Liberalism born out of the 1950s and 1960s used to protest against the "Establishment" or the status quo of government. Now that liberalism is the Establishment, just what is the point of liberalism? What's left for liberals but the empty shell of a broken system?Before the US Civil War, Southerners used to refer to slavery as "our peculiar institution." Peculiar in this case means "one's own," referring to a distinctive trait among the Southerners. Slave owners, seeing no moral ambiguity in their institution, held on to it as necessary and integral to the South's self-definition. Despite the moral imperatives from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the South clung to its peculiar institution. Slave holders defended it against all argument and moral objection.
We can all agree that chattel slavery is an immoral institution, despite those yesteryear slave holders who defended their "rights" to buy and sell humans as property. Every bit as connected, and stemming from the moral failure of the South's peculiar institution, is the deep rooted and pernicious institution of racism. As current events demonstrate, we, as Americans, have made progress in the dialog of race, yet racism remains.
Modern liberalism, born out of the 1950s and the 1960s, has its own, definitive, peculiar institutions. To modern moralists, and yes, to the religious, these peculiar institutions lack the very moral backing that slavery lacked more than 150 years ago. Social conservatives decry these modern and peculiar institutions of liberalism with the same backing and moral outrage as the abolitionists of old. And, as the old Southerners of antebellum America, liberals cling to their peculiar institutions with all the fervor and zeal as those slave holders.
Also, as the Southerners of yesterday used political power to keep and hold onto their peculiar institution of slavery, modern liberals also skew political power to keep their own versions. Yet, as US history showed us in the mid-1800s, despite the political backing, an immoral institution remains immoral.
Here are a few examples modern liberalism's peculiar institutions:
Abortion
No other social issue defines modern liberalism more than abortion. It has grown to be the definitive issue around which liberalism rallies. Traditionally liberals have renamed the institution in various ways, hiding its true meaning and purpose behind the monikers of "Pro-Choice" or "Women's Rights" or "Reproductive Rights."
How aborting babies came to be so intimately connected with modern liberalism dates back to the early 1900s with its roots in people such as Margaret Sanger. However, it wasn't until the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that state abortion laws in the US were declared unconstitutional and abortion became liberal's peculiar institution.
In one fell swoop, and with a Supreme Court decision that was every bit as convoluted as the antebellum Dred Scott case, modern liberalism succeeded in creating an institution every bit as morally reprehensible as slavery. In essence, Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy (in this case to abort her fetus) is politically more expedient than the morally substantive inalienable right to life.
Yet modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of abortion with all the fervor of a moral imperative, derived from political and economic expediency.
Racism
To say that racism doesn't exist in this country is to turn a blind eye to the modern problem. Racism is divisive, creating legal, social, and economic inequities across the country. Of course, liberalism helped expose the immorality of racism under the moral imperative established by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
How then, did racism become modern liberals' peculiar institution? Simply because of the liberal view that now filters all human transactions in terms of race, instead of viewing the broad range of interactions that humans actually have. In other words, modern liberals stereotype all interactions as racial interactions.
The idiocy of liberal stereotyping, can easily be seen when applied to extreme cases. For example, when the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and, in turn, decried his arrest as racist. Then, when the president of the US got involved to decry racism and when it turned out that no racism was intended or implied in Gate's arrest, in such a case we see the vacuous stereotyping of liberalism's peculiar institution.
An even more absurd example stems from the current nation-wide protests against Congress' healthcare bill. Members of Congress and the White House have labeled protesters racist. Why? Ostensibly under the definition that anyone who disagrees with a black president, in any capacity or under any pretense, is a racist. When Nancy Pelosi says that protesters are showing up with swastikas, all protesters are condemned for racism.
In another example, gay activists apply the term against anyone who disagrees with them about same sex marriage. The concept attempts to equate homosexuals in terms of race despite the absurdity of such an equation. Yet they make the connection because, according to liberals, all human interactions are racial interactions.
What was once a serious description of a real division between Americans has been trivialized, becoming one of liberalism's peculiar institutions. Liberals fling the term "racist" around like mad carnival barkers attempting to hawk their wares, and by doing so, they cheapen and degrade any real or meaningful discussion about race itself.
