The Threat from the Illiberal Left
economist.com>The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America “liberal” has come to include an illiberal left.
I had been one of the illiberal progressive in the past. I feel the illiberalness comes from a sense of danger. It had felt like the world was turning upside down, and I was morally obligated to fight for happiness and safety. A very Hobbesian "a war of all against all" feeling.
I got out of the hole only when I realized that sustainable happiness can be attained without sacrificing others. It was really a big, life changing recognition.
The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident.
Identity politics IS a demand for equality, based on the recognition that certain groups experience inequality in ways specific to them. For example, Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. A plea for that to be considered and rectified is not a desire for "special treatment," and in fact if it were to be changed that would almost certainly improve the United State's abysmal maternal healthcare FOR ALL WOMEN across the board. A rising tide lifts all boats, no?
> Black women are 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death.
Yes, but only as a statistical category. Skin color is not causal.
Rich black women are not 3-4 times as likely to die from pregnancy complications nor are they twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death.
Similarly black immigrants have statistically different outcomes from black people who grew up in America on most measures.
It’s not that the problems aren’t real. It’s not that they aren’t a consequence of racism.
It’s that more racism is not a solution.
>The problem with identity politics is that no progress is made. You are never going to convince another identity that yours should get special treatment. Only when a group demands equal rights do we make progress, because there is never any good arguments why one group shouldn't have the same rights as others. Equality remains self evident.
Correct. It's the demand for special treatment and/or allowance for special behavior not tolerated in/allowed for others (and, conversely, not allowing others to receive the same special treatment) that causes resentment.
"Part of left's problem is it expects/demands blacks/hispanics to vote on ethnic basis but is appalled when whites do" (<https://twitter.com/JYDenham/status/796345533124186113>)
Here is more evidence in that direction. NPR is now taking a position against freedom of speech and individual rights.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...
>> The best way to navigate disruptive change in a divided world is through a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets and limited government.
Woa, hold horses! "Open markets and limited government"? That's libertarianism not liberalism.
As sooome kind of liberal, I parse "open markets" as "no rights for workers, no-holds-barred environmental destruction by industry"; and whenever I read "limited government" I hear "less power to voters". That is not liberalism.
I don't know what liberalism is, though I know it when I see it, but I'm sure that the highest ideals associated with liberalism should be humanitarian ideals, not economic ideals. Human rights legislation, free education and healthcare, policies driven by quality of life indicators, that sounds like liberalism. Free market economics and industry deregulation? Not so much.
The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is. I guess the idea was knocking down feudalism would make everything liquid and fast converging? Orthodox economics = equilibrium theory only bakes in the problem by definition.
We now know empiricly that this stuff is not true. This pulls out the rug from under so many of Liberalism's precepts, and yet Liberalism hasn't adjusted.
> The fundamental problem of Liberalism is that it thinks the world is far more stateless than it actually is.
This is vague and untestable. You could literally make this claim against any ideology and we wouldn’t be able to ascertain a truth value.
What part? That liberalism assumes more statelessness than reality? Or that this is it's fundamental issue?
For the former, we have tons of evidence:
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/...
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w289...
I recall something also about the persistence of Roman settlement patterns in France vs Britain proving to be a disadvantage in the early modern era when ocean-based commerce became so important.
Whether it's "equal opportunity vs equal outcome", liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold. When there's a belief that competition could sustain itself, we're simply requirements the needs of equilibrium theory back into our assumptions.
Rather than being elastic and in balance, the world is much more plastic and constantly rebalancing, with the former masking the latter. There is still much of liberalism to be admired, but it should be saved for the "victory lap". Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.
> liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically.
Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing.
> When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold.
It does assume that it is in people’s general interests to have some kind of trustworthy system of agreements.
As for ‘other people having to join the fold’. Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP.
> Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.
This is a complete non-sequitur from your prior statements.
The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.
> Liberalism makes no such assumption. It simply makes the assumption that less liberal systems will be even worse at producing human flourishing.
I think that is a modern conservative widening of the goalposts. They were more confident in the past. Such week claims are not going to save liberalism so I suggest a different tack.
> Liberalism makes no such assumption. If you’re referring to the US expecting China to liberalize, that has nothing to do with an assumption of liberalism. It was just a misunderstanding of the nature of Maoism and the CCP.
I am not referring to that in particular. I am referring to the narrative behind 2nd-wave colonialism in general, and since then IMF / World Bank insisting on free trade, etc. In a domesticate setting, education is viewed similarly to clean up the bitter deluded masses, "science will defeat religion" type views. Liberalism has always been about taming the wild passions of a vast illiberal other.
And to be clear, I would be perfectly happy if education brought patience, science defeated religion, etc. etc., but again empirical reality doesn't make one so hopeful.
> The notion of “worlds that need fixing” is Utopianism by another name, and is the perennial justification for the authoritarianism.
Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either.
Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology. Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is too tepid and will not save it.
> Liberalism has always had a slight utopianist inclination, be it whig history, "the arc of history bends towards Justice", etc. Reform, not revolution, but certainly not accepting the world as it is either.
Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means.
> Again, I think you are imparting a modern conservative spin on the ideology.
No, you are reading that in.
> Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it.
This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
> Thinking that people can improve things or solve problems over time is not what Utopianism means.
But it's important it converges pretty nicely. That arbitrage slowly lifts the standard of living in all places until past colonializism and slavery no longer matter is fundamental to modern liberalism, hence https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...
> No, you are reading that in.
We'll we can agree to disagree here, but let me first clarify what you do think. If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? Do you think e.g. John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russel would agree with you?
> > Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it.
> This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.
I am not stating that liberalism isn't good enough. I am not even stating that liberalism isn't ambitious enough "objectively". I am saying that sort of liberalism isn't ambitious enough to maintain popular support. Right or wrong, it will die as the increasingly restless, and sure, illiberal, masses, seek other things.
Neoliberalism, was surprisingly successful saying we cannot have certain nice things and narrowing the overtone window (again, I say that independently of whether neoliberalism's claims are true), but it is unsustainable.
> If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK?
How is this question relevant?
I assume we agree with what liberalism is, the question is what liberalism does.
Saying the latter doesn't matter, is assuming liberalism will be judged by a liberal audience. But that's cheating. Most people are illiberal, more than you, more than me. Liberalism needs to survive their judgement too.
What you have written is about how you are judging liberalism.
You are saying it is insufficient and you are proposing that the criteria for that insufficiency is that has not eliminated intergenerational wealth.
Your position is understood.
How I judge liberalism doesn't matter. I don't call the shots. I am asking you to think about how most people judge liberalism. It's not popular, which you can see in e.g. opinion polls on various things. Can an undemocratic liberalism hold fast? Is it even liberalism at that point?
To be clear, there are plenty of ways we can improve on the American status quo that don't ditch liberalism --- such as constitutional reform for far more democratic voting systems. But I fear they are very unlikely because by the time we had the political will for such huge steps, there will be a lots and lots of discontent and the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.
(In that example, I think constitutional reform is scary to many people because they think that will open the floodgates to eviscerating their favor parts of the Bill of Rights.)
> How I judge liberalism doesn't matter. I don't call the shots. I am asking you to think about how most people judge liberalism.
That’s not accurate. You are making claims about liberalism.
You have no privileged access to what ‘most people’ think, nor do you have a time machine that makes your predictions about the future special.
These are simply rhetorical devices you are using to imaginatively express your own thoughts.
Neither the left or the right tries to be liberal as Milton intended, they both are not and unfortunately real classical liberals are long gone in politics. Milton and Hayek warned us about the government power grab that we’re seeing more and more today around the world.
> government power grab
Strange. I don't recall them warning about the twisted newspeak of "public/private partnership" or the capitalist capture of government meant by the phrase.