The Problem with Liberalism

Besides being founded on error and evil? Its adherents tend to be really, really weird people.

Perhaps you noticed the minor stink in the comments section of a four-month-old blog post (which was accompanied by a surge in site traffic). Evidently, I've had the honor of being linked to over at Fundies Say the Darndest Things!, which I gather is where liberals go to fulfill their daily requirement for sputtering rage by gasping impotently over instances of the blogosphere's increasingly infrequent brushes with common sense.

(This linking is especially odd since that particular blog post came more than two months before my decision to convert to Catholicism; I was still a deist who denied the divinity of Christ at the time, hardly a "fundie." It's so nice to be told what I am, though, by my supposed moral and intellectual superiors).

So much about this episode illustrates the peculiarities in the leftist worldview. Note, first, the weirdness of the mere fact of that Web site's existence; there is, to my knowledge, nothing quite like it on the (genuine) right. Come to think, I don't think there's ever been much of anything like it in all of history. Did the Victorians go out of their way to expose themselves to views they found offensive? To intentionally inspire the vapors in themselves? How really, really weird. It's as if PC liberals are the sole possessors of some gene that enables its carriers to convert cortisol into riboflavin or something.

Second, take a moment to laugh at their total lack of self-awareness: in the very same post in which I point out the dishonesty of liberals' anti-bullying agenda (since they themselves bully, far more often and with more savagery, intrusion, and ruthlessness than anyone else), several liberals proceed to attack my stance on bullying... by threatening me with physical violence. This shouldn't surprise anyone: liberals are liars, and those that aren't are honest only because they are better than their ideals. The majority of devoted liberals don't actually care about bullying at all, although, being utilitarians, they have no problem lying about their motives. They only care about it when it's directed against their favored constituencies, or rather, against those members of their favored constituencies who behave in ways they think they ought to (sorry, black Californian voters!). And this is, in part, because liberalism is a coalitional ideology: when you spend all your time attacking and ruining every institution that offers people a sense of identity -- nation, religion, the family, etc. -- what is there left except the common brotherhood of aggressors?

Third, observe the failure to engage on an intellectual level. This is highly consistent with Bruce Charlton's assertion, in Thought Prison: The Fundamental Nature of Political Correctness, that liberalism destroys because it really can't afford to dialogue. As I wrote of his book last month:

By "political correctness," Dr. Charlton means not merely the irritating tics of leftist speech (with which the phrase is normally associated) but the general worldview of the leftist mind, a worldview predicated on the assumption of the universe's irrationality and which a priori admits no possibility of God, truth, or reason. ... [The liberal] is obsessed with enemies but cannot engage them rationally because to submit to rational evaluation is to admit PC's falseness: thus, he can only destroy his enemies, hysterically tarring, shutting down, attacking or even killing them. (Nevertheless, the leftist would prefer to deal with enemies that cannot actually challenge it, so he is perfectly content to tilt at windmills with poorly-painted papier-mâché tentacles hastily glued on to them). What matters to the leftist is not who its enemies are but merely that it has enemies; without something to rebel against, the whole flimsily-constructed charade falls apart.

Whoops!

The vulgar chest-thumping of these vile PC thralls serves two purposes, the first, as I mentioned, being destruction and intimidation. Leftists in general are completely unable to grasp the antimodern worldview, so they really can't engage it, anyway. For one thing, they simply don't have the language for it. Hence one Christian-ish-sounding commenter admonishes me to "love thy neighbor." He presumably mistakes that to mean "feel goopy sentimentalism and be nice toward thy neighbor" and not, as is the objectively appropriate translation, "will what is good for thy neighbor" -- a commandment that necessarily precludes any Christian from endorsing homosexuality or any other mortal sin, whatever his own faults. In fact, tolerating and even endorsing the sins of others is flatly contrary to that commandment. To say "do as thou wilt" is an expression of indifference to their fate, as loveless a gesture as could be asked for; to fail to admonish the sinner, and to refuse to protect the innocent from the ravages of thoughtless and unrepentant evil, constitute a profound lack of charity -- itself a mortal sin which must ultimately be answered for to God. (I expect this will sail right over the heads of any liberal that reads it, and at best will be responded to with the usual-suspect, bad-faith attributions of ignorance, fascism, bigotry, rationalization, etc.).