Modern liberals also wrap themselves in the cloak of self-delusion, that they are the only ones who are qualified to talk about race (hence making racism liberals' peculiar institution). Yet, by clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating class warfare to maintain the liberal agenda.
Liberals perpetuate the peculiar and immoral institution of racial divide to create political expediency, because without racism, liberalism would sputter and die.
Same Sex Marriage
One of the newest peculiar institutions on the liberal scene, the concept of same sex marriage derives its basis out of denying the foundations of the established social institution of marriage based entirely on a disagreement with the moral imperative to preserve it. In other words, liberals claim a right for homosexuals to marry for no other reason than marriage is denied to them. The peculiar institution denies the historical fact of marriage by trying to make marriage meaningless.
It seems inevitable, that liberalism which so desperately clings to race to create political tension, should invent new class struggles to maintain the status quo. Above all else, liberals must fight against the Establishment, whatever the Establishment is. In the case of same sex marriage, liberalism has defined the Establishment by the very nebulous term "the religious." The subject of attack - religion - is obvious. Liberalism is the new Establishment. Hence, other enemies, apart from government, must be sought, other causes must be taken up, liberalism must progress at all costs.
The problem arises from liberalism naming religion as immoral. By doing so, the peculiar institution of same sex marriage, which a majority of Americans views as immoral, is set against the liberal imperative that religion is immoral. Liberals clash with most Americans on this point because, by definition, liberalism claims anyone opposed to same sex marriage is an immoral and religious nut.
All the same, modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of same sex marriage with all the fervor of a moral imperative, when, in reality, it derives from political and economic expediency.
Conclusions
In order for modern liberalism to survive, it must maintain its status quo. However, just as over 150 years ago slave owners clung to their immoral, peculiar institution with all of the fervor of a zealot, liberals also cling to their immoral, peculiar institutions of abortion, racism, and same sex marriage. Without these, liberalism fears the death of its own system.
Yet, as we have seen in US history, even without slavery, the South remained.
It's time for modern liberalism to give up its immoral, peculiar institutions in favor of the core values that made it successful in the first place. Instead, if liberalism maintains its peculiar institutions, it will find itself without the power base it so desperately desires.
Posts
21 comments:
Excellent synopsis. One further point on the race issue: Continuously calling attention to racial issues (e.g., "the FIRST black president") guarantees that nobody will be colorblind. Actually, recently I learned that "colorblind" isn't really the goal, its only halfway there! [What is that thing on Lady Justice's eyes?]
Thanks Velcro. The problem with maintaining race warfare is that we can never come to any common ground and finally resolve the problem toward true racial equality. And if the idea of race keeps getting demeaned, then we've lost what little we've gained in ideals of equality and civil rights.
Liberals, as Euripides pointed out, do not want us colorblind at all. To them, race is one of the most salient issues and "ignoring" it is racist. Being in psychology I had to watch a whole discussion group video once in one of my classes about race and ethnicity. Most of the people in the video ganged up on the one person who said, "I don't care what color someone's skin is." Most of the other people were appalled at the racist white guy. They all had to help him see the error of his ways. I was pretty appalled.
Modern liberalism doesn't want an end to racism. We are no longer a melting pot but a tossed salad. In fact, it's "racist" to believe that we should be a melting pot because that downplays the significance of the different ingredients. The problem is though, that longer is there a cohesiveness in society. Liberals don't want us unified or cohesive because theirs is a minority philosophy so the more fractionated we remain, the greater their influence is.
This was a very thoughtful blog, a joy to read.
Thanks CaliZona, Jared and Z-man!
One of my critics called this particular article a typical straw man argument. After careful consideration, I just can't see the straw man here. I do employ two fallacies: over-generalization and false analogy. However, since I have used these merely as rhetorical tools to get the point across, I still think the main thrust of the idea is valid.
Cheers everyone!
An excellent article. I totally agree. Liberals are defined by their desire to upset the establishment and push the so-called "evolution" of our constitution without a thought of where it is going. Conservatives are defined by their ideals and principles of what our country should be like.
