Man and Liberalism

[a_majoor]

Jerry Pournelle has some very interesting things to say about political philosophy. This from a recent post at his blog "Chaos Manor"

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view376.html

Subject: Jingoism

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide."

Don't often say this to you, but I find this smacks of "jingoism" and doesn't credit much that is good about liberals.

In response, I'd suggest:

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."

However my favorite saying about conservatism was often said by my father but belonged to Twain.

"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals"

M

  It deserves an answer, but in order to make an answer, we need to ask some questions, chief among them, just who are these dead radicals I am supposed blindly to worship? Marx? Lenin? Kropotkin? Proudhon? Robespierre? St. Juste? I have studied them all, and I would not suppose myself guilty of blind worship of any of them, or of any other other dead radical. Indeed, the whole notion of conservatism, I would have thought, centers around the rejection of ideologues and ideology. If I must choose someone blindly to worship and I am confined to human thinkers unenlightened by revelation, I would try to get out of the obligation; but at utter need I would I suppose choose Aristotle, Burke, and pay some attention to Cicero and Hobbes. Montesquieu would get into the act, as would John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and George Washington. Not an ideologue in the pack, I fear, although John Adams surely is radical enough for anyone. Mad Dog Adams as King George III was fond of calling him. But in fact I deny the charge: I blindly worship no human.

I do fear man and mankind. I am persuaded that Hobbes had the right of it, and every newspaper confirms it. He is not so much read now, but I can recommend him to your attention. See http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html for a beginning, and think upon this passage, in which he describes life in a state of nature, in which there is no law or government, and all are at war with all:

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. "

  When I was a lad, such things were far away, and we were certain that universal progress would soon eliminate such conditions everywhere. Now, I fear, I would need no more than ten minutes' drive to find a part of my city where such conditions prevail, and under a thousand dollars would buy me an airline ticket to entire nations where this is a fairly good description of daily life. Now it is true enough that I live in a village in the midst of a city, and in our village we do not need Hobbes' Leviathan to protect us from each other. We do need some protection from outsiders, and I note with some irony that during the riots in part of our city, my very liberal neighbors (my precinct has a very liberal voting record) formed a militia and asked me to loan them weapons wherewith to seal off the village from outsiders; outsiders being identified, alas, by their skin color. When order was restored there was reversion to racial equality. I did not join that militia, nor did I arm it, but I have since heard stories from black taxi and minivan drivers of how Laurel Canyon was closed even to the SuperShuttle if the driver happened to be black...

But I do not blindly and in fear worship Hobbes, nor do I know anyone in the conservative ranks who blindly and in fear worships anyone. That aphorism is a canard, and not a very descriptive one.

Let us look at another point: ""Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." 

I would dispute that as well. Most of the Liberal program was brought about by judges and imposed on the people: liberalism seems more to be government of the Benighted by the Enlightened.  Name most liberal achievements and then specify the statute that enacted them; you will find few. The Voting Rights Acts, which did more to transform the nation and break color boundaries than all the court decisions put together, were sponsored by liberals and they can claim Hubert Humphrey as a champion; but they were hardly radical, and most liberals preferred to work through the courts rather than through the legislative process. "Trust of the people tempered by prudence" translates as "rule of the people so long as they follow the advice of their betters." But I would argue that the Voting Rights Acts, constitutional on their face, were more effective and more important than Brown vs. Board and all the other court decisions based on emanations from penumbras. Leaving power to the states and enforcing voting rights seems to be a far better way than court decrees, management of school districts by courts desiring integration but getting worse segregation instead, and lawsuits which enrich the lawyers to the detriment of any sense of community. No. Modern liberalism is based on a profound distrust of the people, and the only ones who may exercise "prudence" are in fact those who act from ideology, not prudence at all: did anyone really suppose that many of the crazy acts of judges in ruling local communities were actually based on a prudential consideration of the possible consequences> Liberals don't trust the people. They despise the masses, and they hate the notion of popular sovereignty.

