Classical liberalism

[SimonDoom]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans, as far as I can tell, are substantially less "liberal" than they were in 2008, when Obama ran for president the first time. The Democrats have moved to the non-liberal left and the Republicans have moved to the non-liberal right. Liberals have been squeezed out by this shift.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I agree. MAGA has become nothing but a movement to protect pedophiles and the pedophile president.

 

[JohnEngelman]

back in the day ... way before the electric typewriter was invented

since the 1970s unions are more pain and zero value

Th decline in union membership is a major reason for the increase in inequality.

 

[Chernosoth]

What we want our government to do, at our expense, and what we will do ourselves could be the meat of any political conversation for the next few decades. As the entire world depletes resources and this nation becomes poorer, the government will be doing less with less tax revenue. We'll do more without government or it won't be done.

 

[Wilson23]

What we want our government to do, at our expense, and what we will do ourselves could be the meat of any political conversation for the next few decades. As the entire world depletes resources and this nation becomes poorer, the government will be doing less with less tax revenue. We'll do more without government or it won't be done.

Industrial civilization is not going to collapse, as you appear to think it is.

 

[Chernosoth]

Industrial civilization is not going to collapse, as you appear to think it is.

Already in progress. Civilizations last around a thousand years each. Ours has around a century left.

 

[Wilson23]

Already in progress. Civilizations last around a thousand years each. Ours has around a century left.

No lesson drawn from pre-scientific, pre-industrial civlizations applies now.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans, as far as I can tell, are substantially less "liberal" than they were in 2008, when Obama ran for president the first time. The Democrats have moved to the non-liberal left and the Republicans have moved to the non-liberal right. Liberals have been squeezed out by this shift.

You’re aware of the argument that polarization is a tool, right? A tool of those who are doing well out of a system to make change almost impossible. That’ll be the centrists, the liberals, the establishment center-left/center-right, the moderates, or whatever you want to call them. They do very nicely out of polarization. You may have noticed that, what with all the talk of trans bathrooms and DEI, the rich have mysteriously remained remarkably rich and the poor have remained poor, have got poorer in fact.

Less cynically, of course, one can argue that centrism, or bothsides-ism, isn’t using polarization in such a tactical way. It’s more that centrists just have need to feel sensible. This view suggests centrism is a pathology more than a thought-out set of policies as it depends entirely on what politics are at play at any given time. A centrist is 1918 is going to worry about giving the vote for women, for example. And a centrist in 1966 is going to warn against going too far with civil rights. While a centrist in 2020 is presumably perfectly at ease with both women voting and civil rights. Which brings us to today: the problem centrists have is that one side of the political divide has gone loony-racist-authoritarian. What’s a centrist pathology to do in such circumstances? It needs to pretend that the other side is just as radical in order to feel justified in denying its solutions. And of course to avoid feeling any responsibility for enabling this authoritarian drift. Hence the obsession with trans rights and other supposedly radical identity politics.

If you want to know how you got to be standing where you currently are, you’ll want to look at where you’ve just come from. America is a vast country of people who want largely left wing policies (universal healthcare, money out of politics, the kind of better paid and more stable jobs that unions fight for) but who are governed by the center right, who control just about every single instrument of power in this country. The mess America is currently enjoying was brought to you by the center right.

If you care about classic liberalism then you’ll want to keep a much closer eye on the center right and stop buying the narrative about polarization and the ‘non-liberal radical left’ and the ‘both sides are just as radical’ silliness.

As Jan-Werner Müller puts it: ‘here’s the one line history of democracy: it’s never the voters who are happy to do away with democracy, it’s the conservative elite.’

 

[SimonDoom]

If you want to know how you got to be standing where you currently are, you’ll want to look at where you’ve just come from. America is a vast country of people who want largely left wing policies (universal healthcare, money out of politics, the kind of better paid and more stable jobs that unions fight for) but who are governed by the center right, who control just about every single instrument of power in this country. The mess America is currently enjoying was brought to you by the center right. If you care about classic liberalism then you’ll want to keep a much closer eye on the center right and stop buying the narrative about polarization and the ‘non-liberal radical left’. As Jan-Werner Müller puts it: ‘here’s the one line history of democracy: it’s never the voters who are happy to do away with democracy, it’s the conservative elite.’