One liberal’s reply, Part 1:
Legalized abortion may be liberal, but it’s also mainstream. Something like 80% of Americans favor some form of legalized abortion. Whenever it goes up for a vote, as it did recently in South Dakota, criminalization of it is shot down.
The question for me is, how do you reduce the number of abortions to smallest possible? Places like Sweden, which offers comprehensive sex education, availability of contraception, at least some government coverage for abortions, and pays women to stay home and take care of their kids, have the lowest rates of abortions in the world. Places like Columbia, which criminalizes abortion and offers none of those things, have the highest rates. The US, ambivalent as we are as a nation, ranks somewhere in the middle.
So long as women are left in desperation by unwanted pregnancies, abortion will continue – and those that are performed illegally have consequences that can be severe. What I’m still waiting for from conservatives who oppose legalized abortion is: a) support for comprehensive sex ed and contraception, in an effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies. b) support for social programs that make it so that when women do experience an unwanted pregnancy, they do not become desperate. That means ensuring care for the child, and ensuring education and support to enable the woman to achieve her dreams and access to the services and supplies needed for a comfortable life; it can include paying the woman to stay home and raise her child, and must, as the old saw says, “teach her to fish, and feed her for a lifetime.” c) laws with teeth that require the father to share in the sacrifice.
Racism is a real and pervasive problem in our country, and liberals’ overuse of it is countered by conservatives’ efforts to sweep it under the rug. Both cases are unfortunate. The truth is, us white folks enjoy a multitude of privileges that are not available to people of color. While those issues need to be addressed, hyperbole tends to be counter-productive. I don’t think that racism is understood very well at all by white America, whether conservative or liberal; in fact, many black folks object more to the subtle racism of condescension and paternalism of many liberal whites than to the blatant racism of many conservatives.
Again, in regards to same-sex marriage, hyperbole and name-calling is destructive. However, there’s a lot more to it than granting it just because it’s denied. While it does change the “traditional” meaning of marriage, liberals are realistic about the current meaning of marriage. The traditional understanding of it is already gone. It’s fine if you want to try to get it back, but I doubt that you’ll have any success, even if the marriage equality issue disappears tomorrow.
Same-sex marriage is political and economic, yes, but it is also social and spiritual. It recognizes the genuine love that gay people share for each other, and the genuine families that they form. It recognized the inherent morality of pair-bonded, same sex relationships, and the right of those involved to have that relationship honored by society.
One liberal's reply, Part II:
It may be true that the majority of Americans view same-sex marriage as immoral, but that doesn’t make it so. In the past, the majority of Americans viewed blacks as inferior beings, even not fully human. That didn’t make them so. I will agree that promiscuity is immoral – but same-sex marriage is a counter to that.
This analysis is also very incomplete, leaving off as it does many of liberalism’s other principles and objectives. For instance:
*Health care – everyone should have access to the care they need, including mental health and substance abuse care.
*Education – everyone should have access to it as far as needed, through at least a bachelor’s degree.
*The environment – a big one; it is imperative, on both practical and moral levels, that we care for our natural resources. In fact, our survival ultimately depends on it.
*The American Empire – it’s time to tear that sucker down, before it collapses. We no longer obtain a net benefit from it, but a net liability.
*Fiscal responsibility – my god, look at Obama’s budget! We’ve completely forgotten this very basic principle, probably because of conservatives’ relentless attack on taxation. The liberal principle is that when programs are instituted to benefit society, they are paid for by adequate taxes.
*Fair taxation – yeah, the rich should pay a hell of a lot more than the poor and middle class. Check out Jesus’ reference to the woman who donated the mite to the treasury. That principle applies today; it is a moral and social imperative.
*Only people are people – corporations are not persons. The 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision that was used to justify granting corporation’s access to the rights of humans was the fatal flaw that has enabled the development of fascism in this country. Corporations should be required to tell the truth, and to disclose those aspects of their operation that damage individuals and communities. When they fail to do so, their charters should be revoked. Their power should be limited, and conflicts of interest, such as the ownership of news networks by defense contractors, should be eliminated.
