The contradictions of liberalism
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:57 am
"Liberal" has become a dirty word in the U.S. In Canada and the U.K, it has become associated with a political party (often an unsuccessful one). But in the U.S, the right wingers castigate "libtards" and the progressives think liberals are weak, mamby pambies with no convictions.
I disagree. "Progressive" has always smacked of a doctrinaire, authoritative view of "progress". We must all see "progress" in the same way, and toe the line when it comes to the methods of achieving it. The word (if not the movement) makes me envision jack boots, progressing in unison toward the glowing goal.
"Liberal", on the other hand, implies an open-minded generosity (based on the meaning of the word). Why liberals have been bullied into avoiding the term escapes me.
The problem with liberalism is that its basic philosophy suggests, nay requires, certain contradictions. The key values of political liberalism are
1) Freedom
2) Individual rights
3) Justice
4) Fairness
Some of the many contradictions in include:
1) Many "rights' limit freedom. Property rights, for example, do nothing but limit the freedom of non-owners vis a vis the property.
2) Justice is often unfair. Justice suggests each person be given his deserts. Fairness on the other hand suggests each person be given a fair (or at least adequate) share.
What can be done? Obviously, compromise, which is anathema to the far left and far right.
The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.
I posted this after reading the following New Yorker article, by Adam Gopnik, who is an art critic, not a philosopher, but who poses interesting questions. Here's a link:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024 ... liberalism
I disagree. "Progressive" has always smacked of a doctrinaire, authoritative view of "progress". We must all see "progress" in the same way, and toe the line when it comes to the methods of achieving it. The word (if not the movement) makes me envision jack boots, progressing in unison toward the glowing goal.
"Liberal", on the other hand, implies an open-minded generosity (based on the meaning of the word). Why liberals have been bullied into avoiding the term escapes me.
The problem with liberalism is that its basic philosophy suggests, nay requires, certain contradictions. The key values of political liberalism are
1) Freedom
2) Individual rights
3) Justice
4) Fairness
Some of the many contradictions in include:
1) Many "rights' limit freedom. Property rights, for example, do nothing but limit the freedom of non-owners vis a vis the property.
2) Justice is often unfair. Justice suggests each person be given his deserts. Fairness on the other hand suggests each person be given a fair (or at least adequate) share.
What can be done? Obviously, compromise, which is anathema to the far left and far right.
The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.
I posted this after reading the following New Yorker article, by Adam Gopnik, who is an art critic, not a philosopher, but who poses interesting questions. Here's a link:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024 ... liberalism