We have very different narratives about what the facts are and what people want. I don't believe people want left wing policies, and I don't think they want group identity politics, either. It's a big country full of people who want different things. I strongly disagree with the idea that liberals should have their eye on one faction and not the other. All forms of illiberalism are still illiberalism, and a liberal is going to oppose them coming from every direction.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

We have very different narratives about what the facts are and what people want. I don't believe people want left wing policies, and I don't think they want group identity politics, either. It's a big country full of people who want different things. I strongly disagree with the idea that liberals should have their eye on one faction and not the other. All forms of illiberalism are still illiberalism, and a liberal is going to oppose them coming from every direction.

How do you think America has arrived at such an authoritarian situation?

 

[SimonDoom]

How do you think America has arrived at such an authoritarian situation?

I don't pretend to have a full explanation for where we are. The events of the last 10 years have surprised me. But I think the left is partly to blame. The left has embraced illiberalism and intolerance for a long time, and to some degree the right has embraced the left's playbook.

 

[GuiltyCowboy]

I don't pretend to have a full explanation for where we are. The events of the last 10 years have surprised me. But I think the left is partly to blame. The left has embraced illiberalism and intolerance for a long time, and to some degree the right has embraced the left's playbook.

At the level of party politics and polices, could you give me an example, or examples, of the Democratic Party’s illiberalism and intolerance?

It’s not clear to me how they’re similar to the authoritarian right.

 

[Wilson23]

But I think the left is partly to blame. The left has embraced illiberalism and intolerance for a long time

That is a lie. "Political correctness" and "cancel culture" are nothing of the kind.

 

[SimonDoom]

At the level of party politics and polices, could you give me an example, or examples, of the Democratic Party’s illiberalism and intolerance?

It’s not clear to me how they’re similar to the authoritarian right.

A few that come to mind:

1) Slavery reparations. The concept that one group of people, because of their race, owe another group of people, because of their race, reparations for something that ended 160 years ago is deeply illiberal.
2) The focus by the Democratic Party in general on group identity and race is illiberal. Liberal policies treat people as individuals, not as members of race or ethnic groups. The Democratic Party has turned hard in the direction of group identity politics in the last 20 years.
3) The Biden administration's attempts during COVID to regulate what social media said about COVID was illiberal. People should be free in social media to say whatever they want. There should be no such thing as laws against "misinformation." The right is just as bad about this as the left, admittedly, but they're both bad.
4) The Fairness doctrine is illiberal. Privately owned media companies should be free to express whatever views they want.
5) The concept of "hate speech," which is embraced by some in the Democratic Party, is illiberal. There should be no laws against so-called hate speech.
6) I tend to agree with Milton Friedman's idea that capitalism and freedom are inexplicably intertwined. Socialism inevitably will lead to a loss of freedom -- not just economic freedom, but all freedom, because the only way one preserves socialism and socialistic redistribution over time is through a coercive state. If you leave people to their own devices, the consequence will be unequal distribution and private property ownership. So, in that sense, to the extent the Democratic Party is trending toward "socialism" (whatever that means) it is a threat to liberal principles. In some ways I think it is a deeper and more concerning threat than Trumpism, which, as bad as it is, is likely to recede once his presidency is finally over. The threat of socialism, on the other hand, is an enduring threat that is not tied to one politician or his movement.

You limited your question to the "level of party politics and policies," and to be fair I think many of the complaints about left-wing intolerance and illiberalism aren't happening so much at the level of party politics as they are happening at the level of culture, such as in universities and media organizations, through concepts like "cancel culture," which is a real and dangerous thing. Whereas the illiberalism of the right is definitely happening at the level of politics in the current administration. The Democratic Party retains some fidelity to basic laws and procedures, as was evident from the peaceful way the Democrats gave way to Trump in the 2024 election. Whereas, I think Trump and his people will do literally anything they can get away with.

I don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to figure out whether they are "similar" or "equivalent." Illiberalism is illiberalism, full stop.

 

[SimonDoom]

That is a lie. "Political correctness" and "cancel culture" are nothing of the kind.

So you say. I disagree. The evidence of it happening on university campuses in the US is overwhelming. I'm not going to go to the trouble of citing the many examples. PC, Woke and cancel culture are all very real phenomena and I think they are an intellectual cancer in our universities.