In sum, liberalism has plenty to make it a healthy and viable movement. The media, and especially conservatives, love to focus on and exacerbate a few potentially divisive issues. Conflict sells. But that focus distorts the truth. Y’all would gain a much better understanding if you actually engage in dialogue with liberals, rather than making judgments of us based on the corporate media’s sensationalism and your own echo chamber.
And please, have a wonderful day! Hug your beautiful wife, and take a moment to celebrate the fact that your family is fully honored by our society. :-)
BTW, WIJG, you are completely wrong. Liberals are defined by our ideals and principles, including a defense of the Constitution much stiffer than the violations of the Bill of Rights demonstrated by our recent former conservative president. You may attempt to redefine us as something else, but you cannot; you do not have that power. The effort to do so, and the rhetoric that accompanies it, however, go both ways.
I won't do that. I recognize that conservatives ARE defined by their ideals and principles. As they should be. As many liberals do not recognize, because we're just as fond of our echo chamber as you are of yours. (Well, perhaps not quite that fond of it, but it's pretty close.)
Kudos to you Seda, I read this blog from time to time. You just said everything I was thinking, however I don't have the gift of being able to express myself as clearly as you. Thank You
Thanks, Taylor, and you're welcome. And feel free to come visit my own liberal corner of the blogosphere sometime!
Hello Seda:
I appreciate the time and effort you took to make a considered response. Here are a few quibbles:
Your statistics on abortion are disingenuous. Gallup reported just this year that pro-life Americans now out number pro-abortion Americans. What you imply is that a large majority of Americans are pro-abortion. This is simply untrue, according to the Gallup Poll.
One of the ways that we can limit abortions, which leftists don't seem to like at all, is to stop government sponsorship of abortions. For example, Planned Parenthood could be a private company, instead of accepting public funds. I'd like to see how well it would do without federal and/or state funding.
Your abortion stand also ignores the question of the inalienable right to life outlined in the Declaration of Independence. That question, of course is at the heart of the pro-life vs. pro-abortion debate: At what point does a fetus have the right to life?
Your thoughts on racism also ignore the point of my post - that leftists abuse racism to keep power and to promote race warfare essential to the liberal argument.
You also fall into the category of stereotyping that I mentioned in this article, as you classify all conservatives wanting to sweep the ideas of racism under the carpet. Obviously, since I've opened the dialog and continue to do so in my posts, I think we need a new approach to the problem of racism in this country.
As for your comments about same sex marriage, the problem isn't social and spiritual, as these have no bearing on the legal assessment and definitions of marriage. There is no "do you love him/her" box on a marriage license.
Yes, marriage should be about love, but that has never been, nor ever will be a legal basis for state control of marriage licenses. It is also no basis for changing the definition of marriage to suit folks who feel disenfranchised.
Thanks for mentioning that my analysis was incomplete. You bring up several good points about liberalism, yet they really don't fit the point of my article. For example, I didn't feel that discussing fiscal liberalism had any place in this article, nor did I mention anything about constitutional liberalism.
However, since you brought up constitutional liberalism, your assessment that liberalism offers a stricter interpretation of the Constitution is 180 degrees off the mark. Liberalism, by definition, maintains that the Constitution is a "living document" whereas conservatism, again by definition, prefers the strict interpretation:
"The term began to be used by conservative (and even moderate) Republican presidents beginning with Richard Nixon in 1968 when he was running for election" (Wikipedia, "Strict Constructionism).
At random:
"Liberalism, by definition, maintains that the Constitution is a "living document" whereas conservatism, again by definition, prefers the strict interpretation:"
This is a very good point, and one with which I agree, and believe the Founding Fathers would agree, based on their inclusion of the means to amend the Constitution written right into it. However, it doesn't take anything away from my point regarding Bush's abuse of the Constitution. The spirit remains intact; the letter must change with the changes of society, economy, and technology, and the means for that change are clearly explicated in the original text. Thank you for clarifying. (And BTW, conservatives bear the greatest responsibility for enabling Bush's abuse of the Constitution, and the precedent it has set. Sadly, ye reap what ye sow.)
"You also fall into the category of stereotyping that I mentioned in this article, as you classify all conservatives wanting to sweep the ideas of racism under the carpet."