"Distrust of the people tempered by fear" is a more accurate description of conservatism; of Adams as opposed to Jefferson and Paine; of profound distrust, aye, fear, of rule by the mob and government by opinion poll and plebiscite, rule by sound bite and photo op. I will plead guilty to distrust of the people tempered by fear. I will plead guilty to desire for the stability of law and rule of law rather than rule by whim and opinion poll. And I certainly plead guilty to the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and since different groups of people consent to different powers, I would break that power into as many jurisdictions as I possibly could, and count on commerce and travel and limited national powers to weld all those jurisdictions into a single nation for the purpose of national defense. But that is hardly the liberal way.

As to "jingoism" I wonder if you know much about the origin of the term? It came from a silly song in favor of Britain taking the Turkish side in one of the imperialistic wars of the 19th Century. "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we've got the guns, we've got the ships, we've got the money too."  I am not sure how it applies to my quoting an aphorism about the decline of the West.

But I suppose it does apply: the liberal is terrified that he might be accused of thinking his culture "better" than anyone else's. All cultures will be equal, and the Melting Pot will not be applied. We shall have cultural relativism, and we certainly shall never defend Western Civilization as worthy of defense. But in that case, "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide," is no more than an accurate observation.

We can debate whether all cultures are equal, and whether it was right for England to impose its customs on foreign lands. The most often quoted case is from Sir Charles Napier when governor of one of the states of India on the subject of suttee (the practice of burning the widow along with her deceased husband):

"It is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and hang them. Build your funeral pyre and beside it my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your national custom - then we shall follow ours."

Now I will listen to arguments that Imperialism is not a great idea, and that the Brits had no mandate of heaven to go to India and impose their laws and culture on that land (although I will argue that the Indians are much the better off for that British experiment in world order); but I am not so prepared to admit the notion of suttee as a cultural practice to be imported to the United States. I do note that the liberals were perfectly happy to send the United States armed forces to the Balkans to impose their notions of propriety and decency on that land, with the result that the UN Lords now control much of that territory and rule with all the power of Lords including, as I understand it, what amounts to droits de seigneur over both married and unmarried Serbian women; but perhaps there is some cultural argument from diversity that I do not understand at work here. I do note that most of our foreign adventures have not turned out very well for those left behind, with the notable exceptions of nations we have utterly defeated and rebuilt. We seem to have left Japan in better shape after a few years than we left the Philippines after forty; but that is another argument for another time.

So. I reject your charge of jingoism, and suggest that the liberals are at least as jingoistic as the neo-conservatives. "What is the point of this splendid Army you are always talking about if we can't use it?" was a question asked by Clinton's Secretary of State. My own view is closer to that of Adams, that we are the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our own; and that we should seek not overseas monsters to destroy lest we lose control of our own liberties. Perhaps that too is an argument for another time.

But I have seen no evidence in your letter, nor in my reading of the news, that would cause me to change my opinion:

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide."

Certainly worth a long read and think-over, especially as to why we should desire a limited government.

 

[Gunnar]

I've seen you post on Chaos Manor, and I often reference it myself.  Jerry isn't always right, but he does talk a lot of sense, and tempers that with the knowledge of when his is completely out of his element.

Funny thing is, being Liberal used to mean a wholly different thing than it does now...a liberal education, a liberal thinker all implied an understanding and support of the whole idea of freedom, responsibility and self-reliance.  It has become freedom without responsibility, as provided by the State, or worse, freedom to espouse the ideas you are told to espouse, without critical analysis, in accordance with the State's wishes...God forbid you be Politically Incorrect!

I'm Conservative on my idea of liberalism, and liberal on my conservatism.  Give me the bare minimum standards that everyone can agree on (people shouldn't kill, steal & etc.) and stay the hell out of the rest of it.

 

[paracowboy]

I'm Conservative on my idea of liberalism, and liberal on my conservatism.   Give me the bare minimum standards that everyone can agree on (people shouldn't kill, steal & etc.) and stay the heck out of the rest of it.

there it is.

 

[Infanteer]

gah, I could care about either/or.  Both seem to be boxes to put yourself into, and there are plenty of idiots in both boxes; for every Michael Moore, there is an Ann Coulter.