 

[Wilson23]

So you say. I disagree. The evidence of it happening on university campuses in the US is overwhelming. I'm not going to go to the trouble of citing the many examples. PC, Woke and cancel culture are all very real phenomena and I think they are an intellectual cancer in our universities.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1357:_Free_Speech

 

[Wilson23]

How is "woke" objectionable anyway? It means being aware of social injustice, nothing else. It's better to be oblivious?

 

[bijedi]

I'm curious how many people here identify with the principles of classical liberalism, which I would describe as:

1) the belief that all people, everywhere, have fundamental rights and liberties, such as the right to life, freedom of speech and religion, economic freedom, personal freedom, etc.

This is pretty universally accepted. Of course there is a wide area for disagreement on just what those rights are and where they intersect.

2) the belief that the primary, if not sole, purpose of government, is to protect those rights and liberties.

I believe this is a minority view today, and probably as been since the early 19th century. Even the classic liberals then thought this generally only applied to central governments and were more than accepting of expansive local government.

3) the belief in a limited government of well-defined powers.

If you are using limited to mean the government is restricted to act only in accordance within the well-defined powers, then yes. But again, you are going to have wide disagreement on what those well-defined powers encompass.

There's so much toxic partisan debate right now that it obscures the debate over something more important: what are our foundational principles? What do we most fundamentally believe, and what is government's proper job?

I don't equate classical liberalism with strict libertarianism, or with the Libertarian party. It's more of a "big tent," that encompasses a broader range of beliefs. The majority of Americans, I think, have at least many classical liberal beliefs, even if they're not consistent about what they believe.

I disagree with your last sentence. Classical liberal beliefs are not a part of mainstream Americans core beliefs.

 

[SimonDoom]

How is "woke" objectionable anyway? It means being aware of social injustice, nothing else. It's better to be oblivious?

I'm going to cite your manner of communicating with me as an example of illiberalism. You don't tell me I'm wrong and explain why. You say "That's a lie." This is the way intolerant left-wing people speak. I don't accuse people of lying when I disagree with them. I tell them I don't agree, and then I explain why.

To say that "woke" is nothing more than being aware of social injustice is absurdly lacking in self-awareness.

Here are some specific examples of "woke" ideas that go beyond merely being "aware of social injustice," and instead lean hard into illiberal, group-identity concepts:

1. Safe spaces in universities. There should be no such thing.
2. Requiring applicants for university professorships to sign "DEI statements." Nobody should have to sign such a thing. It's not different than requiring people in the 50s to sign loyalty oaths.
3. Slavery reparations. The California legislature, controlled by Democrats, has signaled it supports what would amount to a race-based wealth transfer for something that ended 160 years ago, in a state that was not a slave state. Absurd, illiberal, woke.
4. Cultural misappropriation -- the notion that ethnic groups have proprietary rights in culture and it's wrong for those who are not members to use that culture. This is a woke and illiberal idea. Culture should be freely traded without limitation.
5. Hate speech laws. Woke and illiberal. Get rid of all of them. Speech codes in universities. Same thing.
6. The notion that "you are a member of X group, therefore you don't have a right to express an opinion on a subject." Everybody has a right to express an opinion regardless of what group they belong to.
7. The emphasis on vague, abstract concepts such as "White Privilege" and "The Patriarchy." One can be aware of and want to eradicate injustices without trafficking in vague, abstract, and, I believe, unhelpful ideas.

Woke is also a style and a practice. Trying to get professors fired or have their classes cancelled because they defy orthodoxy. Trying to get speakers on campuses cancelled for the same reason. There are abundant examples of this happening. Universities, to do their job right, should welcome an extreme diversity of opinions, including opinions that the majority find objectionable.

These are all aspects, for which there's plenty of evidence, of "woke" that are illiberal.

I think the way to deal with injustice is to treat individuals as individuals, and to protest when they are not treated that way. That's not woke. The stuff I cited is woke.

 

[Wilson23]

I disagree with your last sentence. Classical liberal beliefs are not a part of mainstream Americans core beliefs.

At the time of the Revolution, ALL politically interested Americans not Tories were classical liberals. That and monarchism being the only things on the menu.

 

[bijedi]

At the time of the Revolution, ALL politically interested Americans not Tories were classical liberals. That and monarchism being the only things on the menu.

Okay. But it isn't the 18th century anymore.

 

[Wilson23]

Okay. But it isn't the 18th century anymore.

Beliefs at the founding are bound to be INFLUENTIAL on the country's "core beliefs" for all time. And half the intellectual content of post-1964 Movement Conservatism is in reference to that.

