Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[PoetPhilosopher]

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.

I found the article:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/01/politics/mccarthy-key-concession-speakership-race/index.html

My memory was a little fuzzy here, evidently - but still an interesting read.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Right, but that deal was devendent on the Freedom Caucus all voting for him with the rest of the republicans and no democrats. His deal with them is destined to end because he has to give them everything they want as blackmail so they won't have him removed. He is in no man's land. And he has no flexibility with this deal. He's gambling that being a hardline republicans he won't **** off the Trump base. If he is smart he has talked to democrats about a deal, because if he can get just a handful of moderate republicans plus most democrats he could stay in the job. Of course he will have to endure the wrath of MAGA. I suspect the more who reject MAGA the easier it will be for the republicans who are tired of them to gain traction. Democrats would likely back them, and this alliance could stabilize congress going into the 2024 election.

We hear inside stories of Republicans who loathe MAGAs and Trump but won't speak out. Romney explained how many republicans wanted to vote to convict Trump in his last impeachment but so many were afraid of violence, so didn't. There's a lot of republicans who want Trump out, and order restored. Someone has to lead them, and McCarthy could be that person if he understands the risk and the benefits.

 

[F1fan]

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.

To be honest I'm impressed with this post and what you say.

I think the immediate priority is for the conservatives to nominate anyone other than Trump or Desantis. We need normalcy and stability. Media coverage is going to be the biggest driver in division, so there needs to be a real feeling of national cohesion and working together. To have a fair election with candidates that will accept the results will be a great step forward. I'd like to see Liz Cheney and Chris Christie be a part of any movement towards stability.

 

[Augustus]

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

A variety of factors such as:

Mistaking a parochial offshoot of Christianity, for some kind of universal product of reason.

Undermining of any sense of collective identity as regressive.

The replacement of these with increasingly fragmented and tribal political identities.

A shrill and increasingly intolerant “progressive” movement primarily concerned with puritanical virtue signalling and that despises much of the working class. A shrill and increasingly intolerant “right” who have little positive to offer either beyond harking back to an imaginary past.

The increasing distance in worldviews between the intelligentsia and the “average person”

The increasing inequalities of capitalism meaning folk no longer expect the future to be better than the present.

Economic decline in either real or absolute terms which doesn’t bode well for an ideology that is now largely transactional and unable to deliver on its promises.

A world that has largely rejected the western model as an aspirational paradigm and will increasingly promote its own agendas.

Factors relating to modern communication technology.

And a whole raft of other factors that don’t bode well for a declining ideology to withstand crises in a climate of decline (perceived or real).

 

[RestlessSoul]

It’s not liberalism that’s in crisis, it’s capitalism, which is currently failing more people, even in the developed world, than it’s serving. When a critical mass of hard working people struggle to provide for their basic material needs without going into debt to do so, personal liberty tends to slip down the list of priorities.

The answer to the problems caused by capitalism’s inherent inequalities, is not more free market capitalism and more globalism. On the contrary, it’s time to question why it is that these things have been allowed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Would you please cite the report? This one, from 2021, may be interesting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A shrill and increasingly intolerant “progressive” movement primarily concerned with puritanical virtue signalling and that despises much of the working class.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm interested to know more about this part. Which progressive movements do you have in mind? Of course, there are progressives who fit the above description, but it seems to me that many also voice their genuine (as opposed to virtue-signaling) beliefs and do what they believe is best to support the working class. Are there enough progressives fitting the above description for them to be taken as a reflection on most progressive movements or progressives as a whole?

As two examples of relatively popular progressives with many supporters, I think Bernie Sanders and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez are generally both genuine, despite some flaws and the fact that one may not necessarily agree with their proposed solutions. One could debate the effectiveness of their approaches, but I wouldn't call them virtue-signalers or people who despise the working class, since I have seen nothing indicating that their intentions are not genuine.

The increasing distance in worldviews between the intelligentsia and the “average person”

In your opinion, what has caused or is causing this?

 

[Colt]

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.

EEEErrrrrm, born in the early 60's at the beginning of the latest counterculture revolution in America, from Kennedy to Biden, just WHEN was this past age of utopian political cooperation in America that we need to return to???

