly striving to evict as much of it as possible in the name of efficiency. In earlier times Nature (in the form of almost free land) afforded an escape for the excluded. But those days are gone. And today the economy is ejecting more people than ever, whose only recourse is Gummint benefits liberals hold out to them. That cohort is steadily increasing, and the more it does the more liberalism will be their only recourse, faulty as it may be. My proposition: the main appeal of liberalism is not a false freedom; it is salvation from impoverishment.
Many Republicans think the faltering economy will undermine Obama. Maybe not. It may make his type of nostrums more attractive--until the whole economy and democracy founder, and authoritarian tyranny seems to become our only recourse.
Look to the material factor first. Follow the money, as the cynics say. In this case, they're correct.
6.6.2011 | 2:04pm
Brad says:
Mr. Reno's first paragraph can be summed up by "non servium", which is what the creature, lucifer, said when confronted with an objective Creator's objective plan and desires. Thus, the many non serviums that echo around the globe every second are but prideful echos of the original. Fortunately we have Christ while the fallen angels do not have recourse to Him.
6.6.2011 | 4:56pm
Edward Alleyn says:
Thank you for this essay. As I read it, I kept recalling John 14:6 and Jesus's politically incorrect clarity:
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
6.6.2011 | 8:10pm
dadfly says:
authority is such a harsh word. but ok i'll run with it. as a conservative, i admit to a very, specific, constrained form of *perfect* authority, not really well described here. it is the authority of our wise and God fearing founders. it is the authority that derives from, and only from, the "consent of the governed." it is the authority that is freely given under a lawful system, where the law itself is derived from our creator. it is, in my view, the exact same authority that God takes over us. it is, again, the consent of the governed. that is why we are granted the gift of freewill.
6.6.2011 | 8:10pm
Margaret says:
When I hear someone say that "liberals" (as in "all liberals") or "conservatives (as in "all conservatives") think and behave in a particular way -- always, of course, in a "less moral" way than "decent people like us" should think and behave -- I find myself thinking, "Next!" Democracy is not liberal -- it is now the norm for those of us living in the US. Far from being a "dictatorship of relativism," it is a system that on the whole protects us from real dictatorship -- oligarchies that believe that only they are gifted with "objective moral truth." Most people, conservatives and liberals alike, abide by the beliefs that they see as moral and true -- to the extent that they will suffer and sacrifice for those beliefs -- but they also understand that reasonable people may differ. My truth might be very different from my neighbor's. Democracy allows a pluralistic society to legislate for the most part on the basis of majority sentiment. What could be less authoritarian?
6.6.2011 | 9:18pm
Sergio Méndez says:
"But these are the perils of traditional and religious views of human flourishing, not paradoxes. That’s one reason I find myself thinking that the unifying vision of social or cultural conservatism—the primacy of authority—is more plausible than the liberal presumption in favor of an existential freedom. And it’s also why I think the conservative view holds out more promise as a social philosophy. If we acknowledge the role of proper authority, then we can deliberate about its purposes and limits—something we can’t do under the paradoxical dictatorship of relativism."
Probably the paradox of conservatism lies in this paragraph. Authority is, in the end, antitetical with the very core of natural law and objective moral values (which have, among them, freedom as one of its pillars). The moment you do something cause some authoritive figure has told you and not because you see it thru the eyes of reason to be good in itself, you already gave up the idea of good as an objective value (and that is the little difference between greek philosophers and christian inspired morality on some divine being or its supposed representatives and traditions on earth).
Modern liberalism is not wrong in most of its causes (at least social ones), but its in justifications. abortion is right not simply because some right to privacy, but because a woman bodies is hers and she has no obligation to carry anybody on it (even a fetus) on the demand of anybody (the church, the state, her husband, "society" etc...); gay marriage is not right because we must tolerate homosexuals, but because nobody has the right to interfer with how to grown human beings decide to live togheter, etc... But then the proper philosophical foundations of morality will give us a society that is more free (not less) society than the conservative will ever dream.
Probably the paradox of conservatism lies in this paragraph. Authority is, in the end, antitetical with the very core of natural law and objective moral values (which have, among them, freedom as one of its pillars). The moment you do something cause some authoritive figure has told you and not because you see it thru the eyes of reason to be good in itself, you already gave up the idea of good as an objective value (and that is the little difference between greek philosophers and christian inspired morality on some divine being or its supposed representatives and traditions on earth).
