Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[Sargonski]

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.

The systemic change is happening .. .. the re-writing of the rule- book underway .. can read my long post above on this .. but in short the move towards totalitarianism -- some form of totalitarian collectivist bliss--- is well underway .. done under the guise of these various Hot-button issues .. used as justification to trample individual liberty .. on the basis of "increased happiness for the collective" / Harm Reduction.

aka - I call it "The Plague" a fitting term for the Prog-Left. Not sure what percentage this would be .. but very high in my estimateion .. the number is easy to calculate if you know how many were against Biden's Vax Mandate .. then subtract from 100 .. My guess is that the number is above 80% on account of a very effective State Sponsored Propaganda Campaigne .. another Canary in the Totalitarian Coal mine.

 

[Sargonski]

Duh, bruderherz!
It's all about me.

Now how is it that I am not surprized .. but that is not what I want from you friend .. want you to "Surprise" -- go beyond expectations .. Make your Father Proud .. and say it out Loud .. while looking up a Cloud .. which looks like the shroud .. causing you to call the name of Jesus out Loud .. then find yourself in a crowd

 

[Revoltingest]

Now how is it that I am not surprized .. but that is not what I want from you friend .. want you to "Surprise" -- go beyond expectations .. Make your Father Proud .. and say it out Loud .. while looking up a Cloud .. which looks like the shroud .. causing you to call the name of Jesus out Loud .. then find yourself in a crowd

My father never did "proud".
So I seek approval from others on RF.
It's why all love me so.
Even that guy in Norway.
Where's he been lately, anyway.

 

[Sargonski]

My father never did "proud".
So I seek approval from others on RF.
It's why all love me so.
Even that guy in Norway.
Where's he been lately, anyway.

A sad story mate .. but have ye nothing to say about the Woke Joke Crisis we have ongoing. Yer not one of them Prog Liberals I hope --and don't blame this on Daddy if you are .. at some point we can't blame Daddy for everything ..

 

[Revoltingest]

...but have ye nothing to say about the Woke Joke Crisis we have ongoing.

See post# 7.
I've also weighed in on the subject in other threads.
Perhaps you just didn't notice. (You don't post much here.)

 

[icehorse]

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.

Fwiw, I don't think the left is monolithically radical. But I do think there is a faction of the left, the extreme left, the progressive left (I'm still hoping we can a agree on a name for this faction), that is chasing voters away. They are the noise makers. We know that a few noisemakers can shift the overton window.

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

As I said earlier, I believe that quote came from the top of page 12? It's whatever page is dedicated to "the progressive left".

 

[Sargonski]

See post# 7.
I've also weighed in on the subject in other threads.
Perhaps you just didn't notice. (You don't post much here.)

I post quite often .. but -- tis true I do not generally read every post in a thread in which I am posting .. and especially not .. well .. let us leave it at different flavors .. failing once again to address the woke joke crisis in this post -- give your thoughts on the plague of "Fallacious Utilitarianism" and the rush towards totalitarianism .. and the blissful sheep not noticing .. because it is a very slick deception of the authoratarian predilection.

Did you not notice the "Fallacious Utilitarianism" friend ? then don't forget to read my sermon on the subject .. Post 38 if memory serves.

 

[icehorse]

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

There is a faction on the left that the Pew article refers to as the "progressive left" (PL). Further Pew claims that: "the progressive left holds the opinion that 'US institutions need to be entirely rebuilt due to systemic racism'".

So I think it's important for productive discussion, if we can agree on a term for those who hold the "entirely rebuilt" opinion. Can we use Pew's term PL?

What I experience is that many conversations get derailed before they can even start due to bickering over key terms. We cannot really converse on this topic if we cannot agree to a term like PL. And to reiterate - I'm not advocating for PL to be the term. I just want any agreed upon term

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is a faction on the left that the Pew article refers to as the "progressive left" (PL). Further Pew claims that: "the progressive left holds the opinion that 'US institutions need to be entirely rebuilt due to systemic racism'".

So I think it's important for productive discussion, if we can agree on a term for those who hold the "entirely rebuilt" opinion. Can we use Pew's term PL?

What I experience is that many conversations get derailed before they can even start due to bickering over key terms. We cannot really converse on this topic if we cannot agree to a term like PL. And to reiterate - I'm not advocating for PL to be the term. I just want any agreed upon term

Without being acquainted with their arguments in full, I don't believe I should call that group the "progressive left"; at most, they're a subset thereof. Furthermore, I would need to know which institutions they believed should be rebuilt and what manifestations of racism they perceived therein.