 

[F1fan]

The simpler times of the 50's and 60's where industry could pollute at will and the cost of living was fairly inexpensive since technology wasn't all that complicated meant people could live quite comfortably. Fast forward to 2020's and the technology is so complex that basic goods are expensive, and we both need them and want them. The waste of industry is acknowledged as a problem for the future and planet that it costs it more to keep things clean, and those costs get passed down to consumers. So the increased cost of production, and the number of things we want, and the increasing complexity of these things all mean that the cost of living is higher. Have wages kept track with these increases? The economy is there to help workers stay on pace, but the wealthy have taken advantage of the circumstances, and easy credit, to take more out of the economy for themselves. The stress on consumers as energy and food prices goes up can surely cause more anxiety as there is less predictability and control over finances. With more extreme weather the higher the need to spend money on AC. Higher costs of insurance is also taking money out of the economy, and consumers have less to spend on what they want. With the federal government taking in less revenue due to tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) there will be more future stress on debt. Is it offset with cuts to the budget which will mean citizens have to cover personal costs of living even more, or will tax rates have to be restored so the USA can pay its bills? Who can absorb more finical costs in society, the lower and middle class, or the wealthy? But who has the power in politics?

 

[icehorse]

Would you please cite the report? This one, from 2021, may be interesting.

This one, page 12:

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It segments the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Augustus]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm interested to know more about this part. Which progressive movements do you have in mind? Of course, there are progressives who fit the above description, but it seems to me that many also voice their genuine (as opposed to virtue-signaling) beliefs and do what they believe is best to support the working class. Are there enough progressives fitting the above description for them to be taken as a reflection on most progressive movements or progressives as a whole?

As two examples of relatively popular progressives with many supporters, I think Bernie Sanders and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez are generally both genuine, despite some flaws and the fact that one may not necessarily agree with their proposed solutions. One could debate the effectiveness of their approaches, but I wouldn't call them virtue-signalers or people who despise the working class, since I have seen nothing indicating that their intentions are not genuine.

Bernie Sanders is an anachronism. A principled politician from a previous age.

I make a point of trying to follow US politics as little as possible, but AOC superficially at least seems like a standard politician who predictably plays to a constituency. I’m no expert though.

One problem is that, for progressives, racism is the original sin, which has become tied up in internationalism and pro immigration policies.

Regardless of the overall benefits or harms of this (which is complex and far beyond the scope of thus post) the costs are disproportionately borne by working class people (lower wages, competition for housing, changes in neighbourhood demographics, pressure in social services etc.)

I don’t remember the last time I heard a progressive voice doing anything other than castigating the racism of anyone who may object to this.

Centre left and centre right are largely “more of the same but with a few changes”.

The right and left are largely culture warriors.

I certainly don’t see any saviours.

In your opinion, what has caused or is causing this?

In part the fracture of the traditional left wing alliance between urban liberals and the working class.

Media careers becoming increasingly limited to those from affluent backgrounds.

The disconnect between partisan political discourse and reality

The fact that the liberal dogma of a world destined to converge around their liberal internationalist values as people become more educated has failed the reality test but they refuse to accept this ( hence things like Trump and Brexit have to be blamed on Putin and “right wing media”)

 

[icehorse]

A shrill and increasingly intolerant “progressive” movement primarily concerned with puritanical virtue signalling and that despises much of the working class.

@Debater Slayer

debateslayer: I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm interested to know more about this part. Which progressive movements do you have in mind? Of course, there are progressives who fit the above description, but it seems to me that many also voice their genuine (as opposed to virtue-signaling) beliefs and do what they believe is best to support the working class. Are there enough progressives fitting the above description for them to be taken as a reflection on most progressive movements or progressives as a whole?

Confucius would ask us to name the two categories you mention above. (I agree that they exist.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This one, page 12:

Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

Pew Research Center’s political typology provides a roadmap to today’s fractured political landscape. It segments the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values.

www.pewresearch.org

Excellent. Thanks for the link.