Modern liberalism is not wrong in most of its causes (at least social ones), but its in justifications. abortion is right not simply because some right to privacy, but because a woman bodies is hers and she has no obligation to carry anybody on it (even a fetus) on the demand of anybody (the church, the state, her husband, "society" etc...); gay marriage is not right because we must tolerate homosexuals, but because nobody has the right to interfer with how to grown human beings decide to live togheter, etc... But then the proper philosophical foundations of morality will give us a society that is more free (not less) society than the conservative will ever dream.
6.7.2011 | 4:11am
Michael PS says:
American conservatism never developed a coherent principle of authority, largely because America had the Revolution, but not the Counter-Revolution.
European conservatives, in the aftermath of the Revolution, like Joseph de Maistre, Chateaubriand and Lamennais created a coherent political philosophy. If the cardinal principle of the Revolution was the sovereignty of human reason, they appealed to the sovereignty of God. Order was Heaven's first law; contempt of authority man's first disobedience. The Revolution was simply the Reformation principle of private judgment secularised and extended to the political realm.
To them, God’s sovereignty had its concrete embodiment in the Church, universal, immutable, infallible. Fairbairn has summed up their views well: “Chateaubriand described Christian Rome as being for the modern what Pagan Rome had been for the ancient world—the universal bond of nations, instructing in duty, defending from oppression. Lamennais argued that without authority there could be no religion, that it was the foundation of all society and morality, and that it alone enfranchised man by making him obedient, so harmonizing all intelligences and wills. And thus the Church, as the supreme authority, became the principle of order, the centre of political as well as religious stability; the only divine rights were those she sanctioned, in her strength kings reigned, and through obedience to her man was happy and God honoured.”
They were right enough in this, at least: Liberalism was, historically, the product of religious pluralism and they were prepared to attack it at its roots. Against it, a vague appeal to “traditional” or “Judeo-Christian” values is whistling in the wind.
European conservatives, in the aftermath of the Revolution, like Joseph de Maistre, Chateaubriand and Lamennais created a coherent political philosophy. If the cardinal principle of the Revolution was the sovereignty of human reason, they appealed to the sovereignty of God. Order was Heaven's first law; contempt of authority man's first disobedience. The Revolution was simply the Reformation principle of private judgment secularised and extended to the political realm.
To them, God’s sovereignty had its concrete embodiment in the Church, universal, immutable, infallible. Fairbairn has summed up their views well: “Chateaubriand described Christian Rome as being for the modern what Pagan Rome had been for the ancient world—the universal bond of nations, instructing in duty, defending from oppression. Lamennais argued that without authority there could be no religion, that it was the foundation of all society and morality, and that it alone enfranchised man by making him obedient, so harmonizing all intelligences and wills. And thus the Church, as the supreme authority, became the principle of order, the centre of political as well as religious stability; the only divine rights were those she sanctioned, in her strength kings reigned, and through obedience to her man was happy and God honoured.”
They were right enough in this, at least: Liberalism was, historically, the product of religious pluralism and they were prepared to attack it at its roots. Against it, a vague appeal to “traditional” or “Judeo-Christian” values is whistling in the wind.
6.7.2011 | 6:32am
harry says:
“The promise of freedom stems from the fact that we’re not to be constrained by objective moral truths.”
That, it seems to me, is the heart of the issue. In a democracy a consensus that there is a higher authority to which even Caesar is subject, together with a consensus, for the most part, as to the essentials of what it is the Divine authority requires of us in terms of our laws corresponding to objective moral truths, brings about a government able to protect the inalienable rights of humanity. This is how we began. Quite another kind of government is brought about when a godless state acknowledges no moral authority higher than itself, and acknowledges no moral absolutes whatsoever. In the latter case the ruling class is accountable to no higher authority and to everybody else only in the sense that if its social engineering becomes too outrageous its offenses will result in its overthrow, the revolution being brought about through a peaceful, democratic process, or civil disobedience, or violent insurrection, or some combination of these, depending on the lengths those in power go to illegitimately remain there. I say “illegitimately” because such a government, in the case of the United States anyway, has lost its legitimacy to the extent that it has betrayed its founding principles.