Not so. To quote myself: "...the blatant racism of many conservatives." [emphasis added] In the first sentence, I referred to "liberals’ overuse" in tandem with conservatives' sweeping. I had no intent to stereotype liberals, any more than conservatives; rather, I acknowledge the common failings of both sides.
I added the further liberal issues because they seemed appropriate, given the "peculiar institution" theme.
"At what point does a fetus have the right to life?"
That is the heart, and the one most important question. But all around the heart is the lungs, and the stomach, the spleen, the brain - the ripple of effects and consequences that affect not only the child and the mother, but the father and society at large. Saving the heart does no good if the process collapses the lungs. It is not enough to simply say we must save the heart at all costs, and ignore the rest. It is not enough to say the treatment of the heart must be one prescribed, coercive method, all others to be prosecuted. Especially with that vital word: when?
I don't think you're right that I got my statistic (80%) wrong. I'm not confident of it, as I remembered it from info that I read long ago, but it included any form of legalized abortion. According to Newsweek, Aug. 24, 2009, p. 45, 68% currently, as of May, "support comprehensive protection of elective, first-trimester abortion." That's considerably more liberal than 'any' abortion.
In any case, this is again one of those issues that is so very important, that is distorted by each side's entrenched position and vitriolic rhetoric. Damn! Why can't we talk reasonably about these things? I know, it's because they are important, and our needs (yours, mine, the women's, the children's) are so vitally at risk, and so our emotions are so intense. Once again, we all have important issues on the table, but because we each fear the attack from the other, we can't put it out there, listen to each other, and risk vulnerability. Instead we hide behind shields of opposing virtue, and society is worse off for it.
As for racism, you're right, we do need a new approach. We need to start listening. We need to believe what we hear. And we need to acknowledge the right of every human being to sovereignty and self-determination. That's why I read blogs like Field Negro http://field-negro.blogspot.com/ And it's one reason why I'm a liberal.
So Seda, you are okay with eliminating Blacks through abortion then? Because that is exactly what abortion has come to be in this country. This is true and verifiable racism practiced by liberals and not some phoney baloney racism claim often meted out by Jesse Jackson and his ilk. Sixty percent of Black babies will be aborted. This is fact no conjecture like your eighty percent claim. And South Dakota doesn't have one abortion clinic in the entire state, the last one closed down last year. North Dakota passed a Personhood Amendment to their Constitution (HR 1571) It passed 51-41 on February 20, 2009. And in fact, South Dakota is just waiting for Roe to be overturned and they will have their ban on abortion already to go. So you were wrong about South Dakota! They did vote to criminalize it, it is just that Roe is standing in their way. Not only that at the time North Dakota passed theirs these were other states with Personhood Amendments on their calendars Alabama (SB 335), Maryland (HB 925), Montana (SB 406) and South Carolina (HB 3526). So one tenth of our nation is deliberating Personhood amendments doesn't sound like our nation is mostly pro-abortion to me. Sounds like the tide is turning our way and that scares you guys to death.
As for marriage, you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about how destructive marriage is and then invite gays to get married. If you do, you are inviting them to be slaves. If there is freedom in marriage then it has to apply to straights as well. NOW when it first started forbade its membership to be married. In fact, they only allowed a certain number to be married and beyond that it was not allowed. It was something like one third were only allowed to be married, I will continue to look for that link for you. If you guys like gays so much and hate marriage so much, why aren't you trying to prevent them from entering that archaic bondage ritual known as marriage? The whole liberal bent on marriage is irrational, emotional, full of supposition and not supported by social science at all. You theories are all based on what you think will happen should gays be allowed to marry and not will actually take place.
Read "The Gay Marriage Mess in Mass" to see what has actually transpired since gay marriage has taken afoot.
http://blacknright.wordpress.com/?s=The+Gay+Marriage+Mess+in+Mass
blacknright,
I am not "okay" with abortion at all. Neither am I okay with the consequences of criminalizing it. I support legalized abortion because I believe it is less destructive to society as a whole, and because the evidence I have seen indicates that holistic support for women's rights reduces the number and consequence of abortions to the lowest possible level.