I don't have much interest in pursuing that tangent either way, though, since I think Western liberalism in general is indeed in crisis and has a few problematic ideological linchpins, whether one classifies it as "progressive left," "classical liberalism," or anything else. Even many of its "moderate" varieties seem to me to have major flaws that can't be overlooked.

 

[icehorse]

Without being acquainted with their arguments in full, I don't believe I should call that group the "progressive left"; at most, they're a subset thereof. Furthermore, I would need to know which institutions they believed should be rebuilt and what manifestations of racism they perceived therein.

I don't have much interest in pursuing that tangent either way, though, since I think Western liberalism in general is indeed in crisis and has a few problematic ideological linchpins, whether one classifies it as "progressive left," "classical liberalism," or anything else. Even many of its "moderate" varieties seem to me to have major flaws that can't be overlooked.

Can you name a few of these flawed linchpins? (I suspect we'll agree)

 

[icehorse]

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.

While I agree that it's useful to discuss the pros and cons of liberalism, I do not think - by any definition - it's the real culprit.

The real culprit is that the world is now an Oligarchy / Kleptocracy (oligarchy for short). And as we spend our energy battling conservatives vs. liberals, the oligarchs are laughing at us and further spreading their destructive, ubiquitous poison throughout the world.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can you name a few of these flawed linchpins? (I suspect we'll agree)

I realize that "Western liberalism" is a vast umbrella, so some of these points apply to some varieties thereof more than they do others (and they may not apply to all varieties, of course). In no particular order:

• The ideology of "rationalism" that, in my opinion, neglects to consider the inherent irrationality, tribalism, and flawed heuristics of humans that are rooted in human nature. "Rationalism" or resultant self-aggrandizing ideas have underpinned various destructive policies and ideologies that were unwavering partially on the basis that they were "rational," including but not limited to Manifest Destiny, "scientific" eugenics, the "White Man's Burden," "civilizing" other peoples through colonialism, and anti-religious persecution (as in the USSR).

• The hyper-focus on capitalism to the point of enabling its worst excesses under the banner of aiding private enterprise and the excessive individualism that fails to heed the importance of collective cooperation and community values as opposed to exalting the individual as the peak of a prosperous society. Whereas the USSR was too fixated on the collective to the detriment of the individual, I believe many forms of Western liberalism have the opposite problem.

• Seemingly regarding "freedom of speech" as an end rather than a means, although this seems to me more of an issue in the US than in Europe. Even when the effects of certain speech are demonstrably harmful and leading to incitement, many liberals defend the "freedom of speech" without giving sufficient consideration to the net effect of allowing versus regulating it. In this regard, I believe Europe's stricter hate speech laws address a considerable part of the problem.

• Putting too much emphasis on "changing the status quo through the system" instead of considering that sometimes the system itself may need some changes, a mindset that has historically sometimes led to riots, revolutions, and increased public dissatisfaction. The underlying assumption is that the system enables needed changes in the first place, which is not always the case and, in some cases, has been the exact opposite of reality (e.g., the Second Amendment's hindrance of proper gun control that would be in line with the rest of the developed world and the former laws that upheld racial segregation).

• This is partially tied to the hyper-focus on capitalism: Overconsumption, promotion of consumerism and material possessions as ultimate signs of prosperity, and resultant environmental unsustainability. It has also contributed to the exploitation of other countries, up to and including exploitation enforced by military force, in order to feed and sustain this lifestyle and heavily materialistic outlook. This is coming to a head now that even some of the most developed countries are feeling intensified effects of climate change and migrant crises.

• The notion that if an individual is an "underachiever," often measured by their financial status or contribution to the economy, they're either a liability to society or a leech. This fails to take into account that not everyone has the same talents or skills and that some of those are not very profitable. Many forms of artistic talent are an example of this too. There seems to be a taboo in some liberal ideologies around benefiting from the output of the collective when one is not generating a lot of profit themselves (even if they try, which is different from someone who refuses to work at all despite being able to do so).

• Quasi-millenarian notions of "human progress" that range from secular-humanist ideas of inevitable progress brought about by "science and reason" all the way to neoliberal notions of abundance and plenty that overlook human nature, the cyclical features of history (e.g., the fact that we, as a species, always seem to repeat the same mistakes instead of linearly becoming more "civilized," "rational," etc.), and the long-term unsustainability of most mainstream liberal economic models.

• The promotion of multiculturalism over pluralism in some contexts where the latter would be more realistic, and the insufficient consideration of the importance of having a predominant culture in a specific nation. Some liberals make this mistake when they don't acknowledge or consider the potentially disruptive effects of rapid, abrupt changes to the cultural makeup of a country. It is true that having a different set of cultural values has complex, multifaceted reasons and doesn't make people inferior or superior to others, but it is also true that, regardless of what gave rise to a person's cultural values, there may be disruption if a liberal, secular country too quickly receives hundreds of thousands of people from countries where homophobia, sexism, blasphemy laws, and rigid religious conservatism are normalized. There needs to be careful planning for such a decision, and saying this doesn't necessarily make a person racist, xenophobic, or bigoted.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it covers some key points off the top of my head.