There is no longer any consensus on the essentials of morality. There is a rapidly increasing intolerance of those who still believe in traditional morality and believe there is a higher authority to which even Caesar is subject. The policies of the ruling class appear to be outrageous to an ever growing number of people. It seems a revolution of some sort – hopefully a peaceful one using voting booths, not weapons – is inevitable.
Think about it. There was an abrupt withdrawal of the protection of law from the child in the womb by the Supreme Court. This was done in spite of the fact that state legislatures in all fifty states – the elected representatives of the people – had put laws on the books to protect these children. In 1967, in 49 states, abortion was a felony; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Twenty-nine states had banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the manufacture or distribution of abortifacients. Roe was handed down after a huge effort to repeal those laws had failed miserably. It had only been successful in a handful of states. Ballot initiatives to decriminalize abortion had been defeated by majorities as high as 78 percent. In 1972 in New York, one of the few states that had liberalized its abortion laws, the reaction against that was such that the state legislature voted to repeal the state's new abortion law, but the personification of the elitist ruling class, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, with typical intolerance of the will of the people where it is contrary to the plans drawn up by godless social engineers, and with *lethal* intolerance of the inalienable right to life of the child in the womb, vetoed the repeal.
For the ruling class to claim, for all practical purposes, to have the authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings, and this in direct opposition to the will of the people, and so soon after Nazi Germany's disastrous experiment with the state claiming to possess such authority, was nothing less than outrageous. To further claim the right to sanction the killing of your grandchild, the unborn child of your minor daughter, without your knowledge or consent, giving you no chance to counsel your own minor daughter in such a grave matter – and sanctioning this even though these girls sometimes die from the covertly arranged, then botched “legal” abortion – was beyond outrageous. This demonstrated the profound arrogance of the ruling class and its complete intolerance of the deepest convictions of others if those convictions are contrary to their godless social engineering. They might claim the reverse is true, that those retaining traditional values are being intolerant of their values. One difference here is that their radical, new “values” are lethal to millions of innocent human beings where traditional values are not, and their “values” are in stark contradiction to the traditional Western ethic.
There needs to be a *peaceful* revolution using the existing democratic process to alter or abolish the state that the ruling class has turned on it head. The state is now diametrically opposed to America's founding principles in that we began with humanity reserving the right to bestow and withdraw the state's right to exist, as it should since it brings the state into existence to protect its inalienable rights, and we now have the exact opposite situation: the state claimed for itself the authority to bestow and withdraw the right to exist of vast, innocent segments of humanity when it withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb.
The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is Caesar's only to protect humanity's inalienable rights, not to bestow or withdraw them. If Caesar claims such authority, it is our duty, according to our founding document, to alter or abolish that government and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the safety and happiness of every human being.
That, it seems to me, is the heart of the issue. In a democracy a consensus that there is a higher authority to which even Caesar is subject, together with a consensus, for the most part, as to the essentials of what it is the Divine authority requires of us in terms of our laws corresponding to objective moral truths, brings about a government able to protect the inalienable rights of humanity. This is how we began. Quite another kind of government is brought about when a godless state acknowledges no moral authority higher than itself, and acknowledges no moral absolutes whatsoever. In the latter case the ruling class is accountable to no higher authority and to everybody else only in the sense that if its social engineering becomes too outrageous its offenses will result in its overthrow, the revolution being brought about through a peaceful, democratic process, or civil disobedience, or violent insurrection, or some combination of these, depending on the lengths those in power go to illegitimately remain there. I say “illegitimately” because such a government, in the case of the United States anyway, has lost its legitimacy to the extent that it has betrayed its founding principles.
There is no longer any consensus on the essentials of morality. There is a rapidly increasing intolerance of those who still believe in traditional morality and believe there is a higher authority to which even Caesar is subject. The policies of the ruling class appear to be outrageous to an ever growing number of people. It seems a revolution of some sort – hopefully a peaceful one using voting booths, not weapons – is inevitable.