 

[Lazaran]

I'm going to cite your manner of communicating with me as an example of illiberalism. You don't tell me I'm wrong and explain why. You say "That's a lie." This is the way intolerant left-wing people speak. I don't accuse people of lying when I disagree with them. I tell them I don't agree, and then I explain why.

You deserved it. (And I can’t stand Wilson, but when they’re right, they’re right).

To say that "woke" is nothing more than being aware of social injustice is absurdly lacking in self-awareness.

^ Quite an insulting statement (and quite HYPOCRITICAL, considering your earlier comment). And, again, Wilson was right about what “woke” (when it’s NOT being used as a pejorative) actually means, so…

Here are some specific examples of "woke" ideas that go beyond merely being "aware of social injustice," and instead lean hard into illiberal, group-identity concepts:

1. Safe spaces in universities. There should be no such thing.
2. Requiring applicants for university professorships to sign "DEI statements." Nobody should have to sign such a thing. It's not different than requiring people in the 50s to sign loyalty oaths.
3. Slavery reparations. The California legislature, controlled by Democrats, has signaled it supports what would amount to a race-based wealth transfer for something that ended 160 years ago, in a state that was not a slave state. Absurd, illiberal, woke.
4. Cultural misappropriation -- the notion that ethnic groups have proprietary rights in culture and it's wrong for those who are not members to use that culture. This is a woke and illiberal idea. Culture should be freely traded without limitation.
5. Hate speech laws. Woke and illiberal. Get rid of all of them. Speech codes in universities. Same thing.
6. The notion that "you are a member of X group, therefore you don't have a right to express an opinion on a subject." Everybody has a right to express an opinion regardless of what group they belong to.
7. The emphasis on vague, abstract concepts such as "White Privilege" and "The Patriarchy." One can be aware of and want to eradicate injustices without trafficking in vague, abstract, and, I believe, unhelpful ideas.

All of those ^ things were in RESPONSE to "something". Can you guess what that "something" was???

Woke is also a style and a practice. Trying to get professors fired or have their classes cancelled because they defy orthodoxy. Trying to get speakers on campuses cancelled for the same reason. There are abundant examples of this happening. Universities, to do their job right, should welcome an extreme diversity of opinions, including opinions that the majority find objectionable.

After having experienced the dangers / survived the consequences of unfettered hate speech (the KKK, the Nazis / fascists, the anti-LGBTQ crowd, etc), shouldn’t a society learn from those experiences and preempt a recurrence through laws rather than violence???

These are all aspects, for which there's plenty of evidence, of "woke" that are illiberal.

Your "illiberal" is another man’s / woman’s / other’s common sense reaction / response / counter to anti-social behavior.

I think the way to deal with injustice is to treat individuals as individuals, and to protest when they are not treated that way. That's not woke. The stuff I cited is woke.

Everything you listed WAS / IS protest of a sort. You just don’t seem to like it when the relatively peaceful protest / “counter-action” is as effective as the violent anti-social behavior that sparked the protest (I wonder why???)



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Wilson23]

Even if America moves as far left as the social democracies of Europe, it will still be a classical-liberal society in the sense the Founders might have envisioned. There will always be a distinct sense of freedom here, rule of law, a sense that every state action must be definitely justified and anything not forbidden is permitted (a point on which Alexis de Tocqueville noted America differed from Europe, where the default assumption was that one must seek official permission to do anything out of the ordinary).

 

[Wilson23]

It's like this: Most despotisms before the 20th Century were satisfied with their subjects' obedience -- don't commit crimes, pay your taxes, serve in the army or the labor corvee if conscripted, and the rest of your life is up to you. But the ideoligical totalitarian states of the 20th Century demanded ENTHUSIASM. Loyalty parades, spontaneous demonstrations -- failure to show enthusiasm for the state and the leaders and this glorious new utopian system might get you in trouble. Among other things, these states were based on the idea that a nation can accomplish great things if only the whole population can be induced to march in step behind a single leader -- which is undoubtedly true; unfortunately, some of the accomplishments the leaders had in mind were really nasty.

Now, I do not think America is temperamentally capable of ever becoming that kind of society, not even under a dictatorship. We just don't think that way. The Boy Scouts is a kindasorta military organization in that they wear military-style uniforms, but I've never seen Scouts march in step.