But even if they could understand it, it wouldn't matter: liberals have decided a priori that the antimodern worldview is false, anyway. They would prefer not to live in a universe that is objectively orderly, rational, comprehensible, and governed by an omnipotent, personal God. (Some atheist philosophers are actually willing to admit this in their more honest moments). I suspect, at its core, that decision stems from nothing more than a determination to enjoy oneself in life, and a willingness to embrace whatever absurdities, falsehoods, and unreason will allow one to do so with the approval of one's conscience. (And at the core of that... what whispering demon that spawned the heresies of modernity is now revelling in the praise of his infernal peers at the volume of souls he's managed to damn?) At any rate, if liberals cannot afford to engage their opponents, they can afford even less to ignore them, lest their own project be dismantled; the only alternative is to destroy all opposition, and the more savagely, the better.

The second purpose of such belligerence is merely to push traditionalist discourse, including the idea of moral norms arising from man's nature -- an idea about which PC liberals cannot even communicate effectively because they generally don't read those kinds of books, and couldn't read them properly even if they tried -- further beyond the modern pale. In some sense, FSTDT serves exactly that purpose, a kind of vast and ongoing Two Minutes' Hate for the leftist schutzstaffel to legitimate its pathologies by pointing to imaginary evils (of which, of course, it believes itself guiltless) while ignoring the real ones it has loosed on the world. This has the tendency to further exacerbate liberals' inability to grasp what traditionalists actually believe because it undermines any incentive for them to do so. Actually, it positively disincentivizes them from doing so, lest they earn the scorn of their peers (a thing that liberals, ever fashion-conscious, cannot do without).

What an intolerable thing it must be to a liberal: to be on the side of history that has experienced unparalleled success; to identify with an intellectual and philosophical tradition that has not only succeeded in its goal of destroying an entire civilization but has succeeded to such an extent that the survivors of this moral and rational apocalypse imagine themselves more civilized than ever, despite veering back toward illiteracy, paganism, and squalor; and yet to measure their successes against an impossibly high standard, a standard so high that every minor breach of their false and evil creed -- even a largely-unread post on some nobody's blog -- produces oceans of inchoate rage. What a miserable endeavor modernity has been: always destroying, always negating, but never producing anything of value and never fulfilling its promises. Somewhere in Hell, the devil is surely dancing at his triumphs.

Comments

[Daniel]

Your last paragraph is a thing of beauty. You bully those words right off the screen into my eyeballs!

[Manuel Marques Pinto de Rezende]

Amazing Post.
Congratulations.

[icr]

The "problem with liberalism" as explained by two Marxist critical theorists:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/piccone_ulmen.htm
(...)
"In fact, the demonization of Schmitt is instrumentalized to defend the status quo and predominant relations of domination. Assumed to be the best of all possible systems, the existing managerial framework, run by a New Class elite, legitimates itself as the only bulwark of Western values by opposing all competing alternatives--equally rooted in the Western tradition--as lethal threats to its own interpretation of progress and emancipation. During the Cold War, the de facto permanent state of emergency contributed to the academic institutionalization of this state of affairs, which persists long after both Nazism and fascism (and, after 1989, even communism) have been vanquished."
(...)

"Although defined by the Cold War, the postwar years were also characterized by an American administration attempting to fine-tune the New Deal--a collectivist project of socio-economic reconstruction that had been strengthened considerably by war mobilization, but remained unable to legitimate itself fully on the basis of those deep-rooted Protestant values of decentralized governance and local self- determination embedded in the US Constitution. Consequently, with the gradual shift from isolationism to imperialism and from classical to managerial liberalism, which had begun toward the end of the 19th century, but had stalled temporarily in the 1920s (in reaction to WWI), American historiography broke with its traditional exceptionalism."

"What took its place was a slight variation of the unilinear theory of history espoused by its managerial-liberal and, even more, its former communist opponents. The "pursuit of happiness," previously left to the discretion of particular communities, was redefined in terms of full and equal participation in a well-administered, professionalized society (a euphemism for socialism and social homogenization), projected as the inevitable outcome of all historical developments. As with all secularized versions of the Christian theory of history, deviations from such a path came to be seen as pathologies or breaks, rather than as legitimate alternatives."
(...)

[Aurini]

I think you might like this video: Evan Sayet with The Heritage Foundation, on how liberals think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXgGS50AVY

His argument paralells yours: that Liberalism is all about removing descrimination, and becoming indiscriminate - creating a utopic world where nobody ever judges, or pays for the error of there ways (where, in fact, there is no error) an so all motivations for conflict are gone. They think by eliminating judgement, they can eliminate conflict. Lennon's song 'Imagine' perfectly sums this all up.