I am also not okay with racism in any way or form. That includes using abortion to reduce black babies, which is something I have not seen in intent. Most black people I know support legalized abortion. Some, like you, do not. If black people are being pushed into abortions against their will, I agree that that needs to stop. If the desperation that drives black women to seek abortions can better be dealt with through support for black families, education, and economic opportunity, I hope that will happen.
I would appreciate it if you would point out any time or place where I claimed that marriage is destructive. I love, believe in, celebrate, and revere marriage. I also have deep respect for gays and their families, and would love to see them able to partake of the same institution I so enjoy.
It sounds like you have read my comments and seen racism and a dislike of marriage in them. I feel disappointed in that. I hope you will re-read them, and see my intent. I think also that you are asking me to see and understand a form of racism that affects you deeply and causes a lot of pain, of which I am unaware. I'll listen.
While every person's experience of racism (not being racist!) is legit, I should warn you - having seen the ugly racism that emerged among conservatives during the last presidential campaign, I'll probably grant more credence to that explicated by black voices such as Field Negro's.
I wish you well.
Euripides, your series of blogposts on Modern Liberalism is a terrific effort that I hope you will continue. There is no lack of material, unfortunately, especially in light of the current statist projects underway in Washington DC.
I'll add a few thoughts below, but first I wanted to mention that your broad-stroke portrait of Modern Liberalism makes a nice book-end for your previous series of blgoposts on the roots of your own conservatism. When you feel you are mostly done (for this sort of thing never really gets done completely), please consider a blogpost that ties both series together.
Cheerio,
Chairm
While racism is real, race is not. Race is a construct based on subjective criteria. Racism can be identified by objective standards regarding prejudices.
And, given human nature, not all prejudices are vicious or anti-social or politically resolvable. Government's role is very limited to amelioration of only a small segment of the full range of race prejudices in society. That role is primarily the neutralization of racialist priorities. That is, to serve citizens with an eye that is blind to race while also open to overt racism.
Modern Liberalism's peculiar institution -- the racial divide -- has inverted this truth. They eye is no race and has entrenched racialism. Racialism is the Government policy that winks and nods at a wide range of the spectrum of racism but comes down hard on "systemic" racism of a certain limited kind.
* * *
The inversion?
Truth: objectively there is one human race; racism is a social construct based on a fiction. In principle, Government functions better when it is neutral on race but negative on overt racism.
Inverted truth of Modern Liberalism: Racism is based on the fact of race; racism is in the eye of the victim even if the perpetrator denies or is blind to the fact of race -- especially so, actually.
Government must intrude, whether it improves or makes worse the perceived problem. It just must act. It cannot rest.
Government must not be neutral on the fact of race; racism is defined by the self-identified victims intuitions whose race identity is treated as established fact.
Government must institutionalize subjective criteria and dig far deeper than overt racism and uproot the prejduces of this race but not that race. Outcomes must be measured by racialist standards, rather than tested by objective standards of opportunity. Since society is divided by race, and since racism pervades society, Government must become pervasive and divisive, too.
No, I don't mean to say that all Modern Liberals who favor the merger of marriage and SSM are as fervently in favor of abortion as the 1% or so who poll as being in favor of enabling (and having the State guarantee) abortion for any or no reason.
But the quicksand is the very same and it matters not that much whether the Modern Liberal sinks rapidly or a little less rapidly.
There are liberal principles that stand against these peculair instutions of Modern Liberalism. But given the pervasive of Modern Liberalism in our schools and pop culture, those principles have been swept aside in favor of the all-purpose new tool -- the unprincipled exception -- which can be pulled out of the backpocket when expediency necessitates.
This is illustrated in the talk of how popular abortion on-demand (i.e. pro-choice) is in survey results. But such a reading of public opinion would depend very much on over-stretching the 10% (if that) of people who'd relax their opposition to the termination of pregnacy via abortion except for the hard cases (threat to mother's life, rape, and terminally ill unborn child). Those exceptions are based on principle; the overstretching, not so much.