I like to be a classical liberal - a independent agent that rationalizes what unfolds infront of me.  I can go from there.

 

[a_majoor]

gah, I could care about either/or.   Both seem to be boxes to put yourself into, and there are plenty of idiots in both boxes; for every Michael Moore, there is an Ann Coulter.

I like to be a classical liberal - a independent agent that rationalizes what unfolds infront of me.   I can go from there.

We like spending a lot of times debating definitions; what is an Empire; are the Jihadis Islamofascists; what does Fascism mean.....

As Infanteer points out, lots of people like calling themselves or others by a lable giving it a perjorative meaning, without actually understanding what it means. The use of the term Nazi is often laughable if you know it is the shorthand for German National Socialist Worker's Party (and guess what sorts of people like using Nazi as an insult!)

JEP carrys on the discussion a bit, here is some more about conservatism and libertarianism:

The primary conservative principles are reluctance to try systematic "fixes" whenever problems arise; a thorough disbelief in the notion that every social problem has a "solution" through some government policy or action; and a distrust in leaving things to themselves (which is what distinguishes us from our libertarian friends). As to states rights, I believe in consent of the governed, and the way to have most people governed by laws they consented to is to devolve powers down to as low a level as possible. I do not begrudge my libertarian friends the right to form communities governed by a very few Draconian laws, nor of my religious friends to form communities that censor what is sold in bookstores and which fine stores for being open on Sundays. I would not care to live in either of those communities. My own preference would be a community that frowns on a number of vulgar public acts and may even have laws against some of them, but doesn't get around to enforcing most; and that censors what is put on public display for sale, but doesn't much mind what is sold in the back room of the book store. But then I describe Studio City for most of the time I have lived here.

I don't care if the Blue Belly Baptists require you to paint your belly button blue every Wednesday afternoon on the grounds that the Great Lord of All has so commanded, and they are enforcing His Will; but I would object to having to live in their community, and I would greatly object to having to live there without knowing about their peculiar rule. Yet I can conceive of many places where I would most decidedly not care to live and to which I would prefer BlueBellyLand. In general my temperament is leave people alone, and if a lot of them want to have religious festivals in the public square, or to leave the lights in City Hall lit in a cross on Christmas Eve, then I certainly will not send the police to stop them. My temperament is to believe things will never be perfect, and that when one attempts to bring about perfection the results are usually not what one wanted; and to prefer the evils I know to new ones. Which doesn't mean I am against technology (look at my record for heaven's sake!) or even against all changes. Just that I suspect technology itself will bring about changes we will have trouble adjusting to, and adding to that the destruction of marriage and the family and the whole notion of the self governing community will not make adjusting to the modern world a lot easier.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Real liberals re-read On liberty every year and regard most of the 20th century (universal suffrage excluded) with horror.

It is possible to be a liberal imperialist.   While believing, absolutely, in the equality (at law) and sovereignty of each person it is quite consistent to believe that some groups (nations) benefit from being governed by othersâ “ the others just happen to look, speak and think rather like I do.   The benefits which accrue to the governed generally spill over to their (less threatened) neighbours and, as a consequence, a little liberal imperialism goes a long way to serving the best interests of good global governance.

Edited to correct careless typo: see below

 

[Cloud Cover]

Modified: see above.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The key to happiness consists in liberalism - neither anxiously obsessing over whether your neighbours share your sensibilities and prejudices, nor forcing them to do so.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I would classify myself as a Conservative Libertarian if that's not too much of a contradiction. To me the greatest damage has been done to our society by those Reform Liberals who have fostered and built a culture of entitlement which doesn't lead to equality but a subtle dependence on the "betters" that Mr. Pournell referred to.

The Liberal Ideologies of freedom and equality have not wrecked our society, in fact they have created it and for the most part they have given the ability for every person in society to rise above (or fall below) his/her happenstance of birth. The real damage is being done by those who set out arbitrary norms, those who try to define equal on a socialist scale instead of a liberal one.