As I've said before, I'm an Atheist - you and I disagree on metaphysics - but I really can't stand this New Atheist Movement. FSTDT is the perfect example of what's wrong with them, and characterizing it as the 2 Minutes of Hate is bang on. I could never stand that site; it either depresses me (at the intellectual debasement displayed), or annoys me at a perfectly reasonable perspective being laughed at. A non-religious example would be:

"What, you think BDSM might be a sign of nascent mental illness? LOL, that's so crazy!"

For some reason, Andrew Levy's Satanic Bible popped into my head - it was the "Do as thou wilt" line, I think - and if you've ever read the book, you'd understand why the Liberals don't endorse it, despite it being ostensibly against Christianity.

The line from that books is something along the lines of "Do as thou wilt... *and accept the consequences of your actions!*" It's rooted in the Positivist school of philosophy, which Liberals hate.

Actions shouldn't have consequences, according to the Left, and they'll continue to redistribute our tax dollars until this becomes a reality. It's no different than the attempts to create A New Soviet Man, and equally doomed to failure.

[Bill]

"to fail to admonish the sinner, and to refuse to protect the innocent from the ravages of thoughtless and unrepentant evil, constitute a profound lack of charity . . . I expect this will sail right over the heads of any liberal that reads it"

When I have explained this to liberals, I have been met, first, with incomprehension. Rapidly after that, they decide that I merely hate homosexuals (or whomever), and that the explanation is some kind of tissue-thin rationalization.

Even explaining that I used to be a libertarian and that I intrinsically really don't care one way or the other what they do does not help. Even explaining that accepting the need to rebuke sinners and the need to order society to help sinners avoid their sins was very hard for me does not help.

They seem, as you say, really unable to think or imagine at all.

Very good post, by the way.

[Firepower]

The Problem with Liberalism?

they themselves bully destroy actual lives, far more often and with more savagery, intrusion, and ruthlessness than anyone else)

In plain talk: The problem with Liberalism is it needs to be destroyed. Eradicated.

Leave Smallpox surviving
at your peril

[Bob]

From the other thread: "One thing that defines society is that the citizens are barred from enacting violence against each other; that is the exclusive purview of the state."

Is it just me or is this comment unintentionally revealing?

[clar]

Bob, it's incredibly revealing.

Fantastic post. I too have had discussions with people who lean left about things like homosexuality. Uniformly, no matter how many statistics, studies, etc you throw at them, they are incapable of considering the relationship between cause and effect.

[Erik]

"Note, first, the weirdness of the mere fact of that Web site's existence; there is, to my knowledge, nothing quite like it on the (genuine) right. Come to think, I don't think there's ever been much of anything like it in all of history."

How about in fiction?

FSTDT is the Two Minutes' Hate. (With a side of American Idol.)

[Proph]

Yes, I made the Two Minutes' Hate connection; I'm amazed that liberals, normally so sensitive to totalitarian imagery, would be so impervious to its application to them.

[Kali]

I think you misunderstand "Love thy neighbor." I'm sure you're familiar with the story Jesus told to illustrate his point, "The Good Samaritan." If you saw a person being assaulted, and you somehow knew that the victim was being beaten simply because he was gay, and you did nothing to stop it, that violates "Love thy neighbor." Why is bullying ever okay? It's wrong for Christians to bully people for their sexual orientation. It's wrong for anyone to bully anyone for any reason. But to say that Christians are being bullied BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BULLY is a travesty. My neighbor doesn't have the right to complain to the homeowner's association because I won't let his son paint graffiti on my garage. It doesn't work like that.

[Proph]

Kali, welcome to the blog.

Your objection rests on your assertion of the equivalency of the victim in the good Samaritan parable with (in the case of the story to which this post was referring) aggressive transvestites. I reject that equivalency. The former was an innocent man waylaid by robbers and left to die. The latter is an aggressor against the social order.

There is, I've said before, a limit on the extent to which one may go in defending the social order. In a sane and civilized society, such would fall to the state and to cultural authorities like families and the schools. Our society is neither sane nor civilized, and the state and schools alike are working to break down the social order; thus its defense falls, essentially, to vigilantes. It's a bad situation and the product of the failure of authority to do its job. I can't object to it, though, any more than I could object to vigilantism in a cynical and corrupt state that refused to enact justice against criminals.

Your analogy re: property likewise rests on utilitarian and individualist prejudices I do not share. We are not free to do whatever we like without consequence. Every one is part of an organic social unity whether they like it or not, and thus there are limits to what they may do freely that go beyond mere force-and-fraud prohibitions.