The unprincipled exception has become the mother (and often the father in tandem) who does not "want" this or that child. And so all points in-between the hard cases and the most soft cases are guaranteed a right to destroy rather than to protect the innocent. This renders farcical the talk of reducing the number of abortions through, you guessed it, more Government intrusions. The greatest intrusion is the State turning its back in the first place.
* * *
When comparing sound liberal principles with the lack of such in Modern Liberalism, keep an eye open for the use of inversion.
This has placed Modern Liberalism on a trajectory that is severely anti-liberal. But it feels exciting to be on the cutting edge of "progress", right?
I do believe that Modern Liberalism has pretty much severed itself from the liberal principles that made liberalism a more or less coherent political philosophy. Still, the threads that link Modern Liberalism and liberalism are strong. This could mean that Modern Liberalism is an inevitable piece of the original liberal viewpoint and, as such, is not a departure but a destination. On the other hand, this could mean that the few strands of thread that now link liberalism with Modern Liberalism manifest a sort of lifeline that could pull Modern Liberalism back to first principles.
I am rather skeptical of the latter. Hasn't been done anyplace where Modern Liberalism has entrenched itself. Still, those few threads remain like shoe laces on shoes that fasten with velcro straps -- a mere decorative effect.
In Modern Liberalism the State is the big hammer looking for every tiny nail. Everything looks like a nail.
Government exists to provide the solution to all manner of problem - real and imagined, small and large, visible and invisible, solvable and unsolvable. That Government tends to mess up most of what it touches does not mean that Government is the problem, in Modern Liberalism, but that more Government is the solution. Success is evasive and in short supply; good intentions are found at every turn and in inexhaustive supply.
Where religion presents itself as an unmoveable obstacle to an urgent project of Modern Liberalism, if not as the source of the problem -- if not as the problem itself -- the State's reach can be extended to resolve the conflict in favor of Modern Liberalism. The levers of power in the culture are not enough; Modern Liberalism is not bound by Government either.
This peculair sectarianism is driven by the unappealing falsehood that human nature can be perfected -- indeed is closer to perfection now in modern times than ever before in all of human history. All it will take is the hand of Government to coax, coerce, enforce.
That this theory when attempted to be put into large-scale practice has never produced the desired end-result is not a problem but is rather the cause to urge more solutions -- more Government -- and thus guarantees expansion of the State through a perpetually losing struggle to perfect and reach utopia.
In marriage debates I will sometimes refer to this as a peculiar sectarianism. It runs through SSM argumentation.
As does a racialist-like identity politics expressed in terms of gayness. The "gay marriage" issue combines all of the major peculiar institutions of Modern Liberalism, including the inhumane regard for human procreation. I suppose the same could be said of the abortion issue, too.
This sort of inversion applies also to Modern Liberalism's peculiar institution of anti-religous secularism.
Please note that not all secularism is anti-religious; and secular language in law and in social policy is merely meant to express the pluralism of the society rather than the superiority of an anti-religious belief system.
Secularism, proper, is not a religious-like belief system; nor is it anti-religous even if it is designed to be studiously irreligious for most purposes. But the Modern Liberal version most certainly is a peculair sectarianism. It is a belief system fervently held and Modern Liberals are among the most fervent evangelicals of this belief system.
But this sectarianism is usually defended as merely a neutral utility, a tool, to assist Government to not favor one religious group of any other -- or over nonreligion. Sectarian nonetheless, the antireligious secularism chooses a side and promotes it openly.
According to Modern Liberalism, Government's monopoly on the police power must be set in opposition to the influence of non-conforming religions.
These religons are rivals of the official state belief system (an irreligious secularism) which has grown to supplant the classic principles of pluralism and subsidiarity.
Religions which conform are useful to Modern Liberalism in that they provide at least the facade of social peace. Compliance, of course, is not the same thing as social peace. The ascendancy of the State is itself an inversion that unsettles social harmony. Religions is demoted to a tool of the State rather than being a humble partner serving the plural authorities of civil society.
In this way, the citizen is being transformed into a subject of the one big authority -- the State.
Post a Comment
I welcome the sharing of opinions, even those opposed to mine. Because some have abused the system, I have been forced to moderate all comments. Thank you for your understanding.