|
|
Is the term “liberal” still meaningful?I am constantly bemused by the way people use the word “liberal” as if it had some sort of clear meaning. It doesn’t. In America it is used to describe the mainstream Left. In Australia it is used to describe the mainstream Right and in Britain it is used to describe the naive and dreamy Left. The word is also used to describe the sort of doctrine preached (but not practiced) by John Stuart Mill, though a clarifying “neo” prefix is sometimes attached in that case. The word also has vaguer meanings along the line of “broad-minded”, “tolerant”, “enlightened”, “relaxed” etc. Thus we hear of a “liberal” education—which is an education in basically useless subjects. We also hear of “liberal” democracy but I am not at all sure how such a democracy differs from any other sort of democracy. Is there an “illiberal” democracy anywhere? Perhaps it means a democracy that respects the rights of the minority but it generally seems to have a much warmer glow attached to it than just that. I myself almost never use the word. I sometimes use it to refer to the American mainstream Left but I always put it in quotes on such occasions out of respect for the origins of the word—the Latin “liber” meaning “free”. Since the American Left seem to believe in as little freedom for the individual as possible, their adoption of that word as a self-description seems particularly perverse to me. Perhaps most confusingly of all, paleoconservatives (itself a term of several meanings) sometimes claim that BOTH the Left and Right of modern-day politics are “liberal”. By that they seem to mean something like “ignoring genetic constraints and racial differences”. I find that usage perhaps the most puzzling of all since conservatives are quite emphatic that there is a genetically inherited “human nature” that constrains greatly what we can do or can be made to do. So how can they be “liberal” in the paleoconservative sense? And even Leftists do admit genetic constraints in one case only—the case of homosexuality. So I think the paleoconservative meaning has to be decoded as “denying the importance of inborn racial differences”. Even that decode has its problems, however, as a majority of psychometricians (who are almost all Left-leaning in one way or another) admit inherited racial differences in IQ, which is a very important difference indeed. Does that make them paleoconservatives? The psychologists concerned would almost all vigorously deny it. Amusingly, the term “liberal” seems to be falling out of favour among the American Left. The term has so often been attached to silly and unrealistic policies that the term “progressive” is now coming back into favour as a description of the broad Left. If the modern-day users of that term were aware of the eugenic, militaristic and nationalistic policies of the early 20th century “Progressives”, however, they might be less keen on applying it to themselves. Nonetheless, the term is undoubtedly going to be with us for a long time as a description (however inappropriate) of the mainstream American Left so we will undoubtedly have to put up with that. I do wish however that other usages of the term would be dropped in favour of more informative descriptions of the policies or philosophies concerned. Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, July 6, 2005 at 05:23 AM in No particular place to go Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on July 06, 2005, 12:18 PM | # Mark applies such beautiful lucidity to his arguments, frequently I find myself at a loss to know how I might improve upon them. That’s certainly the case with his comment here. Anyway, I will simply explain my terminology. “Liberalism” is, I think, the only term broad enough to encompass John Locke and all points west. It might be used with some specificity by other folk. But I apply it principally to that process of centuries begun with the de-Conservatisation of Western Man and ending with his slow deracination and dispossession. The term “liberal” I use to label the presumptions of fault in Western Man or wrong-doing by him that characterise and “justify” this process. And, of course, I use it to label the unfree men and women that hold such presumptions. Thus, if a self-proclaimed Conservative cannot bring himself to acknowledge, say, “inborn racial differences” (and every other kind of difference), and to acknowledge the consequences of that difference (eg, genetic interest and the traditional right to a homeland untrammelled by the “rights” of aliens to migrate to it), I see standing there not a Conservative at all but a captured liberal. The possession of liberal thinking straightway disqualifies any claim to Conservatism. The best one can do is to claim relevance to modernity. Modern Conservatives are forever trying to do exactly that. But modernity is the outcome, in our time, of advanced liberalism, and nowt else. As has been the case since the very beginning, Conservatism must self-destruct to play this game. The principal difficulty facing liberalised Conservatives, then, is herd-thinking. But electoral expediency is lying in wait should our Conservative hero actually decide to break with the consensus and oppose, for example, the de-moralisation of English youth. He can all too easily imagine the responses of friend and foe alike: “Authoritarianism”, “Nasty Party”, “Back to Basics again!”. What chance is there that he will blunder into a Conservative thought amidst all that? None. First he must give up his liberalism in absolute and make himself an example to those who cannot yet see. 3
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 06:02 PM | # ” aim is always some kind of individual “liberation”, whether it be the liberation of individual will from the constraints of class (Marxism), gender (feminism), the state (anarchism), sexuality (queer theory) or race” What a naive comment. The only aim of the Left is powerr 4
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 06:05 PM | # “If there are more male engineers than female ones, the right-wing parties don’t calmly announce that this is because of differences in the natures of men and women. Instead, the disparity is seen as a gender inequality which it is the responsibility of government to overcome. The only difference between right and left is that the right usually argues for “voluntary” remedial measures such as special scholarships for women” I have never heard ANY conservative argue for any kind of affirmative action. No doubt there are one or two but it is most unusual. 5
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 06:07 PM | # “The term “liberal” I use to label the presumptions of fault in Western Man or wrong-doing by him” The fallenness or imperfection of man is a basic docrine of both conservatives and Christians. To call it liberal is to ignore all history 6
Posted by Guessedworker on July 06, 2005, 06:25 PM | # The problem with all Conservatives today is, I believe, not so much that they propose leftism but that they will not oppose it. Think cultural Thatcherism and you will have some idea of what I think we are missing. An acceptance of the fallen-ness of human nature is properly a mark of Conservatism. But the Western leftist faults his own kind not with any sense of acceptance but from a belief in a utopia of perfected New Men. You know that better than anyone, so I can only imagine that you made your last comment on auto-pilot. 7
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 06:25 PM | # And Mark’s claim that conservatives don’t defend the innateness of male/female differences is just plain wrong. Go through the archioves of my PC Watch blog and you will find dozens of instances of “vive la difference” from conservatives. The only innate difference that conservatives often deny is racial differences and that is just the Hitler effect which has swamped just about ALL discussion of race. 8
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 06:28 PM | # In summary: Modern-day consdervatives belkieve precisely what Mark says they don’t—in the Imperfectibility or INNATE limitations of man. It is the basis for their opposition to socialism. 9
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 07:17 PM | # And note that the Hitler excesses have suppressed racist talk among Leftists too The most eloquent expressions of David’s ideas in the 20th Cent were prewar “Progressives” I give you the link for all that in the main article 10
Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 07:19 PM | # “But the Western leftist faults his own kind not with any sense of acceptance but from a belief in a utopia of perfected New Men.” Sure thing. But that is NOT true of modern-day conservatives. 11
Posted by Mark Richardson on July 06, 2005, 08:03 PM | # I have never heard ANY conservative argue for any kind of affirmative action. I guess then, John Ray, you don’t consider our own right-wing Prime Minister, John Howard, to be a conservative. Here is a report in the Melbourne Age from 28/3/1998 (not online). It’s titled, “Howard to boost female managers”. “The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, yesterday launched an affirmative action scheme to increase the number of female executives in the public sector.” “Mr Howard, speaking at the launch of a new business magazine at the Grand Hyatt hotel, said the Executive Search Pilot Program would nominate women for 7000 executive jobs in 750 federal public sector agencies. “Under the plan the names of women would be presented for selection up to six months before a position became vacant, he said.” Mr Howard has also set aside money in federal budgets for scholarship schemes for female engineering students and he has continued (as far as I am aware) the “name and shame” policy for employers who don’t meet the targets for female recruitment and promotion set out in equal opportunity legislation. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 06, 2005, 08:20 PM | # John Ray, you don’t consider Bush and the Country Club Republicans conservatives, right? As everyone knows, they share the Marxist view of women, that there are no innate differences between them and men, and are fervent supporters of affirmative action (= stringent and outrageous anti-white, anti-merit racial quotas in various aspects of daily life that are central to getting on in society)—the Bush administration has refused to take a strong stand against affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court—as well as of forced race-replacement of whites with every sort of non-white they can dredge up in the Third World and arrange to transport here en masse. Because if you consider this crowd (Bush, the CCRs, and their Tranzi/pro-E.U./internationalist pals) conservatives you’ve made a few big errors in the comments you just posted. 13
Posted by Mark Richardson on July 06, 2005, 08:31 PM | # Yes, I was right - Mr Howard, our right-wing Prime Minister, has passed his own “name and shame” affirmative action legislation. A website on Australian discrimination law contains the following information: “The Federal Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 ... places a positive obligation on organisations to address discrimination against women, both by eliminating discrimination and by taking special measures to promote women’s equal opportunity in employment ... Employers are given a checklist of steps to be taken ... Employers must lodge an annual report ... a failure to lodge a report results in being named in Federal Parliament.” I remember one case of a private girls’ school in Melbourne being named and shamed in parliament for failing to meet the requirements of the legislation. The female principal was bewildered by this since all of the teachers and administrative staff at the school were women. What had got them into trouble? Both of their gardeners were men. According to the headmistress they had hired a female gardener but she had gone off on workers’ compensation within a month, costing the school a considerable sum of money. Hence the two male gardeners and the trouble in parliament. 14
Posted by Mark Richardson on July 06, 2005, 09:17 PM | # Fred, you’re right about Bush. In 2003, there was a debate about whether race quotas for admission into the University of Michigan were acceptable. As you would expect of a right-wing liberal, Bush announced that he was against formal race quotas but that he supported other measures of affirmative action. He said “We should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on American college campuses. Much progress has been made; much more is needed.” He then said, “Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas.” He went on to say “Schools should seek diversity by considering a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student’s potential and life experiences.” So President Bush is effectively saying forget about academic merit and admit more minority races to college but don’t do it openly on the basis of race quotas but more subtly on the basis of a “student’s potential and life experiences”. Is this not a form of affirmative action from a right-wing politician? 15
Posted by seelow heights on July 06, 2005, 11:46 PM | # Conservative pundits are the ones who take strong stands against AA, the politicians always buckle. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 07, 2005, 12:52 AM | # Lower- and middle-level politicians do buckle, Seelow: you’re right. But what could make a sitting U.S. president buckle? Bush isn’t buckling. He’s doing exactly what he wants, supporting exactly what he very firmly believes in. He gives orders to his people to avoid doing anything that might jeopardize AA, because he himself (along with his whole social and political class) is a devoted believer in and staunch supporter of AA. The sad truth is there is so little difference between a CCR and a Bill & Hillary Democrat it’s actually difficult to tell them apart. I cannot understand the GOP Freeper types who loathe Hillary and love Bush. It’s like loathing Joseph Stalin and loving Lavrenti Beria, loathing Fidel Castro and loving Che Guevara, loathing Pol Pot and loving Khieu Sampan, loathing Adolf Hitler and loving Adolf Eichmann. I don’t get it—I just do not get it. About politicians thinking they have to buckle, by the way, the political career so far of Tom Tancredo shows it’s not even remotely necessary. He’s never swerved on immigration, never wavered once, not for so much as one second, and was re-elected this last time with a 60-40 advantage, if I’m not mistaken—imagine a twenty-point landslide for an immigration reformer in a relatively liberal state like Colorado! He pulled it off by being honest and principled, not by buckling, which should be a lesson to others with political ambitions. 17
Posted by jonjayray on July 07, 2005, 07:29 AM | # “Conservative pundits are the ones who take strong stands against AA, the politicians always buckle” I think that sums it up. Politicians can only ever be Left-leaning or Right-leaning. To maximize their vote they all have be centrists essentially. And some nods to Leftist causes always come into that even from people like Howard and GWB 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 07, 2005, 08:43 AM | # “To maximize their vote they all have be centrists essentially. And some nods to Leftist causes always come into that even from people like Howard and GWB” (—JJR, 11:29 AM) As far as immigration goes, John, what Bush is doing does not amount to “giving some nods to leftist causes to maximize his vote”: Steve Sailerhas shown time and again Bush would maximize his vote way more by ending open borders with Mexico than by stubbornly insisting on its continuation, since the number of votes he’d gain thereby from fed-up whites would vastly exceed the number he’d lose from Mexicans and pro-race-replacement white voters. Bush is not doing this out of a felt need to “give a nod to leftist causes.” Bush is a pro-open-borders CCR and Tranzi who does not view nation-states as legitimate entities wherever there’s a buck to be made by Wall Street and Big Business—the needs of the latter two come first in his mind, so Big-Business profits temporarily garnered by importing slave-wage Third-World workers justify wiping whole traditional populations off the map without batting an eye. This entire area of public policy is one of many where the standard left-right division breaks down. Bush is as much a radical leftist as a conservative. In fact he’s neither. I have my own nomenclature: Normal and Degenerate (no need to ask which category I put Bush in, I trust ...). What you’re seeing is an alliance between Wall-Street/Big-Business and Marxism on the one hand against the common people on the other. We’ve got to overthrow it because one of its aims is extinguishing white people and that is no joke: that is actually—no joke—one of its deadly-serious aims and it’s going to do it if we let it. In opposing this enemy, failure, as the saying goes, is not an option. One more time: THEY - AIM - TO - EXTINGUISH - WHITE - PEOPLE, or the effective, for-all-practical-purposes equivalent thereof. How do we know they do? Because “Who says A must say B,” as James Burnham used to point out ... and they keep saying A ... 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 07, 2005, 09:00 AM | # That Vdare.com article by Peter Gadiel which I linked in my comment above, by the way—Jobs Americans Won’t Do? An Open Letter To President George W. Bush —is worth a read. It’s not technical at all but is pure truth straight from the heart, a very effective piece, I found, which shows Bush up to be what he is, a piece of garbage. 20
Posted by Zippy on July 07, 2005, 12:58 PM | # What a naive comment. The only aim of the Left is powerr What a naive comment. See, I can make gratuitous assertions too. I suppose there are people (of all sorts) who want money or power just so they can fill a hot tub with it and bask, with no actual motivations, plans, or intentions about what to do with that power. The most interesting psychological question about the MR blog is why does its most prolific contributor work incessantly to avoid understanding leftism as what it truly is, an ideological pursuit of a particular understanding of individual freedom and equal rights? 21
Posted by Mark Richardson on July 07, 2005, 07:18 PM | # Nicely put, Zippy. I also think Fred has it essentially right. If affirmative action had mass popular support, then yes it might be understandable for a Howard or Bush to accept it out of political pragmatism. But let’s face it. If Howard had simply said “Men and women are different and we shouldn’t be surprised if there are more male engineers and female teachers”, this would not have led to popular outrage amongst the electorate. Yes, some of the left would have jumped up and down, but they constantly attack Howard anyway. So Howard is not supporting affirmative action in order to give a necessary “nod to leftist causes”. He supports it because at some level he has accepted the liberal presuppositions underlying affirmative action. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on July 08, 2005, 06:58 AM | # I wonder if there isn’t a deal of talking past eachother going on here between Mark and John. Certainly, leftism is, as Zippy puts it so succinctly, “an ideological pursuit of a particular understanding of individual freedom and equal rights”. I am happy to ascribe rationality to leftists (or liberals - don’t mind which). Surely it is important to recognise that our foe is intelligent and capable of reasoning. But the human condition is such that intellect readily follows the contours of the heart, often with cunning and disguise. The first cause of cleverness is self-deceit. The question arises, then, as to why leftists (or liberals!) deceive themselves. Answer: because their true motives are emotional, not intellectual. Leftism is an intellectual-political “out-world” response to an emotional, inner-world dilemma. John has studied that dilemma and come to his conclusions. I’m thinking on the issue still, though I realised long ago that there had to be an overall explanation as to why leftists attack the right on moral grounds and the right questions the left’s sanity! 23
Posted by Zippy on July 09, 2005, 10:32 AM | # The question arises, then, as to why leftists (or liberals!) deceive themselves. Answer: because their true motives are emotional, not intellectual. There are two possible approaches to dealing with something that is objectively in error. One is to attack the motives of the people making the error, and the other is to critique the error itself. John Ray is fixated on the former to such an extent that he denies even the existence of the latter. To John Ray the error is the psychological motive. Next entry: The Malayan experience of Chinese immigration Previous entry: Loss of culture in England |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Mark Richardson on July 06, 2005, 06:27 AM | #
It’s true that the word liberal is used in different ways.
Still, I think it’s possible to use the word consistently. It should be used to refer to people who believe that the aim of politics is to maximise individual liberty of will.
John thinks that this doesn’t work because the left-wing of politics opposes such individual liberty.
I think, though, that John has read the left incorrectly. It’s true that the left is more willing than the right to use coercion to achieve its goals, but the aim is always some kind of individual “liberation”, whether it be the liberation of individual will from the constraints of class (Marxism), gender (feminism), the state (anarchism), sexuality (queer theory) or race.
John also thinks that the right-wing can’t be defined in terms of liberty, because the right-wing parties accept the constraints of human nature.
Again, I think John has misread the right-wing parties here. Which mainstream right-wing party is willing to accept, for example, the legitimacy in politics of natural differences between men and women?
None of them do. If there are more male engineers than female ones, the right-wing parties don’t calmly announce that this is because of differences in the natures of men and women.
Instead, the disparity is seen as a gender inequality which it is the responsibility of government to overcome. The only difference between right and left is that the right usually argues for “voluntary” remedial measures such as special scholarships for women, whereas the left is happy to more coercively set official quotas.