 

[Rival]

@Debater Slayer

I would recommend listening to Starkey here, explaining why he's a conservative, explaining the problems within liberalism; it's obviously from his conservative understanding, but as a historian he has a very good grasp on political history and the cultural reasons why these things are the case. There is a problem with universalism, which conservatism doesn't recognise, for being based on vague notions of universal rights.

It goes back to the problems with Rousseau, with whom conservatives profoundly disagree, the French political system, the idea of rationalism within politics (arguing that humans are not rational and political systems need something more than rationalism, i.e., we need patriotism, culture, etc. giving us some higher values than just the materialism of rationalism - and Starkey is a strong atheist who grew up voting Labour).

Disraeli is the prime force behind conservatism in England and still needs to be understood for anyone to comprehend why we're in the situation we're in.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Bernie Sanders is an anachronism. A principled politician from a previous age.

I make a point of trying to follow US politics as little as possible, but AOC superficially at least seems like a standard politician who predictably plays to a constituency. I’m no expert though.

One problem is that, for progressives, racism is the original sin, which has become tied up in internationalism and pro immigration policies.

Regardless of the overall benefits or harms of this (which is complex and far beyond the scope of thus post) the costs are disproportionately borne by working class people (lower wages, competition for housing, changes in neighbourhood demographics, pressure in social services etc.)

I don’t remember the last time I heard a progressive voice doing anything other than castigating the racism of anyone who may object to this.

Centre left and centre right are largely “more of the same but with a few changes”.

The right and left are largely culture warriors.

I certainly don’t see any saviours.



In part the fracture of the traditional left wing alliance between urban liberals and the working class.

Media careers becoming increasingly limited to those from affluent backgrounds.

The disconnect between partisan political discourse and reality

The fact that the liberal dogma of a world destined to converge around their liberal internationalist values as people become more educated has failed the reality test but they refuse to accept this ( hence things like Trump and Brexit have to be blamed on Putin and “right wing media”)

Thanks for the detailed answer. There's much to think about here, which I appreciate.

@Debater Slayer

I would recommend listening to Starkey here, explaining why he's a conservative, explaining the problems within liberalism; it's obviously from his conservative understanding, but as a historian he has a very good grasp on political history and the cultural reasons why these things are the case. There is a problem with universalism, which conservatism doesn't recognise, for being based on vague notions of universal rights.

It goes back to the problems with Rousseau, with whom conservatives profoundly disagree, the French political system, the idea of rationalism within politics (arguing that humans are not rational and political systems need something more than rationalism, i.e., we need patriotism, culture, etc. giving us some higher values than just the materialism of rationalism - and Starkey is a strong atheist who grew up voting Labour).

Disraeli is the prime force behind conservatism in England and still needs to be understood for anyone to comprehend why we're in the situation we're in.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check him out.

For the record, I'm not a liberal (which is probably noticeable in many of my posts), and I think Western liberalism, despite the many benefits it has brought, has had pernicious effects both on the environment and on global affairs. I also strongly reject the notion of "rationalism" in many contexts and find it to be a self-assured trap that ignores human nature and often reduces necessary uncertainty and hesitation when making different political and socioeconomic decisions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer


Confucius would ask us to name the two categories you mention above. (I agree that they exist.)

I'm not sure I'm getting what your point is here (especially with the reference to Confucius). Care to elaborate?

 

[anna.]

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".

It's possible I'm a more moderate liberal than you are and I don't consider the left to be as monolithically radical as you do nor do I think they're chasing voters like me away.

I'd like to see the the Pew link if you've got it handy.

Edit. Saw your link above. Here's the exact quote from it:

"However, Democrats differ over whether the changes to ensure equal rights for all can be achieved by working within the current system, or whether most laws and institutions need to be completely rebuilt. Progressive Left and Outsider Left are far more likely than the two other Democratic groups to say systemic change is needed to combat racial bias."

I can'f find your exact quote within your quotation marks.

 

[Sargonski]

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.

Huge crisis in the West .. Both North America and Europe .. See someone tried to take Norway out of the pot -- possible but doubt it.