 

[Unfettered]

Be it resolved, liberalism gets the big questions right

If the society in question intends to support peoples with a plurality of religious and cultural perspectives, and if it seeks to foster peaceful interaction among those factions, I agree that liberalism does get the big questions right, with select elements of populism informing secondary questions, and socialism simply being shown the door.

As to the question, "Is liberalism in crisis in the West?" if I look at the US (where I live) I would answer, "No," because the the law of the republic is still in place and acknowledged by a critical mass of the people, and that is where liberalism is housed, institutionally.

I'd say we do have a crisis in the areas of citizens and elected representatives spurning or misapplying the principles of liberalism. Where these are concerned, I see a lot of dysfunction contributing to discord, civil unrest, and crime (and pressure on the law to move away from "just" toward "factional").

All that said, our foundation law is not yet perfect enough; we still have work to do.

 

[Sargonski]

Can you name a few of these flawed linchpins? (I suspect we'll agree)

I give a sermon on this topic .. Post 38 if intersted har har

 

[icehorse]

I give a sermon on this topic .. Post 38 if intersted har har

I mostly agree, but I think you're mischaracterizing utilitarianism. If you change that one word, we're mostly agreed.

And it would be really useful to find the correct word to use!!!!!!

 

[icehorse]

I realize that "Western liberalism" is a vast umbrella, so some of these points apply to some varieties thereof more than they do others (and they may not apply to all varieties, of course). In no particular order:

Rationalism: This is a tricky one, but I agree it can be taken to destructive extremes. But to me all the examples you gave were examples of "bad rationalism" or "erroneous rationalism", which perhaps cannot be separated?

Capitalism: Mostly agreed here I think. I like Jaron Lanier's take which is more or less: All economic systems are man-made machines. All man-made machines require periodic monitoring, and tweaking. So we have let the capitalists run the show and clearly that has disastrous results.

Freedom of Speech: I'm a free-speech-don't-give-a-inch-ist. Our current free speech laws already have limits. I don't think we should weaken them. I've not heard a plausible mechanism for how censorship can be done well?

Underachievers: I like the idea of UBI. I do not like the idea of dumbing down society.

Ongoing progress: I agree. The planet has a finite carrying capacity.

Multiculturalism: I agree

==

I think there is a broader semantics problem. I agree with how you're using the phrase "western liberalism", but I fear many people will conflate that with the more common "liberal vs. conservative" labels.

I'm not sure what the better term would be?

 

[anna.]

Fwiw, I don't think the left is monolithically radical. But I do think there is a faction of the left, the extreme left, the progressive left (I'm still hoping we can a agree on a name for this faction), that is chasing voters away. They are the noise makers. We know that a few noisemakers can shift the overton window.

What do you call the extreme right?

As I said earlier, I believe that quote came from the top of page 12? It's whatever page is dedicated to "the progressive left".

I found it, thanks. I don't think these 6% of the public or 12% of Democrats are representative of those who're liberal or lean liberal.

 

[icehorse]

What do you call the extreme right?

Isn't "alt-right" a widely accepted term?

I found it, thanks. I don't think these 6% of the public or 12% of Democrats are representative of those who're liberal or lean liberal.

I agree. But they sure cause a lot of trouble.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm going to make the wildly unpopular statement where a lot of people my age are sick of liberals being friendly to autocrats just to maintain respectability politics. I respect Biden *less* for calling Mitch McConnell one of his friends.

To the thread at large I don't think liberalism as a philosophy is dying but I do think that liberal power in the US is eroding because of how vulnerable they are to toxic centricism and ratcheting techniques. They are just becoming Diet Conservatives. (Or maybe that's all they ever really were.)

 

[anna.]

Isn't "alt-right" a widely accepted term?

Not really, no. Alt-right is a way of blurring or euphemizing the extremism of the right. It sounds... safer than saying extreme right.

The reason I asked, is, if you say extreme right, do you say extreme left? If not, why not? And I note you didn't answer the question directly, you countered with another question.

I agree. But they sure cause a lot of trouble.

How about the extreme right? Pew calls them the Populist Right, and they represent more than the progressive Democrats: 11% of the public, and 23% of Republicans/Lean Republican. There are more extreme Republicans than there are extreme Democrats. Do they cause a lot of trouble too, in your opinion? Why aren't you as concerned about extreme Republicans?