Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I borrowed this topic from Canada's Munk Debates -- Be it resolved, liberalism gets the big questions right -- which will be debated on November.

For the better part of three centuries, through wars, revolutions, and sweeping social change, liberalism has endured as the defining ideology of the West. Its championing of individual rights, free trade and capitalism, and liberal democracy has long been equated with the West’s economic development, social tolerance, personal freedoms, and the rule of law. But, more recently, powerful criticisms of liberalism have arisen on the right (populism) and left (socialism). Liberalism is increasingly blamed for everything from growing inequality, environmental degradation, political polarization, and cultural fragmentation. For its critics, liberalism has become an impediment to the goal of progress, and humanity urgently needs a new animating ideology.

Arguing for the motion is the controversial British M.P. and former cabinet minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He will be joined by the American writer and columnist who has shaped a generation’s thinking on the important issues of our time: George F. Will

Opposing the motion is U.K. journalist, self-avowed communist and popular leftist thinker, Ash Sarkar. Her debating partner is the disruptive and thought-provoking American social conservative, Sohrab Ahmari, author of the bestseller Tyranny Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty.

But before those worthies ever get around to debating, I thought it might be interesting to thrash it out here for a bit. Not formally, just an open debate -- anyone interested, feel free to chime in.

A couple of definitions before we start (though you may feel free to provide your own definitions):

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law

Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

I think it might be agreed that each of those definitions could encompass both "left" and "right" flavours.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Liberalism is in crisis, but I'd say that democracy is more in crisis.

 

[Secret Chief]

Liberalism is in crisis, but I'd say that democracy is more in crisis.

In some Western countries, yes? The US - certainly. Norway? No.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

In some Western countries, yes? The US - certainly. Norway? No.

I was talking about the US, yeah.

 

[Augustus]

My guess is that it is not in crisis, it’s already dead (or at least terminally ill).

 

[Augustus]

Liberalism is in crisis, but I'd say that democracy is more in crisis.

Liberty democracy is in crisis, illiberal democracy is thriving.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberalism is not in crisis.
To have problems is nothing new.
Only their flavor changes over time.

 

[Revoltingest]

In some Western countries, yes? The US - certainly. Norway? No.

I won't be moving there.
(Norwegians rejoice at this.)

7 Uncomfortable Truths About Living in Norway

Bottom line: our social liberalism only runs skin deep -- only as far as it is comfortable for us.

matadornetwork.com

 

[Secret Chief]

I won't be moving there.
(Norwegians rejoice at this.)

7 Uncomfortable Truths About Living in Norway

Bottom line: our social liberalism only runs skin deep -- only as far as it is comfortable for us.

matadornetwork.com

I won't be moving to the US, so it's a win-win.

 

[Revoltingest]

I won't be moving to the US, so it's a win-win.

We have enuf chefs here anyway.
Now if you were a waiter, or sous chef, we could use you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I borrowed this topic from Canada's Munk Debates -- Be it resolved, liberalism gets the big questions right -- which will be debated on November.

For the better part of three centuries, through wars, revolutions, and sweeping social change, liberalism has endured as the defining ideology of the West. Its championing of individual rights, free trade and capitalism, and liberal democracy has long been equated with the West’s economic development, social tolerance, personal freedoms, and the rule of law. But, more recently, powerful criticisms of liberalism have arisen on the right (populism) and left (socialism). Liberalism is increasingly blamed for everything from growing inequality, environmental degradation, political polarization, and cultural fragmentation. For its critics, liberalism has become an impediment to the goal of progress, and humanity urgently needs a new animating ideology.

Arguing for the motion is the controversial British M.P. and former cabinet minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He will be joined by the American writer and columnist who has shaped a generation’s thinking on the important issues of our time: George F. Will

Opposing the motion is U.K. journalist, self-avowed communist and popular leftist thinker, Ash Sarkar. Her debating partner is the disruptive and thought-provoking American social conservative, Sohrab Ahmari, author of the bestseller Tyranny Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty.

But before those worthies ever get around to debating, I thought it might be interesting to thrash it out here for a bit. Not formally, just an open debate -- anyone interested, feel free to chime in.

A couple of definitions before we start (though you may feel free to provide your own definitions):

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law

Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

I think it might be agreed that each of those definitions could encompass both "left" and "right" flavours.

I favor the Foreword Party.

Disillusioned Republicans and Democrats working together.

Overall I think any system can be arguably productive as long as it's balanced and doesn't drift into extremes over the course of time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My guess is that it is not in crisis, it’s already dead (or at least terminally ill).

I do fear things are now beyond the point of no return.

 

[icehorse]

for those saying it's dead or dying (not that I disagree), why is that and what are the signs you're seeing?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

for those saying it's dead or dying (not that I disagree), why is that and what are the signs you're seeing?

I feel that I'm seeing more moderates and Swing Voters. This could change in the future, but I also feel that it's kind of rapidly happening.

However, as I touched upon in my post, it may not be the biggest issue (the frailness of democracy is).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it would be worth determining what 'The West' means. Both the US and UK (and possibly France) have some unique issues which have largely not impacted on many other democracies.