Think about it. There was an abrupt withdrawal of the protection of law from the child in the womb by the Supreme Court. This was done in spite of the fact that state legislatures in all fifty states – the elected representatives of the people – had put laws on the books to protect these children. In 1967, in 49 states, abortion was a felony; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Twenty-nine states had banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the manufacture or distribution of abortifacients. Roe was handed down after a huge effort to repeal those laws had failed miserably. It had only been successful in a handful of states. Ballot initiatives to decriminalize abortion had been defeated by majorities as high as 78 percent. In 1972 in New York, one of the few states that had liberalized its abortion laws, the reaction against that was such that the state legislature voted to repeal the state's new abortion law, but the personification of the elitist ruling class, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, with typical intolerance of the will of the people where it is contrary to the plans drawn up by godless social engineers, and with *lethal* intolerance of the inalienable right to life of the child in the womb, vetoed the repeal.
For the ruling class to claim, for all practical purposes, to have the authority to sanction the killing of innocent human beings, and this in direct opposition to the will of the people, and so soon after Nazi Germany's disastrous experiment with the state claiming to possess such authority, was nothing less than outrageous. To further claim the right to sanction the killing of your grandchild, the unborn child of your minor daughter, without your knowledge or consent, giving you no chance to counsel your own minor daughter in such a grave matter – and sanctioning this even though these girls sometimes die from the covertly arranged, then botched “legal” abortion – was beyond outrageous. This demonstrated the profound arrogance of the ruling class and its complete intolerance of the deepest convictions of others if those convictions are contrary to their godless social engineering. They might claim the reverse is true, that those retaining traditional values are being intolerant of their values. One difference here is that their radical, new “values” are lethal to millions of innocent human beings where traditional values are not, and their “values” are in stark contradiction to the traditional Western ethic.
There needs to be a *peaceful* revolution using the existing democratic process to alter or abolish the state that the ruling class has turned on it head. The state is now diametrically opposed to America's founding principles in that we began with humanity reserving the right to bestow and withdraw the state's right to exist, as it should since it brings the state into existence to protect its inalienable rights, and we now have the exact opposite situation: the state claimed for itself the authority to bestow and withdraw the right to exist of vast, innocent segments of humanity when it withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb.
The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is Caesar's only to protect humanity's inalienable rights, not to bestow or withdraw them. If Caesar claims such authority, it is our duty, according to our founding document, to alter or abolish that government and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect the safety and happiness of every human being.
6.7.2011 | 8:13am
John says:
Jim Bell says;
The paradox of modern Liberalism can be summed up thusly:
"We are non-judgmental; we believe people should be free to live their lives any way they choose; we don't impose our beliefs on others; we don't believe we should harm others; there's no such thing as "absolute truth" and anyone who says otherwise is trying to impose their beliefs on us and limit our freedoms. "
While reading this I thought of this line from the Wiccan Rede.
These Eight words the Rede fulfill:
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
The paradox of modern Liberalism can be summed up thusly:
"We are non-judgmental; we believe people should be free to live their lives any way they choose; we don't impose our beliefs on others; we don't believe we should harm others; there's no such thing as "absolute truth" and anyone who says otherwise is trying to impose their beliefs on us and limit our freedoms. "
While reading this I thought of this line from the Wiccan Rede.
These Eight words the Rede fulfill:
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
6.7.2011 | 12:42pm
Todd says:
I read the first two paragraphs, and that was enough to experience a most unconvincing argument.
"What makes life worth living?"
It's a great question. But Mr Reno stumbles when he writes, "It’s judgmental—an act of cultural imperialism, as we’re taught to say at fancy colleges—to suggest that there’s a right answer to this question."
It's more accurate to say that people have different answers to the question. For people of Christian faith, we're pretty much in agreement, even though our vocabulary might differ, and where and how we find God might shift from time to time, person to person.
"We’re happiest, the present-day liberal presumes, when we can make up our own minds about what makes life worth living—or even if life is worth living."
Not too sure liberal/conservative has much to do with this. If it did, I'd sure like to know the liberal who said it. Liberal and conservative Christians might be in agreement about the place of Christ. Liberal and conservative hedonists, on the other hand, might only differ in their drug of choice: sex, money, crack, power, business domination, etc..
"The commitment to freedom seems complete, yet paradoxically this liberalism tends toward an anti-democratic authoritarianism."
Well, anybody with power combined with an unhealthy self-interest tends to authoritarianism. Check out a society like Pakistan: deeply conservative, very low tax rates, religious uniformity. A liberal might go in and suggest women could wear anything from burkas to bikinis, but it wouldn't be so.
