Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[icehorse]

And I note you didn't answer the question directly, you countered with another question.

Give me a break...

==

To answer your thoughts though: I'm worried about extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. And I don't really care which end is more destructive, they are both destructive. Thy both need to be reined in.

 

[anna.]

Give me a break...

Why? It was a simple question - that you didn't answer. What do you call right-wing extremists?

To answer your thoughts though: I'm worried about extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. And I don't really care which end is more destructive, they are both destructive. Thy both need to be reined in.

So what do you think about the extreme right being more represented in the Republican Party than the extreme left is represented in the Democratic Party? You were initially focused on only the left. Any additional thoughts on that?

 

[icehorse]

Why? It was a simple question - that you didn't answer. What do you call right-wing extremists?

I did answer, you're being a obfuscatory pedant. I call them alt-right, as if that wasn't abundantly clear. And, I am in no way married to that term. If there is a better term, I'm open to hearing it and using it.

That's why I initially said what I said about terms for the extreme left - it makes for more productive conversation. Is your goal productive conversation?

So what do you think about the extreme right being more represented in the Republican Party than the extreme left is represented in the Democratic Party? You were initially focused on only the left. Any additional thoughts on that?

Sure, but so what? Is this some weird what-about-ism game? Both ends are destructive and need to be reined in.

It's kind of like you're asking which is a bigger problem, rape or murder? They're both huge problems, I'm not sure I see the benefit in trying to somehow quantify which is worse???

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There's no question that I started a debate on a very complex topic, and I have no illusions about getting a lot of agreement -- opinions are going to be all over the place. However, I think that there are several arguments and indicators suggesting challenges to traditional liberal values and institutions. Here are some of the reasons that I think liberalism might be facing a crisis:

1. Rise of Populism: In the 2010s and 2020s, there was a notable rise in populist movements and leaders in many Western countries, such as the US, UK, France, Italy, and others. Often, these movements oppose certain liberal ideals and institutions, preferring nationalist or protectionist policies. You can review the leaders of some of these: Donald Trump in the US, Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, and in Italy, Matteo Salvini, and the Five Star Movement founded by comedian Beppe Grillo and web strategist Gianroberto Casaleggio.
2. Erosion of Democratic Norms: In some Western countries, there has been a perceived erosion of democratic norms, including respect for the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the freedom of the press. This is becoming more and more true in the US, especially, in which even members of the Congress are dismissing the blatant illegalities of the last electioin, where states are ignoring SCOTUS orders to be fair in electoral districting, etc.
3. Economic Inequality: The liberal economic order, especially neoliberalism, has been criticized for exacerbating income inequality and not providing adequate social safety nets. Such inequality can lead to social unrest and a loss of faith in liberal democratic systems. And this is certainly a huge issue, where so very, very few individuals own -- for all practical purposes -- almost everything, while everybody else is living paycheck-to-paycheck.
4. Identity Politics and Polarization: While liberalism traditionally champions individual rights and freedoms, the rise of identity politics has sometimes pitted groups against each other, leading to polarization and challenges to the idea of a cohesive liberal society. Again, you can see this in the US in the demonization of the LGBTQ+ community, and in much of Europe and certainly the US, the reactions against immigrants.
5. Challenges to Free Speech: There are concerns in some quarters about the limits being placed on free speech, whether through government regulation, self-censorship, or pressures from social media and other platforms.
6. External Challenges: Liberal democracies in the West face challenges from authoritarian regimes that offer alternative models of governance, which they often claim are more efficient or stable. Victor Orban, once a believer in democracy, has turned himself into a dictator in Hungary -- by entirely legal and constitutional means, using trickery, fear-mongering, electoral fudgery about who gets to vote and who doesn't, and so forth.
7. Technological Disruption: The rapid pace of technological change, especially in the realms of digital communication, AI, and surveillance, poses novel challenges to personal freedoms, privacy, and the integrity of democratic processes.

