The Modern Religion of Liberalism

[Debater Slayer]

After reading and hearing the opinions of many liberals both in my country and elsewhere (especially in the U.S.), I couldn't help but notice a growing trend of demonizing those against liberalism and showing self-aggrandizement, a lack of self-examination, and a bona fide superiority complex. It has been my observation that this is true for many liberals regardless of which political party they belong to.

The problem with modern liberalism doesn't stop at demonizing the opposition or being self-righteous. Worse yet, there is a tendency with many liberals to actively support the persecution and suppression of the other. In Egypt, this has incarnated in the form of supporting the imprisonment and silencing of Islamists. It was no longer a matter of fighting for one's rights but rather a matter of infringing on the rights of those on the opposite political pole. The very politicians and activists who mourned the persecution of liberals took a U-turn and immediately supported the persecution of Islamists when the latter were no longer in power.

Elsewhere, some self-identified liberals like Bill Maher have shown the same penchant for self-righteousness and rigid adherence to liberalism as if it were divine revelation. The venom shown toward conservatives from the likes of Bill Maher only serves to cement the impression that for many liberals, liberalism has turned from a position of celebrating diversity and freedom of speech to a position of rigid, dogmatic thinking akin to religious fundamentalism. Ironically, for many, liberalism has turned into a philosophy of opposing diversity when it contradicts their vision of diversity.

This ironic opposition to diversity in the name of preserving diversity takes more than one form. Sometimes it takes the form of labeling people "sexists" and "bigots" when they oppose unrestricted affirmative action in favor of women. Sometimes it takes the form of calling people "religious bigots" merely for being conservatively religious. (The latter happens a lot in Egypt.) Other times it takes the form of labeling people "xenophobic" for pointing out the flaws of other cultures.

In a lot of cases, modern liberalism is tainted by bigotry, self-righteousness, and closed-minded thinking. A lot of people have turned it from a beautiful vision of coexistence and promoting diversity into a springboard for hatred, unfounded propaganda, and ideological selfishness. This is what liberalism has turned into for a lot of people: the modern religion of liberalism.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

After reading and hearing the opinions of many liberals both in my country and elsewhere (especially in the U.S.), I couldn't help but notice a growing trend of demonizing those against liberalism and showing self-aggrandizement, a lack of self-examination, and a bona fide superiority complex. It has been my observation that this is true for many liberals regardless of which political party they belong to.

The problem with modern liberalism doesn't stop at demonizing the opposition or being self-righteous. Worse yet, there is a tendency with many liberals to actively support the persecution and suppression of the other. In Egypt, this has incarnated in the form of supporting the imprisonment and silencing of Islamists. It was no longer a matter of fighting for one's rights but rather a matter of infringing on the rights of those on the opposite political pole. The very politicians and activists who mourned the persecution of liberals took a U-turn and immediately supported the persecution of Islamists when the latter were no longer in power.

Elsewhere, some self-identified liberals like Bill Maher have shown the same penchant for self-righteousness and rigid adherence to liberalism as if it were divine revelation. The venom shown toward conservatives from the likes of Bill Maher only serves to cement the impression that for many liberals, liberalism has turned from a position of celebrating diversity and freedom of speech to a position of rigid, dogmatic thinking akin to religious fundamentalism. Ironically, for many, liberalism has turned into a philosophy of opposing diversity when it contradicts their vision of diversity.

This ironic opposition to diversity in the name of preserving diversity takes more than one form. Sometimes it takes the form of labeling people "sexists" and "bigots" when they oppose unrestricted affirmative action in favor of women. Sometimes it takes the form of calling people "religious bigots" merely for being conservatively religious. (The latter happens a lot in Egypt.) Other times it takes the form of labeling people "xenophobic" for pointing out the flaws of other cultures.

In a lot of cases, modern liberalism is tainted by bigotry, self-righteousness, and closed-minded thinking. A lot of people have turned it from a beautiful vision of coexistence and promoting diversity into a springboard for hatred, unfounded propaganda, and ideological selfishness. This is what liberalism has turned into for a lot of people: the modern religion of liberalism.

I think one could write a very similar indictment of the current conservative "religion."
Extremists either way are very often hypocrites.

 

[Laika]

There is what is known as the "paradox of tolerance"; namely that you could only tolerate those who are tolerant. If you tolerate those who are intolerant, it diminishes tolerance overall. There were therefore always limits to the scope of tolerance under a liberal system of government. i.e. Liberal systems of government wouldn't tolerate opinion which openly declared their intention to overthrow the government and carry it out (which is pretty reasonable).

To some extent therefore, liberalism always insisted on common values as a basis for individual freedom. Slowly, the insistencce on these common values has become an over-riding factors in political debates. The political spectrum of opinions in both the US and UK that would be considered mainstream or have access to political power and media coverage is now ridiciously small. Much of the polarisation in the US appears to be manufactured by the media as politics has been transformed into an industry. increasingly, the free press is replaced more and more by propaganda and emotional value of certian positions takes precedence over reasn and evidence. This has created an anti-intellectual environment, that favours groups which are opposed to "enlightenment" ideas, and to science generally.

More and more groups have become demonised as "the enemy within", often on the basis of collective rather than individual guilt because they don't share these "common values". One of these values is free market economics, and whatever the very significant failings of communists, democratic socialists who were largely tolerated for most of the 20th century have been marginalised. There is a level of bigotry involved by which certain ideas are as dismissed as "unrealistic" or that socialism is inherently undemocratic or totalitarian, irrespective of what these people actually believe and often going against historical evidence. it shows both that democratic socialist societies in Europe were much more stable, economically successful and environmentally conscious, but instead a "neo-liberal" set of ideas promote a narrow definition of liberalism as only based on free markets (even when something like 1/2 of the US Gross Domestic Product is in the Public sector and that is ussually consider the measure for "socialism").