There is noise, for sure, but measurable impact is less clear. I don't think Australian democracy is weaker now, for example, nor are we more illiberal. I worry a little at the depth of discourse and polarisation, but that's more fear of catching America's proverbial cold than anything that's already occurred.

 

[icehorse]

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law

I feel that I'm seeing more moderates and Swing Voters. This could change in the future, but I also feel that it's kind of rapidly happening.

My leanings are probably no surprise, but I make a distinction between liberals and the "progressive left" or maybe the "radical progressive left". I think this (progressive), group (that resists being named) is largely responsible for chasing moderate liberal voters away.

For example, Pew Research says that the progressive left holds the opinion that "US institutions need to be entirely rebuilt due to systemic racism".

 

[Stevicus]

I borrowed this topic from Canada's Munk Debates -- Be it resolved, liberalism gets the big questions right -- which will be debated on November.

For the better part of three centuries, through wars, revolutions, and sweeping social change, liberalism has endured as the defining ideology of the West. Its championing of individual rights, free trade and capitalism, and liberal democracy has long been equated with the West’s economic development, social tolerance, personal freedoms, and the rule of law. But, more recently, powerful criticisms of liberalism have arisen on the right (populism) and left (socialism). Liberalism is increasingly blamed for everything from growing inequality, environmental degradation, political polarization, and cultural fragmentation. For its critics, liberalism has become an impediment to the goal of progress, and humanity urgently needs a new animating ideology.

Arguing for the motion is the controversial British M.P. and former cabinet minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg. He will be joined by the American writer and columnist who has shaped a generation’s thinking on the important issues of our time: George F. Will

Opposing the motion is U.K. journalist, self-avowed communist and popular leftist thinker, Ash Sarkar. Her debating partner is the disruptive and thought-provoking American social conservative, Sohrab Ahmari, author of the bestseller Tyranny Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty.

But before those worthies ever get around to debating, I thought it might be interesting to thrash it out here for a bit. Not formally, just an open debate -- anyone interested, feel free to chime in.

A couple of definitions before we start (though you may feel free to provide your own definitions):

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law

Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.

Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a wide range of economic and social systems which are characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

I think it might be agreed that each of those definitions could encompass both "left" and "right" flavours.

One thing about liberalism coming with the rise of industrialism is that its major achievement was breaking the stranglehold on power held by nobility, the clergy, and aristocratic landowners. Coupled with the age of exploration, colonization, and new wealth and resources being available, it was a bit hard to "keep them down on the farm," at least for those who had the opportunity to do so.

From the description of populism, that sounds like nationalism, which was closely aligned with liberalism through most of the 19th century. Nationalists would often invoke the image of "the people," but it can also be found in phrases like "We The People" and government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." As we are a democratic republic, it seems important to emphasize that it's all about "the people."

Socialism came about a few generations after the advent of industrialism, and it was largely formulated from views and observations of the impact of industrial capitalism had on the well-being of the working classes and focused on the problems and struggles they were facing.

In the West, liberalism ultimately had the effect of bringing about greater political stability in the liberal democracies - Britain, France, U.S., along with others which followed the same political path. Revolutionary socialism and malignant nationalism arose in countries which didn't really have strong liberal traditions. Liberals in the West understood the need to keep the working classes reasonably contented and well-fed, lest they fall into disarray, like what happened in other countries.

So, at least from a historical perspective, I would say that, by and large, liberalism did get the big questions right. If liberalism in the West is in any kind of crisis, then it would be reflective of a crisis within the West itself. If liberalism was a source of strength and stability for the West a century ago - strong enough to stand against threats from both extreme left and extreme right, to keep their own countries internally stable and have the strength to win two world wars (and a Cold War), then what could have happened that would make anyone believe liberalism is in crisis now?

 

[F1fan]

I do fear things are now beyond the point of no return.

McCarthy could wave off the MAGA Freedom Caucus and work out deals with democrats and most republicans and he could keep his leadership and we would have stability. I'm not sure why he is giving in to the MAGAs when they will never be satisfied.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

McCarthy could wave off the MAGA Freedom Caucus and work out deals with democrats and most republicans and he could keep his leadership and we would have stability. I'm not sure why he is giving in to the MAGAs when they will never be satisfied.

Maybe it has to do with the deal I heard he worked out when he got the Speaker position? Something about any Republican can call for an impeachment vote.

 

[Twilight Hue]

McCarthy could wave off the MAGA Freedom Caucus and work out deals with democrats and most republicans and he could keep his leadership and we would have stability. I'm not sure why he is giving in to the MAGAs when they will never be satisfied.

One would think and consequently acknowledge by now that partisanship is the cancer that is tearing the nation apart and making life a living hell for a lot of Americans of both party affiliations.

There's no doubt there is a need to return to a more cooperative hands across the table style of governance that is skilled in the art of compromise, rather than the art of the deal.

My concern however is getting the entrenched oligarchy out of the political spectrum first.