Okay, on the other side, I'll say there may be some protections for our essentially liberal way of life:

1. Resilience of Liberal Institutions: While there are challenges, many liberal institutions have shown resilience. Courts, civil society groups, and some media outlets have played essential roles in safeguarding democratic norms. I note that SCOTUS, for example, has just denied one US state its attempt to gerrymander blacks into irrelevance.
2. Cyclical Nature of Politics: Historically, politics has been cyclical. Periods of crisis are often followed by renewal and reform. It's just that I think that we are on the downward swing of this particular pendulum, and I don't know how long before the back-swing is due.
3. Liberalism's Capacity for Self-Correction: One of the strengths of liberal systems is their capacity for self-correction. When problems arise, there's often a robust debate and eventually a move towards solutions.

In conclusion, I am convinced that there are undeniable challenges facing liberalism in the West, and while it's true that liberal societies have a long history of adaptability and resilience, that history may not be strong enough to overcome the rising pressures. So that while I truly believe that liberalism "get's the big answers right," the trend towards the wrong answers might well win out -- at least for a while (as it did in Fascist Italy, Germany and Spain).

 

[anna.]

I did answer, you're being a obfuscatory pedant. I call them alt-right, as if that wasn't abundantly clear.

So much for debating ideas, not people.

No you didn't. You asked me a question about the general usage of alt-right - which I answered.

And, I am in no way married to that term. If there is a better term, I'm open to hearing it and using it.

How about right-wing extremists? The extreme right? The far right? The radical right? Any of those work for you?

That's why I initially said what I said about terms for the extreme left - it makes for more productive conversation. Is your goal productive conversation?

Don't obfuscate yourself. Discuss in good faith and I'll do the same. I would use far left, most likely. Maybe radical left, in some situations.

I wondered if you'd use similar terms for both extremes of the spectrum.

Sure, but so what? Is this some weird what-about-ism game? Both ends are destructive and need to be reined in.

It's kind of like you're asking which is a bigger problem, rape or murder? They're both huge problems, I'm not sure I see the benefit in trying to somehow quantify which is worse???

No, that's not what I'm asking at all. You zeroed in on the far left but not the far right, and I observed that you did that. You talk about both ends being destructive but you consistently focus on the left.

 

[icehorse]

I wondered if you'd use similar terms for both extremes of the spectrum.

I want to use terms that most people will accept so that conversations can move forward Haven't I already made that clear? Haven't I said several times that I'm not married to any of these terms?

What I want to avoid is having conversations bog down over needless semantic quibbles.

No, that's not what I'm asking at all. You zeroed in on the far left but not the far right, and I observed that you did that. You talk about both ends being destructive but you consistently focus on the left.

Indeed I do. That's because this is a debate forum and I doubt I'd get a lot of debate going if I criticized the extreme right. But in case it's not abundantly clear, I think the extreme right is horribly destructive.

But more to the point, why do you think my criticisms must somehow be balanced? Can't we debate one topic at a time?

 

[anna.]

I want to use terms that most people will accept so that conversations can move forward Haven't I already made that clear? Haven't I said several times that I'm not married to any of these terms?

What I want to avoid is having conversations bog down over needless semantic quibbles.

Okay, what are your preferred terms for the far left and for the far right?

I've given you mine, what are yours?

Indeed I do. That's because this is a debate forum and I doubt I'd get a lot of debate going if I criticized the extreme right. But in case it's not abundantly clear, I think the extreme right is horribly destructive.

But more to the point, why do you think my criticisms must somehow be balanced? Can't we debate one topic at a time?

So this goes back to your admitted contrarianism? This is more about chances of reaction fueling (igniting) debate?

At least you've clarified the "extreme right" (I guess that's your term, then?) is destructive, even if you don't call it out here.

And I'm glad I looked at your link and compared the various groups, so thank you for that. It's informative to know there are more extremes represented in the Republican Party than extremes in the Democratic Party. To those on the far/extreme/radical right, anyone left of center is suspected of being a commie.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, what are your preferred terms for the far left and for the far right?

I've given you mine, what are yours?

I DO NOT CARE I just want to use whatever term allows conversations to move forward.

So this goes back to your admitted contrarianism? This is more about chances of reaction fueling (igniting) debate?

More or less. I think it's good for people to have their thinking challenged. I think it's too easy to just go along with popular ideas that might not actually be good ideas

 

[anna.]

I DO NOT CARE I just want to use whatever term allows conversations to move forward.

So...

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.

To agree means we've both settled on a preferred term. I offered mine, you refused. Thanks for nothing, what a waste of time this was.

More or less.

Good to know. I'm not here to provide reaction for someone looking to provoke it so I'll try to avoid those near occasions.

 

[icehorse]

To agree means we've both settled on a preferred term. I offered mine, you refused. Thanks for nothing, what a waste of time this was.

so... i don't want to misquote you and i don't want to search back thru this exchange. As I recall you prefer extreme right and extreme left? If I got that right, I'm happy to use those terms.

Good to know. I'm not here to provide reaction for someone looking to provoke it so I'll try to avoid those near occasions.

Not what I said... taking a few words out of context doesn't seem like good faith to me

 

[Revoltingest]

I post quite often...

less than 700 posts.

.. 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.

I've lost track of the discussion.

 

[Sargonski]

less than 700 posts.

I've lost track of the discussion.

Are you math challenged ? how is 700 posts less often than 1 Billion posts ? and there never was a discussion .. so worry not .. nothing to have lost track of

 

[Sargonski]

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!!!!!!

As I would say to my Son "Dad but I thought" .. yes son .. that was your first mistake .. thinking again .. now how have I mischaracterized Utilitarianism Friend ? You know after taking that Class in Philosophy of Law .. by this Jewish fellow with Ph.D from Oxford ... thought I had Utilitarianism down .. but guess not ?!

Now having taken a few Philosophy Classes .. learned that an argument contains 2 things 1) statement or claim 2) some rational - proof - explanation showing that claim is true.. I see number 1) mischaracterization .. what I can't seem to find is 2) or even a mention of what the heck you think is being mischaracterized.

and don't forget to tell us this special word that will make the world right for you .. end on a happy note

 

[Yerda]

Liberalism served a purpose the for the established interests that controlled Western politics and media (not just in print and broadcast news, but in film literature, theatre etc) that it doesn't serve any more. If that's a crises, then yes, I would agree that it is in crisis.

 

[icehorse]

As I would say to my Son "Dad but I thought" .. yes son .. that was your first mistake .. thinking again .. now how have I mischaracterized Utilitarianism Friend ? You know after taking that Class in Philosophy of Law .. by this Jewish fellow with Ph.D from Oxford ... thought I had Utilitarianism down .. but guess not ?!

Now having taken a few Philosophy Classes .. learned that an argument contains 2 things 1) statement or claim 2) some rational - proof - explanation showing that claim is true.. I see number 1) mischaracterization .. what I can't seem to find is 2) or even a mention of what the heck you think is being mischaracterized.

and don't forget to tell us this special word that will make the world right for you .. end on a happy note

Back in your self-famous post #38 you said - a couple of times - "" If it saves one life".

That's some sort of weird distortion of utilitarianism.

But if you want, you'll get the last word, because I do not have time to wade thru your snark. Too bad, might have been interesting..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.



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?

View attachment 82809

In my view, the greatest danger of the far right "populists" is that when they use the word "people," they generally mean "people like you and me, white, straight, Republican, and with a deep hatred of anything that smacks of somebody else getting something we're not." That immediately removes from their consideration a very large segment of the populations of many Western nations now. The West, like it or not, is becoming more multi-racial and multicultural. More and more languages other than English (and maybe Spanish or French depending on where you are) are being spoken around them and they feel like they're being shoved aside. Some people are being assisted by the state (more-so in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.) and that makes them feel like they're being used.

This does not seem to me to lead towards a search for solutions, other than making "the probleml" go away. And that's what we're seeing from far too many populists today.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Liberalism served a purpose the for the established interests that controlled Western politics and media (not just in print and broadcast news, but in film literature, theatre etc) that it doesn't serve any more. If that's a crises, then yes, I would agree that it is in crisis.

Liberalism (classic liberalism) did a whole lot more than that! It freed people from serfdom and indenture, it freed them to think for themselves, and to live according to their own lights. It allowed freedom from the imposition of religion (and yes, religions did keep track of who was at church or temple or mosque and who wasn't, and imposed sanctions on them for not attending). It allowed women to own their own property, vote and hold office, and eventually it even accepted people previously sidelined, like LGBTQ+ folks, or free-thinkers and atheists.

Liberalism swept away monarchies (or at least removed their power, leaving nothing but symbolism) in favour of more representative forms of government, leading eventually to the abolition of slavery and, later, rights for working men and women, education for all -- and, yes, universal human rights and freedoms.

You don't think those things are "useful" to the common person?

 

[anna.]

In my view, the greatest danger of the far right "populists" is that when they use the word "people," they generally mean "people like you and me, white, straight, Republican, and with a deep hatred of anything that smacks of somebody else getting something they're not." That immediately removes from their consideration a very large segment of the populations of many Western nations now. The West, like it or not, is becoming more multi-racial and multicultural. More and more languages other than English (and maybe Spanish or French depending on where you are) are being spoken around them and they feel like they're being shoved aside. Some people are being assisted by the state (more-so in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.) and that makes them feel like they're being used.

This does not seem to me to lead towards a search for solutions, other than making "the probleml" go away. And that's what we're seeing from far too many populists today.

Thank you for this, not quite fully awake here on the west coast, got my coffee and thinking about how to write a reply to your very well-thought-out post #64. I was thinking last night I couldn't add anything to it, then when I was awake in the early hours this morning, as I often am, I came across an article referencing dominant spite, and your post I'm replying to here is touching on that idea. I was reading about Francis Fukuyama, and his interesting swing over the years from neoconservativism to liberalism, and something he said (among many other things) popped out at me, this idea of spite threatening liberal democracy. He talks about dominant and non-dominant spite, and I think this concept is very applicable to the ideas in your list.

Why spite could destroy liberal democracy

Some people may be spiteful to pull others down, while others act this way to get ahead.

theconversation.com

"Dominant spite is also seen in some people’s need for chaos. Researchers have found that around 10%-20% of people endorse statements such as that society should be burned to the ground. This may represent frustrated status seekers who think they could ultimately thrive in the ruins."​

I distinctly recall a Trump supporter saying he voted for Trump "to see what would happen." He saw Trump as a chaos agent, and he wanted a chaos agent, he was literally gleeful over the idea. Steve Bannon's intent was the same when he said the goal was "deconstruction of the administrative state" and to "flood the zone with ****."

 

[Sargonski]

Back in your self-famous post #38 you said - a couple of times - "" If it saves one life".

That's some sort of weird distortion of utilitarianism.

But if you want, you'll get the last word, because I do not have time to wade thru your snark. Too bad, might have been interesting..

Spare me the whine and bring me some cheese . Projecting your skarky falsehood " some sort of wierd distortion" onto me.

Obviously you do not know what Utilitarianism is .. if you dont understand that the cry of the Political Pundit "If it saves one life" as justification for law .. is Utilitarian justification for law. Further troubling the fact that I posted the definition of utilitarianism .. guess that went deer in headlights .. so once again "Justification for law on the basis of increasing happiness for the collective " aka "Harm Reduction"

did you not understand Drug law .. is justified on the basis of saving lives / reducing harm ? Glad we have now corrected your thinking .. while you run from the playground calling names

 

[icehorse]

Spare me the whine and bring me some cheese . Projecting your skarky falsehood " some sort of wierd distortion" onto me.

Obviously you do not know what Utilitarianism is .. if you dont understand that the cry of the Political Pundit "If it saves one life" as justification for law .. is Utilitarian justification for law. Further troubling the fact that I posted the definition of utilitarianism .. guess that went deer in headlights .. so once again "Justification for law on the basis of increasing happiness for the collective " aka "Harm Reduction"

did you not understand Drug law .. is justified on the basis of saving lives / reducing harm ? Glad we have now corrected your thinking .. while you run from the playground calling names

If you had good arguments, you wouldn't need to resort to snark. Life is too short to mess with this sort of nonsense.

have a fine day.