March 5
To John Horvat and his blogpost that blames liberalism for all of our nation’s problems. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I can only speak to the above review and not the book, but it seems the diagnosis of liberalism is another call to some form of authoritarianism. In particular, it is a call Christendom.
The problem is that we never had Christendom here in America. We have had varying levels of Christian paternalism, but not Christendom. So one has to ask if the above analysis of liberalism applies to the US or to the West. Here we should note that, unlike how the book is portrayed as describing it, there are several differing forms of liberalism. From what was written in the review, the liberalism referred to seems to a combination of Cultural Liberalism, which frees people from cultural norms, and a Social Liberalism that ties freedom with health, education, and escape from poverty. Social liberalism looks to government to take the lead in protecting people's rights to health, education, and an adequate income. Here we should note that Social liberalism stands in stark contrast with Classical liberalism regarding the role of the state in providing that protection (see https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_liberalism.html ). That is because that government provision relies on the state making claims on the economic freedoms of those who are more prosperous from the middle class on up. And we should note that political conservatives very much tend to support Classical Liberalism and its derivatives such as Neo-Liberalism.
The real question is this: Are our nation's conflicts and problems due to liberalism's internal contradictions or is there a civil war between liberalism and conservatism. The polarization of ideologies and political affiliations suggest the the latter though the former could play a minor or even cameo role in the conflict. However, we should consider other factors as playing a role in our nation's troubles such as corruption and bribery.
We should note that the kind of conservatism that gave way to liberalism seems to be a Paleo-Conservatism. We could then add a Fiscal Conservatism to the mix from the expressed concern with our nation's debt. We should note that the former conservatism emphasizes the tight binding of a given religious tradition with set traditions and even identity of a given nation or civilization while the latter emphasizes fiscal responsibility in government spending (see https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_conservatism.html ).
The reason why I believe that the current societal turmoil is due more to a civil war than the internal contradictions of liberalism is found in the scapegoating of liberalism for the turmoil we see before us and for our nation's debt. In addition, a significant number of our problems are due to corruption. Regarding the civil war as a cause for turmoil, it is Paleo-Conservatives who strongly object to the current changes from the legalization of same-sex marriage to the existence of illegal, and, for a few political conservatives all, immigrants in our nation. And that resistance to immigration is high especially when the immigrants they find most offensive are not White Europeans.
Likewise, Social Liberalism is being scapegoated for our nation's debt problems despite the fact that much of that debt is due to policies favored by a combination of Neo-Conservatism, which is supported by a coalition of some political liberals and conservatives, and Classical Liberalism, which is supported by and tied to Fiscal Conservatism. We should note that the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as the approaching 1,000 US military bases spread around the world stems significantly from Neo-Conservatism and its pre-existing tenets and have greatly contributed to our nation's debt. But Classical Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism alone, which receives its strongest support from political conservatives, along with a corporate welfare system, which, again, receives its strongest support from political conservatives, has also added significantly to our nation's debt.
We should note here that when business is the primary beneficiary of policies, then the culprit is neither liberalism nor conservatism. It is corruption. And that corruption has a bipartisan participation.
And yet, there is still another reason why I believe that nation's current turmoil is due more to a civil war than an implosion of Liberalism has to do with how our successes are solely attributed to Christendom. Here we should note that all of liberalism's early success was attributed to Christendom. And yet, there is no mention of the problems that came with Christendom's era with its emphasis on faith and family. Those problems included religious wars, colonialism, anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, slavery, persecution of scientists, and segregation. See, Christendom was about more than just faith and family; it was about the Church having more control over the people than the government And we should note that, all too often, those who ascribed to a different faith met persecution and even death from leaders in the dominant religion. But I guess we should be consoled by the fact that, during those times, society was more homogeneous.
The above does not provide a nuanced criticism of liberalism, something that is needed. That is indicated by how liberalism is regarded as a monolith that has does not have differing groups. Rather, liberalism's weakness is described in the absolute freedom it gives to people even though it is some forms of Anarchism, not liberalism, that tries to deliver such absolute freedom. And thus there exists yet another reason why our turmoil should be attributed more to a civil war than liberalism's implosion; liberalism is not accurately defined. And instead of providing such a criticism of liberalism, by demonizing liberalism and calling, by implication, people back to Christendom, what is advocated by the above article is what is really tearing our nation apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost hat poses a mock debate between Donald Trump and Milton Friedman over Trump’s protectionism vs Freidman’s Free Trade. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
One problem with the whole protectionism vs free trade debate is that at least one option is presented as the tower of babel was: A way of reaching heaven and making a name for oneself. Free Trade is presented as providing a relative utopia. However, history has produced many positive results for protectionism. After all, our nation used protectionism to build many of its industries from our nation's beginning to FDR's Presidency. And while what is called 'Free Trade' (a.k.a., 'neoliberalism') has supposedly reduced the number of people living in abject poverty around the world, it has also increased wealth disparity both within nations and between them. And it wasn't until recently that the IMF discovered that wealth disparity hurts economic development.