The same thing has also happened to the environmental movement, where the over-riding defence of free markets as common values means that the scope of policies that could be used to combat climate change have been drastically reduced, or the very existence of the problem is ignored. The commitment to free markets and individual liberty has (particuarly in the US) started to take precedence over scientific evidence. that is really bad news.

I really hope that Liberalism re-discovers the values which led to such a flourishing both economically, politically and intellectually in the 19th century. It is true that these were clearly not ideal times, especially if you were a member of the industrial poor. The difference was, is that people believed things would get better as the scale of the changes of industrialisation opened up new oppurtunities for social development. there was an optimism and a confidence that the future would be better and freer. Now, it more closely resembles a society that is deeply pessimistic, spends most of its time trying to find holes in new ideas and as in decline. Even though I dis-like many aspects of liberalism, there was always the grudging admission that I still had the freedom to read, think, write and speak about the very ideas that would have got me locked up in other countries and systems. I still do have those freedoms, but I'm increasingly left wondering for how long that will be the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberalism, like any other orientation, can have its thugs & bozos.
But it can be OK.
I like classical liberalism (which isn't the same as what the RF definition is, ie, it's not the same as conservatism).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Libralism is primarily a philosophy.
Political libralism tends to be country specific. Not policy specific.
Liberals are no more likely to be dogmatic than followers of any other philosophy.
Interestingly the Usa seem to have a way of applying libralism differentially to different aspects, such as politics and finance and social issues. Which demonstates a split personality based perhaps on self interest.

 

[David1967]

Libralism is primarily a philosophy.
Political libralism tends to be country specific. Not policy specific.
Liberals are no more likely to be dogmatic than followers of any other philosophy.
Interestingly the Usa seem to have a way of applying libralism differentially to different aspects, such as politics and finance and social issues. Which demonstates a split personality based perhaps on self interest.

You nailed it!

 

[Sunstone]

One may find Bill Maher an obnoxious comedian, but it's a bit of a stretch to hold him up as representative of liberals. The OP seems to be confusing the fact Maher has an audience for his comedy with the notion that he is in some way a leading light among liberals.

I do agree with the OP that liberals can go too far. I think the campus PC movements are cases in point. They are dangerous movements and should be crushed.

By the way, it's not "demonizing" conservatives to point out that they in so many ways promote policies that are only loosely tethered to reality. It's just being matter of fact. Policies like abstinence-only sex ed, trickle down economics, and invading various countries without an adequate exit strategy have been shown not to work all that well.

For most of my life, I have shirked political parties and movements because there are none -- and there never have been any -- that are not corrupted by extremists, fools, and vandals. Only in my latter years have I realized the importance of party.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The venom shown toward conservatives from the likes of Bill Maher only serves to cement the impression that for many liberals, liberalism has turned from a position of celebrating diversity and freedom of speech to a position of rigid, dogmatic thinking akin to religious fundamentalism.

He really only shows venom towards things that deserve it. He isn't really hostile, he is just unafraid to call bull**** where he sees it, and conservative parties happen to be where a lot of the bull****, such literal interpretations of religious doctrine and believing the Earth is 6,000 years old, the nasty passages of the Bible and Koran, for thinking more guns will fix America's gun problem, and the bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny that is more common in the conservative parties. And he criticizes liberals, frequently, for pretty much the same things you are. He may be rather quick and perhaps even eager to blame religion and ignore the positive things religion has inspired and ignore that many things have inspired the violence and bad things we see religion inspiring, but he frequently states that liberals should be the group supporting and embracing free-speech, even once saying the should embrace the First like conservatives embrace the second.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One may find Bill Maher an obnoxious comedian, but it's a bit of a stretch to hold him up as representative of liberals. The OP seems to be confusing the fact Maher has an audience for his comedy with the notion that he is in some way a leading light among liberals.

During one of his shows, he said they used to bring in liberals for his audience, but it got much better after they started bringing in a more politically diverse audience, but his audience is still largely and mostly liberal.

 

[dust1n]

There is so much irony packed into your post, that I don't even know how to begin unraveling it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is so much irony packed into your post, that I don't even know how to begin unraveling it.

Which irony?

 

[Debater Slayer]

One may find Bill Maher an obnoxious comedian, but it's a bit of a stretch to hold him up as representative of liberals. The OP seems to be confusing the fact Maher has an audience for his comedy with the notion that he is in some way a leading light among liberals.

I do agree with the OP that liberals can go too far. I think the campus PC movements are cases in point. They are dangerous movements and should be crushed.

By the way, it's not "demonizing" conservatives to point out that they in so many ways promote policies that are only loosely tethered to reality. It's just being matter of fact. Policies like abstinence-only sex ed, trickle down economics, and invading various countries without an adequate exit strategy have been shown not to work all that well.

For most of my life, I have shirked political parties and movements because there are none -- and there never have been any -- that are not corrupted by extremists, fools, and vandals. Only in my latter years have I realized the importance of party.

I frequently point out how I think that a lot of conservative beliefs are disconnected from reality. That's not what I'm talking about; what I'm getting at is that doing so by demonizing all conservatives—demonizing the people, not the beliefs—is clearly against promoting diversity. An example would be saying that all conservatives are bigots who are against freedom of speech. (I've heard someone say that before.) That's not constructive criticism; that's demonization.

What do you think is the importance of political parties? I'm not asking to challenge your view; I'm just interested to know what you think.