[Kali]

That is exactly what I'm saying. We are NOT free to do whatever we like without consequences. There are consequences for every action. That includes attacking someone because you don't like the way they dress. That is not okay. Here in America (I'm assuming you're American), we have certain rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion. Those freedoms entitle you to say whatever you want on your blog, and I would fight any attempt to take that away. Those freedoms also entitle a man to go to the store in a dress. Those freedoms do not allow my neighbor's son to vandalise my property, and they do not allow vigilante justice against someone who is doing nothing more than exercising his own freedom of expression.

[Proph]

Kali, if you are simply saying that violence is a disproportionate response to transvestism, yes, I am inclined to agree. I expressed that in my earlier post, as well, when I said I was at best uncertain as to whether or not licit "bullying" (by which I mainly meant verbal ribbing and social shunning) should be construed as including physical violence. I have since come down on the side that it does and should not except in particularly extreme cases, akin to a man using physical violence to take down an attempted mugger. But if you are saying that people are entitled to flaunt society's moral consensus and expect to be treated exactly as if they were diligent, minding-my-own-business, socially-minded people, well, you are simply wrong.

I will point out that the case to which the earlier post was addressed was a good deal more than merely "not liking the way someone dressed." The transvestite in question was a man who aggressively insisted on using the women's restroom and became belligerent when two women objected to it. This is a very aggressive and provocative act of defiance against social norms and one cannot imagine there is a "right" to behave in this way.

Yes, I am an American. I am not, however, interested in "civil rights." I have argued previously (e.g., here: http://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/whence-rights.html; I criticize libertarian "rights" theory, as well, here: http://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/whence-rights-ii-libertarianism.html) that they are simply a non sequitur -- that "civil rights" are mere conventions or concessions by the state and are therefore arbitrary, negotiable, and revocable. A right, if it is to be a right as such, cannot be negotiable and therefore is not conceded by the state, but arises spontaneously from natural law. A full treatment of natural law is beyond the post of a comment box, but suffice it to say that (a) rights are intimately bound up with duties; (b) one has a duty to avoid evil; therefore, (c) there is no right to do evil. A society which does not recognize this fact is simply radically deficient, and this deficiency is compounded further if it asserts that not only is there a right to do evil but that action to prevent, correct, or punish evil is morally reprehensible.

[Kali]

A "man" wanting to use the women's room, was probably actually a woman. There is a legitimate condition, transgenderism, where a person's physical sex and psychological gender do not match up. This has biological causes; all humans begin life as female. Fetuses with XY chromosones develop male characteristics later during pregnancy, caused by different hormones in the uterus. Sometimes there's a mixup; hermaphroditism is one result, where a person has both male and female parts. Transgenderism is another result. People with transgenderism generally receive counseling, hormone therapy, and gender reassignment surgery. These treatments are all very involved, long term, and stressful. Now, do you really think someone would make up something like that, would go through all of that treatment, in addition to abuse from people like you, JUST to spite social norms? I promise you the answer is no. If you would not mock someone with dwarfism (a biological condition that they cannot control) or attempt to restrict their rights, then you should not mock someone with transgenderism (a biological condition that they cannot control) or attempt to restrict their rights.

[Proph]

Kali,

My background is in experimental psychology and I did work in undergrad on human sexual behavior, so I am aware of these issues (although you misrepresent them: where sex is definitely and healthily expressed, failure to identify with it is necessarily psychopathological). But the etiology of a condition has no bearing on its moral character. There are mental disorders in which a person feels he has too many digits or even limbs and so feels compelled to amputate them; that this disorder occurs naturally does not mean it is healthy, wise, good, or proper to indulge it. Mutilating one's genitals affects a change in one's sex no more than chopping off one's fingers restores one's hand to its natural and ideal state.

I am not saying they are doing it for the purpose of spiting norms; their intentions are irrelevant. Your equating of transsexualism with dwarfism simply falls flat, in part for the reason I mentioned above and in part because height is not basic to social or moral considerations the way sex is. (And at any rate, who tries to "correct" dwarfism surgically? What would such a surgery even look like?)

You continue to speak about rights. I challenge you to ask yourself what a right is, where it comes from, and what it means to have one. There is certainly no natural right to mutilate one's genitals, and if you mean it is nothing more than a civil right, then why should I respect it? Civil law is always subordinate to natural law.

I invite you to continue this discussion over e-mail, using the "E-mail Me" link at the top of the blog. I have no desire to continue cluttering the comments section of a four-months old blog post.