We should note that Free Trade does not exist as a discrete point on a line, it exists as a continuum on a couple of lines. Yes, there is a continuum that accommodates both protectionism and Free Trade. But there is another line where Free Trade is at one end and government control of the economy is at the other. We should note that not all government control has to do with protectionism. Government control can have to do with taxes and protective regulations. And when government control is exercised by a working democracy, then what we have is a contest between today's Free Trade or neoliberalism and Democracy. Here we should note that one of the first nations to employ neoliberalism was Chilé. And in order to install neoliberalism there, the US helped first to destabilize the nation and then support a coup where the democratically elected leader of the nation was overthrown by a military dictator in 1973. Neoliberalism was introduced to Chilé during the next decade and eventually Pinochet was democratically removed from office. However, Chilé has been operating under the same constitution was passed during Pinochet's reign and Chilé suffers from a growing wealth disparity.
What seems to be consistent with many of the defenses given for Free Trade is that they revolve around the short-term returns enjoyed by a limited number of stakeholders. For examples, when it is said that Free Trade decreases consumer prices, it is true that that occurred in Great Britain during Mercantilism. But today's Free Trade has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. A significant number of those jobs that were offshored resulted in sweatshop labor conditions for many people in other countries. Meanwhile, the offshoring of jobs has reduced the consumer power of many of the victims of offshoring. Or when Freidman states that when those from other nations who have become enriched by Free Trade buy properties and other assets here, there is no discussion about the ramifications of those purchases. But those foreign investors who are able to grab a larger financial piece of the pie here, also have the opportunity to buy political influence in our government. Why? Because in Capitalism, power follows wealth.
It's not that all forms of Free Trade have come in the form of neoliberalism. Nor is it the case that either Protectionism or Free Trade have spotless records. It is the case that today's version of Free Trade or neoliberalism has weakened democracies, especially in the US, and has not only increased wealth disparity, as already noted, it has transferred political power of many given participant nations to wealthy foreign investors. Thus neoliberalism shifts political power from the hands a given nation's people to the hands of wealthy foreign investors.
Will Trump's version of protectionism work? Who knows? But what we do know are the current trends of neoliberalism some of which have been listed in this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6
To Shannon Holzer and his blogpost about how liberals abuse languages especially when talking about rights. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.
If definitions mean anything, then Holtzer should know that he should not describe liberals as belonging to the Left. There is a pretty clear demarcation between liberals and the Left. While the former believes in Capitalism, the latter does not. That doesn't mean that the two groups do not agree on some issues. It is that the liberal elites do not represent the Left.
Now let's take a look at rights. What is a right? A right describes what a person ought to have. And the Declaration Of Independence declares that all men have the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now note that the Declaration states that only men have these rights, and here we are sticking to the essence of what it means to be a man. The problem becomes about the rights of women and children. Do men have rights that women and children do not have? Or, do only men have natural rights while women and children do not? According to Jefferson and his colleagues, such was the case. So if Holtzer is going to fault nonconservatives with not recognizing what are natural rights, will he do the same with Jefferson et. al.? Or are we going to attribute Jefferson's shortsightedness to then cultural values? And we might ask Holtzer if Jefferson implied that only white men deserved the natural rights he specified since, though not mentioned in the Declaration Of Independence, only white men were the de facto recipients of the rights Jefferson listed. Again, are nonconservatives the only ones who struggle with recognizing the natural rights of people?
We could talk about another important definition. That is the logical definition of the word 'imply.' The logical definitions says that one statement implies another if the second statement must be true when the first statement is true. So when nonconservatives talk about the right to a job or a living wage, is that implied by the right to life spelled out by Jefferson? For if a sufficient wage is necessary to live and we get wages from working, how is it that living wages or gov't assistance programs are not implied by the right to life? If adequate healthcare is necessary for life, how is it that affordable access to healthcare are not implied by the right to life?
And why do women chant, 'my body, my choice'? Doesn't the right to liberty imply that they have a right to control what happens with their bodies? Please note that I object to the right to an elective abortion. But challenging a women's right to control what happens with her body because it isn't a natural right ignores what is implied by the right to liberty.
And as for the right of same-sex couples to marry, before using to using natural law to argue against it, we should note that animals from around 1,500 species engage in homosexual actions with beneficiary effects to the species. Who is to say that natural law should be determined solely by a view of design that revolves around reproduction? Christians and people from certain other faiths do. But the Bill of Rights says we have the freedom of religion. So how is it that the people from one set of faiths can deny marriage to same-sex couples because of how the religious people understand natural law? And who says that sex organs are designed for one purpose only? And if marriage is common practice in the pursuit of happiness, how is it that same-sex marriage is not implied by that right?
Though the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it does describe the rights, natural rights according to Holtzer, that belong to people. And we've already noted with Jefferson how some natural rights might not be easily perceived.
What Holtzer is at least suggesting with tying rights to God is that only those who truly understand what God says can accurately identify the rights we have. But such an approach contradicts the freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. And noting the definition of the word 'imply' and how that helps us read our founding documents and noting that what is a natural right is not always recognized even by those who were our nation's founders, it seems that Holtzer is too eager to spell out for all others what our rights are and are not let alone to use his discussion on rights as an opportunity to demonize nonconservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment