Toward a Liberal Liberalism
I am a big, big fan of this post of Will Wilkinson’s, which does a great job of spelling out a more committedly pluralist alternative to the “illiberal liberalism” that Noah (and Ross) recently discerned in Damon Linker, and which I’ve lately been aiming some fire at as well. Here’s Will, who is decidedly not being hyperbolic (I can just see him down there on the mat):
… I’m a committed liberal pluralist, and I think freedom of conscience and state neutrality are bedrock virtues of a just society. At the same time, I think that a politics that takes the fact of pluralism seriously is perfectly consistent with vigorous culture war. Indeed, I think pluralist democracies demand culture war (call it “public reason” if you want to be fanciful). I think crazy conservative talk radio is a healthy part of pluralist culture war, and I think the attempt to whittle away the cultural prestige of people with crazy religion-saturated politics is also a healthy part of healthy pluralist culture war. I will go to the mat to defend the freedom of Pentecostals and John Birchers to do their things. And I will go to the mat to defend the idea that ours would be a better society if individuals come to be so embarrassed by Pentecostalism and John Birchism — by the ideas — that these communities of belief die peaceful natural deaths.
These deaths are decidedly not, however, to be achieved by the laying down of some predefined standard of “neutrality” to which any acceptable public argument is required to conform; indeed, Will seems to think that any such standard is bound to be an illiberal sham:
Cultures become what they are through a process of selection, and this is a process we help along by arguing with one another. The reason there are so many meta-arguments about what we are going to count as good arguments–as good reasons, as considerations worth taking seriously–is that once we come to a broad social consensus on standards, some factions in the culture wars are left defenseless and end up an impotent doomed remnant.
This pretty much gets it right, right? Recalling the Millman Desiderata, what we get is a liberalism that is at once more self-confident (because it’s willing to wait for its own commitments – to such things as “reason, science, the utility of the extended liberal order, and the authority of the liberal moral sentiments”, to use Will’s list – to prevail in a no-holds-barred battle) and much more humble (because it doesn’t claim the authority to let anything other than small-d democratic consensus choose the victor or set the terms of the fight). We just let things evolve, baby, and trust that selection will do its work. Or as Ron Bailey put it a while back in response to the Vatican’s claim that the Church has the “right to intervene” in matters pertaining to the sacredness of human life:
Intervene? The church as the right to try to intervene, and others have the right to prevent its intervention.
Or at least they have the right to try.
Did the great defender of liberty, Will Wilkinson, have one damn thing to say in defense of America’s most distinguished man of science, James D. Watson, back in 2007?
— Steve Sailer · Feb 18, 06:42 AM · #
I’ll take Balkanization (and Will’s original post on liberaltarians)before I’ll buy into negotiating with the church or social conservatives over
freedom. If the church insists on taking a place at the table they can earn it through taxes.
— Cascadian · Feb 18, 09:47 AM · #
lol….NOW you accept Evo Theory of Culture?
Then accept legislation by judial fiat as a JUST and LIBERAL part of cultural evolution, and acknowledge that Watson and Murray and Lynn are RIGHT.
I agree with Casacadian.
If churches want political clout let them pay taxes.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 02:07 PM · #
judicial fiat.
And what about the separation of church and state?
The Founders saw you comin’ from hundreds of years away, at least Thom Jefferson did.
His understanding of human nature was excellent.
Poseurs.
“I will go to the mat to defend the freedom of Pentecostals and John Birchers to do their things.”
Me too. But that isnt the problem.
The problem is the socons want to use mob rule to impose their religious mores on other citizens.
The problem is the socons want to shape our our culture with their particular values through legislation.
And until you can acknowledge that, John, you can’t claim the mantle of liberalism, and neither can Will, and neither can Reihan.
You can only be illiberal liberals.
/spit
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 02:23 PM · #
I can’t speak for what is happening in the USA, but as a libertarian I grieve for my own country, Britain, where our Big Brother state increasingly keeps data on its citizens and watches us by spy cameras – as the writer George Orwell so eloquently prophesied. Already, there are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain, about one for every 14 people, according to the UK Government’s onwn information commissioner Richard Thomas. Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising. Then there is the vexed question of the BBC, once a great upholder of freedom, which now adopts the shrill, proscriptive liberalism of the age and constantly pedals the Labour Government’s secular morality and politically correct maxims. The UK, or accurately speaking England, might be the Mother of Parliaments (John Bright, 1865) but our country and its establishment in the public secor and media are infected by a most unnattractive way of thinking and acting, which I can best describe as ‘Liberal Fascism’. This worries me greatly.
— Sam Brady · Feb 18, 02:23 PM · #
Liberty for me, but not for thee.
/ghetto snap@ John
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 02:35 PM · #
But isn’t there a distinction to be drawn between churches and church-going persons? Mightn’t the latter be entitled to be politically active in ways that the former are not?
— John · Feb 18, 02:43 PM · #
Sure church-going persons can be politically active.
But they are still illiberal, as long as they seek to force their religious values on other citizens.
Just like you are, John, as long as you make gimped apologia for them.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:13 PM · #
America’s most distinguished man of science, James D. Watson
— Freddie · Feb 18, 03:13 PM · #
You were doing fine until that last sentence, Matoko; more content and less name-calling is usually a wise approach to dialogue.
First off, I don’t think that religious folks actually do this (i.e., “force religious VALUES”) nearly as much as you and many others seem to think they do. And secondly, do you think it’s illiberal to seek to force liberal values on other citizens?
— John · Feb 18, 03:24 PM · #
Yes, Freddie?
Do you have some problem with that statement of fact?
Back on topic.
Sidereal said this at the League.
“And the context which matters, to bring it around, is the one surrounding Sullivan’s label of ‘Christianist’ which broadly describes a movement to ensconce (particularly fundamentalist) Christian theology and mores into American law and conduct.”
Sums it up nicely.
Christianists are illiberal by definition, and any party that includes them is illiberal by definition.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:27 PM · #
“nearly as much as you and many others seem to think they do”
If they do it ONE TIME they are illiberal.
Prop 8.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:32 PM · #
And secondly, do you think it’s illiberal to seek to force liberal values on other citizens?
No.
A good example is Yearning for Zion.
The state forced liberal values on the FLDS in the interest of the child-citizens held in servitude.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:44 PM · #
And there we have it. Liberalism: Learn to Love It, or We Take Your Children Away!!
If that's not illiberal, I don't know what is ...
— John · Feb 18, 03:47 PM · #
Ah, the old “Liberals say they are tolerant, but why are they intolerant of people who want to destroy them and the society they want to create? They are such hypocrites!” line of argument. That got old a long time ago, guys.
— Mark in Houston · Feb 18, 03:54 PM · #
You accuse me of pigeonholing and not seein’ shades of grey.
There are no shades of grey here.
This is a boring argument because the answer is obvious, even if you cannot accept it.
There is simply no way to recast your dying party as the party of freedom as long as a large chunk of it is intent on denying freedom to others.
Now….examples of interesting arguments are whether information disappears in black holes, or why did homo sapiens sapiens develop art or if higgs bosons exist.
I am much more nuanced there.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:57 PM · #
Okfine, John.
Are children citizens?
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 03:59 PM · #
Or are they property?
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 04:00 PM · #
I’m not sure what party you’re talking about, but the GOP ain’t mine.
And children are citizens. That clearly doesn’t mean, though, that they can be forcibly taken away from their families on trumped-up charges of child abuse.
— John · Feb 18, 04:05 PM · #
Yes it does, under our legal system.
Because our legal system also allowed underaged girls to be consigned in spirit marriages to virtual polygamists.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 04:10 PM · #
I’m not sure what party you’re talking about, but the GOP ain’t mine.
Oh, pardon.