 

[Monsoon]

I would classify myself as a Conservative Libertarian if that's not too much of a contradiction. To me the greatest damage has been done to our society by those Reform Liberals who have fostered and built a culture of entitlement which doesn't lead to equality but a subtle dependence on the "betters" that Mr. Pournell referred to.

The Liberal Ideologies of freedom and equality have not wrecked our society, in fact they have created it and for the most part they have given the ability for every person in society to rise above (or fall below) his/her happenstance of birth. The real damage is being done by those who set out arbitrary norms, those who try to define equal on a socialist scale instead of a liberal one.

"Conservative Libertarian" is a contradiction in terms, of course, but since the nation's only conservative libertarian party once billed itself as the "Reform" party, semantic consistency clearly ain't the movement's strong suit.

It doesn't sound like you're a conservative libertarian, it sounds like you're a liberal who doesn't like the Liberal Party, no?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Liberal Party is not liberal.  To be liberal is to be permissive, something the Liberal Party is not.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I really don't know what I am. Tell me a good story and I'll see if I believe it. I just want them to get their hands out of my pocket and otherwise leave me the f**k alone. I'll keep my money, take care of myself and take my chances. Thank you very much.

 

[Gunnar]

If you believe in the principles of TANSTAAFL and KYFHO, you're a Libertarian.

(There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and Keep Your Hands Off - both abbreviations from science fiction novels).

If you believe in freedom of body, but not of mind, you're liberal. (Abortions yes, porn yes, but hold no views that offend people!)

If you believe that the mind is irrelevant, you're a communist.

If you believe in freedom of mind, but not of body, you're a conservative.  (Make money, be an independent thinker, but No abortion, no porn!)

If you believe that the body is irrelevant and that the state is all, you're a facist.

If you believe that governments are instituted among men to provide the bare minimum, reasonable norms for society of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that freedom of expression, including production and trade is based on the mutual recognition of inalienable rights--you're a Capitalist.

 

[x-grunt]

If you believe in the principles of TANSTAAFL and KYFHO, you're a Libertarian.

etc.

Gunnar, loved your definitions.
You were doing great until you got to "capitalist" - here's mine fwiw:

If you believe in personal prosperity without community responsibility you're a Capitalist.
If you  believe in community responsibility without personal prosperity you're a Socialist.
(If you believe you are owed personal prosperity by the community you're a Member of Parliament.)

 

[Gunnar]

While I argue that my definition is still correct, yours is succinct, and therefore more useful.  Thanks.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Seems to me much of it, as someone pointed out, is just semantics. What in the mainstream is called "conservative" is actually more in tune with classic liberalism than mainstream "liberal" is. I think the distinction is more one of communitarian ethics vs. individualist ethics. The Libs lean to the former while the Cons lean to the latter. Both have good points, but neither is absolutely right (as evidenced by the screw ups and shortcomings that become painfully obvious when either side is actually in a position to enact policy).

That being said, I think that to say "Conservatism" (read: neo-liberalism) is without ideology is ridiculous. The foundations of much of conservative policy lie in the ideology of classic liberalism, not Hobbesian quasi-nihilism. His (Hobbes's) fanatical deference to the sovereign on all matters kind of conflicts with the "conservative" preference of laissez-faire, minimalist government. In that way, Hobbes was, I think, the ultimate in traditional conservatives. I think Pournelle is a great writer (I'm reading the "Legacy of Heorot" right now for the 6th time) but I think he's contradicting himself by stating he believes Hobbes's "state of nature" is accurate but thinks everyone should be left alone. If everyone were left alone, absolute minimalist government were installed, and the Hobbesian man was reality, you'd have chaos and slaughter.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Included with the minimalist part of government that Jerry would leave would be, I suspect, the part that one recognizes in the Swiss.

 

[Reccesoldier]

It doesn't sound like you're a conservative libertarian, it sounds like you're a liberal who doesn't like the Liberal Party, no?