Another commenter above has already skewered Mr Reno for his relativism on the killing of ObL.
I would no more trust a conservative to lecture me on liberals than a Muslim to inform me about Christians. Sure, some few open-minded people make a study of things outside their rearing or their comfort zone. Maybe that makes them experts you can trust. Maybe not so much.
The real problem is not so much that some individuals abuse freedom--because they do. There's something of an inequity in who gets caught and who goes free. Modern economics is a case in point. Lots of people oversaw the grifting of the middle class and poor, but you don't see bankers in jail. They get high positions at Treasury and on the Fed. But if some poor schmuck robbed a bank to feed his family and got caught, you can bet the wheels of justice would roll.
No, Mr Reno has tapped into a thread of unfairness in western society. But his dictators are largely conservative. Including the 60's Republicans who first got the bright idea to decriminalize abortion so money could be made off it.
"What makes life worth living?"
It's a great question. But Mr Reno stumbles when he writes, "It’s judgmental—an act of cultural imperialism, as we’re taught to say at fancy colleges—to suggest that there’s a right answer to this question."
It's more accurate to say that people have different answers to the question. For people of Christian faith, we're pretty much in agreement, even though our vocabulary might differ, and where and how we find God might shift from time to time, person to person.
"We’re happiest, the present-day liberal presumes, when we can make up our own minds about what makes life worth living—or even if life is worth living."
Not too sure liberal/conservative has much to do with this. If it did, I'd sure like to know the liberal who said it. Liberal and conservative Christians might be in agreement about the place of Christ. Liberal and conservative hedonists, on the other hand, might only differ in their drug of choice: sex, money, crack, power, business domination, etc..
"The commitment to freedom seems complete, yet paradoxically this liberalism tends toward an anti-democratic authoritarianism."
Well, anybody with power combined with an unhealthy self-interest tends to authoritarianism. Check out a society like Pakistan: deeply conservative, very low tax rates, religious uniformity. A liberal might go in and suggest women could wear anything from burkas to bikinis, but it wouldn't be so.
Another commenter above has already skewered Mr Reno for his relativism on the killing of ObL.
I would no more trust a conservative to lecture me on liberals than a Muslim to inform me about Christians. Sure, some few open-minded people make a study of things outside their rearing or their comfort zone. Maybe that makes them experts you can trust. Maybe not so much.
The real problem is not so much that some individuals abuse freedom--because they do. There's something of an inequity in who gets caught and who goes free. Modern economics is a case in point. Lots of people oversaw the grifting of the middle class and poor, but you don't see bankers in jail. They get high positions at Treasury and on the Fed. But if some poor schmuck robbed a bank to feed his family and got caught, you can bet the wheels of justice would roll.
No, Mr Reno has tapped into a thread of unfairness in western society. But his dictators are largely conservative. Including the 60's Republicans who first got the bright idea to decriminalize abortion so money could be made off it.
6.8.2011 | 1:03am
Michael PS says:
The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights. In the brief interlude between the absolutist state of the Ancien Régime and modern totalitarian states, this was achieved by the separation of the public sphere of state activity and the private sphere of civil society. The state provided a legally codified order within which social customs, economic competition, religious beliefs, and so on, could be pursued without interference.
But, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
Now, the Throne & Altar Conservative has his judge; for him, the ruler of a Christian people must be a faithful son of the Church. It is not without interest hat some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter.
But, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
Now, the Throne & Altar Conservative has his judge; for him, the ruler of a Christian people must be a faithful son of the Church. It is not without interest hat some Liberals are now seeking a secular equivalent in the international community and its organs, with the Security Council and the International Criminal Court replacing the Chair of Peter.
7.18.2011 | 5:36am
Nathanson Cory says:
Liberals who attempt to shove their beliefs on others are no better (although they tend to have healthier motives than the Taliban- keeping people from smoking is different than stoning them alive). True modern liberalism should allow free people to think for themselves, but elect representative governing bodies to sanely balance individual desires with the common good. Authority, as Jefferson pointed out, must come from the bottom up (the consent of the governed) to be legitimate. As has been demonstrated more than once in recent centuries, a culture founded on the belief that people are naturally "good" or "perfect" falls of its own weight.