The "Woke" joke, is that what has been awoken is the march towards an Orwellian totalitarianism .. but its no joke.. Nazi's - the Stalins, Mao's and EL Saud .. probably the worst totalitarian nightmare of any of our current gov'ts of note .. But, not all totalitarianism looks like the radical Islamist strict sharia nations .. nor Adolfs not that anyone these days knows what things were like in Germany .. especially in the early years when the seed has just sprouted .. what the canaries looked like .. that everyone from Germany who is still alive at the time can tell you about .. but no one these days knows about no canaries.

Well -- not "No one" but very few of the raging masses - not enough to make a dent in the polls .. and so we march towards totalitarianism .. the name of this brand we will leave for now .. however the ideological justification for Trampling on liberty we shall give a proper technical name .. the plague raging is called Utilitarianism - and its close cousin fallacious Utilitarianism.

Policy (LAW) - justifications based on Utilitarianism - "What will increase happiness for the collective" always sounds so wonderfull and lofty. " If it saves one life" / Harm Reduction so often from the lips of the concerned politician .. looking out for the best interest of all of us .. and demonizing those that disagree is harsh .. "What ? Whats wrong with you .. Don't YOU want to save one life ???? DONT YOU ???? what is wrong with you .. and so on.

And therin lies the Devil as Utilitarianism is an anathema to the founding priciple (respect for individual liberty - protection for Essential liberty) as this justification does an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect essential liberty .. not even considering the rights of the individual in the equation. All is done on the basis what is supposedly good for the blessed collective.

Which brings us to the other problem with this justification for law .. Who gets to decide what is best for the collective ... increase happiness .. one man's poison is another woman's pleasure ?

The worst problem however .. is that because you have removed the safeguards .. you have Given Gov't unlimited power to trample on liberty .. it is not considered in the utilitarian equation. Not that such arguments should not be considered in the overall equation .. but justification of law simply and solely on the basis of Utilitarian considerations is illegitimacy of authority - an anathema to our system of Gov't .. Full Stop. one giving Gov't near unlimited power .. and we know that power corrupts and more power .. that we not giving them .. corrupts more.

Fallacious Utilitarianism -- The close cousin and the most damaging of the two ..

This is when the Utilitarian justification "increase happiness" doesn't increase happiness ..and in fact does the reverse .. where it is not even a valud Utilitarian justification .. where "If it saves one Life" - will end up killing larger numbers .. decreasing happiness.

or ... the simple idea that making law on the basis of "Saving one Life" / "Harm Reduction" as sole justificaion will increase happiness. For Example : If we banned skiing tomorrow would this not save one life ? How about boating that is really dangerous .. one could drown ! .. Driving a Car ? No way one of the most dangerous things a person can do .. smoking a joint ? Put em Up against the Wall .. he is harming us All .. think of the increased medical bills to society .. you have heard .. and were perhaps sucked into that one aye mates ..

Sounds real good on the surface -- but one way path to totalitarianism .. and speaking of Canaries .. A Gal stood up in the Canadian Parliament - Big Nazi Issue for those that did not hear - and wanted the whole affair . including comments by the Speaker of the House "Cancelled" - stricken from the Record and from History .. literally stood up in Parliament and requested this .. one of her cohorts sitting beside nodding yes yes.

Jordan Petersan says he has studied Totalitarianism his whole life ... and one of the big canaries is that in totalitarianism everything is a lie .. Stalins attempts to rewrite history legendary .. and all the rest of them .. .. But that someone would even think to do this .. and think to get away with it in front of Parliament and the World .. scares the living bejesus out of me .. truly sad commentary on how wretched and brainwashed our society has become..

Brainwashed by the Fallacious Utilitarianism running down the path of Totalitarianism .. and running quickly last time I looked out window seeing that piece of true authoritarian human garbage stand up and try to erase history .. a shamefull expressoin of the human condition.

 

[Sargonski]

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

and who cares that you don't want to move from a hole into a cave ? what does this have to do with the Western woke joke crisis ?

 

[Revoltingest]

and who cares that you don't want to move from a hole into a cave ? what does this have to do with the Western woke joke crisis ?

Duh, bruderherz!
It's all about me.