You are not a conservative?
My bad.
;)
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 04:13 PM · #
No, I’m just not a Republican.
As to the LDS raid:
Translation: forcibly taking children away from their families on trumped-up charges of child abuse is illiberal and wrong.
— John · Feb 18, 04:22 PM · #
Not from the point of view of the child.
Where children are involved we should err on the side of the defenseless.
I disagree with the courts finding as did several of the judiciary.
Your argument seems to be that children are somehow…lesser citizens.
Oh…I forgot…..you only care about teh Unborn.
Once they are born they are they are their parents chattel…..just not before.
;)
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 04:53 PM · #
“But isn’t there a distinction to be drawn between churches and church-going persons? Mightn’t the latter be entitled to be politically active in ways that the former are not?”
Of course they are. They just might do better in different polities.
The FLD stuff is just sick. If there’s verifiable child abuse then deal with it. Rounding up a bunch of polygamists and shipping their kids off, makes as much sense as doing no knock drug raids with tanks.
Of course, the Left can be most illiberal, look at motoko. I believe that the left and right should be allowed to have their own places. If you’re a gay slut, you should probably stay out of the South. If you’re fresh off the amen pew, you should stay off the coasts and Portland in particular.
— Cascadian · Feb 18, 05:04 PM · #
And actually….the abuse situation occurred because the polygs could skate under constitutional law with spirit marriages. I would argue that the State of Texas got what they were after….legal purview into the compound.
Now there will be no more spirit marriages of 13 yearolds to 50 yearolds, and no more “exiling” of teenaged boys.
That was a split decision….so….I refuse to accept your argument of illiberal liberty.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 05:04 PM · #
Cascadian….are you unaware that polygamy is illegal in America?
You just affirmed my position that the FLDS were criminals and probable child-abusers.
Have I ever claimed to be liberal? I’m scient.
There is nothing liberal about the tyranny of the genes.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 05:08 PM · #
John, our disagreement comes down to a conflict of liberties….the right of the children not to be abused vs their parents right to abuse them.
That is something I have come to dislike about conservatives….you eat your young.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 05:21 PM · #
Motoko: “Cascadian….are you unaware that polygamy is illegal in America?”
It’s also illegal to peel an orange in a hotel in Palm Springs.
“I’m scient.” So, you’re an automaton. Well that makes things easy. You have faulty programming.— Cascadian · Feb 18, 05:33 PM · #
Okay, I’m done feeding the trolls. Cascadian, you’re of course right in what you say about “different polities” – as you know, I’ve written quite a lot about the importance of federalism/subsidiarity/etc.
Note, though, that Will’s position isn’t that the positions of religious conservatives are a-okay, but only that they shouldn’t be overruled by liberal fiat; his point, at least as I understand it, is that liberal values are a particular sort of values, and they deserve (and: are able) to win out in the public sphere simply via the power of persuasion. I think we’d both agree that this is a more authentically liberal approach than one in which the acceptable terms of debate are preordained, no?
— John · Feb 18, 05:39 PM · #
Polygamy is a crime.
And often a crime against children
Doctors are required to report suspected abuse.
So are social workers.
But Yearning for Zion was a closed society.
Children have citizen rights, and in a case of suspected abuse, their rights trump the rights of the abusers.
John, I dissent.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 05:46 PM · #
that they shouldn’t be overruled by liberal fiat
Aye, there’s the rub.
Judicial fiat is there to trump mob rule.
Like I said, the Founders saw you coming.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 05:48 PM · #
I think that there is a place for open an honest debate. I also think that there is a place for the choir. What I disagree with in the post is the concept that compromise is going to come out with the best result. In some cases this may be true, but in others you’re going to get one size fits no one. Until there are places that theocrats and libertines can both be themselves, and allowed to fail on their own, I see little room for rapprochement.
— Cascadian · Feb 18, 07:13 PM · #
Cascadian…..the difference is…..the theocrats want to tell the libertines what to do.