Wow, answered your own question. Well Done  ;D

No I'm not a Canadian "liberal". Yes the idea of a Conservative Libertarian is somewhat contradictory (as I stated) but I was not referring to the overarching Libertarian principals of freedom, TANSTAAFL and KYFHO (thanks Gunnar) but their more radical propositions such as the way they advocate individuals entering into "treaties" with nations (independent of the state), the isolationist attitudes toward other nations on the international stage and others which would be disastrous (economically) and or impossible.

The Liberal Party in Canada is not really Liberal they are Reform liberals, small "S" socialists really.

 

[Zarathustra]

Seems to me much of it, as someone pointed out, is just semantics. What in the mainstream is called "conservative" is actually more in tune with classic liberalism than mainstream "liberal" is. I think the distinction is more one of communitarian ethics vs. individualist ethics.

I would agree on that. Behind all the labels to me it's equality vs liberty. Those below average typically want equality and those above average typically want freedom. Both for obvious reasons. But of course we can't phrase it like that, so we make pretty labels and talk about rights and universal values. That's my view of ethics.  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would agree on that. Behind all the labels to me it's equality vs liberty. Those below average typically want equality and those above average typically want freedom. Both for obvious reasons. But of course we can't phrase it like that, so we make pretty labels and talk about rights and universal values. That's my view of ethics.  ;D

With respect, Zarathustra your (implied) definitions of equality and freedom are too narrow.  You are, I suggest noting a real difference between views on freedom of action and equality of outcome.

I regard myself as a real, rock ribbed liberal: I believe in the absolute equality of all people â “ in intrinsic 'worth' and, for practical purposes, at and under the law.  No other kind of equality can ever, under any circumstances, exist because all other sorts of equality (opportunity, outcome, etc) depend, absolutely on the perfectibility of mankind and it doesn't matter which gods or how many of them populate your belief system, only in paradise might some of you find perfection.  (Not I; my paradise is populated by, inter alia soldiers (and sailors), publicans and loose women; perfection is neither required nor even especially desirable.)

As a real liberal I believe that every (equal) individual must make the most of whatever opportunities present themselves; in so doing (s)he must obey the laws which we, as a liberal society, have put in place to e.g. regulate the deleterious effects of unbridled capitalism and driving in both directions on both sides of the road.

The real conservatives are people like Maude Barlow, Naomi Klein and Linda McQuaig. (Is there a Shakespearian analogy here?  Don't we have images of three women â “ of a certain age and with bad hair â “ stirring things up?)  They want to conserve (preserve) a social construct from the past â “ from about 35 year past (or maybe 1871); a social construct which is, right now, failing rapidly and massively because it was based on a faulty premise related to both humanity and money.  They, being real conservatives, believe that equality of outcome is achievable â “ they are stupid people (see John Stuart Mill on conservatives), as was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, their patron saint.  (Even Tommy Douglas didn't believe in equality of outcomes; he wanted to provide some public support for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves.  He believed that too much inequality created social disorder and that some welfare and 'free' services would be worth the price to prevent social disruption.)

The real conservatives are, usually, willing to sacrifice rights â “ all rights â “ on the alter of equality of outcomes.  We real liberals, on the other hand, believe that some rights â “ mainly the sovereignty of the individual (against the monolithic state and against the sovereign and all her minions) and equality at law â “ must never be violated, not even to bring al Qaeda to its knees.  We liberals believe that if (imperfect and imperfectible) people sacrifice an inalienable  right once, even to safeguard the lives of millions, then they (we, actually) will find new causes which required rights to be subjugated to entitlements.  (Which might raise an interesting argument re: the sovereign's duty to defend her realm (and we, collectively, are the sovereign) vs. her subjects' entitlement to protection from threats, foreign and domestic, real and imagined.  Can we trample fundamental rights to thought, belief, association and speech just to stop some ignorant, bigoted sheik or mullah from spewing threats and hatred and encouraging young people to engage in jihad?)

Anyway, Zarathustra, I accept that certain kinds of real conservatives and certain kinds of libertarians are at odds over equality of outcome (even of opportunity) and freedom of action.  Both groups are wrong.