As a libertine, I don’t give a rat’s ass what theocrats do in their churches to other ADULT CONSENTING theocrats.
It is when they force themselves into the public square, or when they abuse or oppress other citizens against their will, that I object.
Until that stops, there can be no rapprochement.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 10:32 PM · #
Here’s the deal matoko. You also have to give the theocrats a place to be. I don’t think the compromise thing works in the extreme cases. The libertines need a place where they can frolic amongst themselves, and the theocrats likewise need a place where they can create a society that honors and protects their values and the culture that they would like. That would mean for instance, overturning Roe. As long as both sides prioritize being able to get on their high horse and dictate culture to each other, nothing will change. The country would be infinitely more healthy if it allowed for a bit more true diversity.
— Cascadian · Feb 18, 11:24 PM · #
Nope.
Cascadian, we already had that.
It was called segregation.
We just let things evolve, baby, and trust that selection will do its work.
The problem, John, baby, is that you can’t just pick and choose the supporting bits of Evolutionary Theory of Culture.
You have to swallow the whole thing.
Open wide.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 11:34 PM · #
You also have to give the theocrats a place to be.
They had a place….it was called Yearning For Zion.
See how that turned out?
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 11:38 PM · #
I’m in favor of segregation in some instances. This would be one. I’ve had it with negotiating everything with the South. The NW would be a dream if we could create our own policies free of the rest of the nation. You want to keep playing footsies with the Jesus Campers, you run right on a head. Just do it from your own turf. I have no interest in trading in my freedoms to maintain a strangle hold over others so that you can get on a soap box. If you need to prosteletize and spew rants, you can move to Mobile.
— Cascadian · Feb 18, 11:48 PM · #
That would mean for instance, overturning Roe.
Step away from the crack pipe, dude.
Have you read Richard Morgan’s Thirteen?
Just such an earthly paradise as you propose exists in the scifi future.
The Confederated States of America……also known as Jesusland.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 11:50 PM · #
I’m in favor of segregation in some instances
Wow……tough titty for the citizens that fall under theocratic rule.
And they call Sailer a racist.
— matoko_chan · Feb 18, 11:54 PM · #
Matoko, did you see this story?
— Daniel Dare · Feb 19, 06:26 AM · #
Yup.
Nebraska just criminalized all forms of estrogen based birthcontrol, any pill or device that prevents implantation of a diploid egg. I guess presribing doctors will be clapped into jail, and the souless murdering biyotches that slaughter teh Innocent Unborn (ie, undifferentiated cell clumps) will be thrown in prison to await trial for murder.
There yah go, Cascadian.
Jesusland.
— matoko_chan · Feb 19, 03:20 PM · #
“Life-at-conception”, even more than refusal to accept ToE, and the negative correlation between religious belief and IQ, graphically illustrates the underlying IQ gap between the left and right.
Just not bright enough to get it.
lol.
— matoko_chan · Feb 19, 03:25 PM · #
There is, of course, the “community standards” prong of the Miller Test. When we send a DVD to Utah, or Oklahoma, or Cincinnati we do so as a conscious act of civil disobedience.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 19, 03:34 PM · #
Also…..does this mean that all embryos currently preserved in cryostasis get to be implanted in their (possibly unwilling) host wombs?
lol, Handmaids Tale here we come.
— matoko_chan · Feb 19, 03:41 PM · #
Matoko,
Re Nebraska & contraception bans.
Don’t know if I ever told you this story. I know this guy, used to live in Northern Ireland, back in the days when the Republic had bans on contraception. So he and a mate used to smuggle boxes of condoms across the Irish border in a delivery van.
Says he never got caught. But he used to get a lot of funny remarks from pharmacies in Ulster, when he’d go in and try to buy a box of 144 packets of condoms. In reality it was a roaring trade, and everybody knew what it was for.
— Daniel Dare · Feb 19, 05:20 PM · #