Substack latest.
No Alternative to (Classical) Liberalism
by
Tags:
Comments
6 responses to “No Alternative to (Classical) Liberalism”
-
BV,
I cannot see that your article does not lay out a contradiction. How can people be manifestly unequal, yet demand equal political rights? -
People are obviously unequal in respect of all sorts of attributes, in particular, empirically measurable attributes such as IQ, physical strength, etc. But we are equal as adult citizens when it comes to such political rights as the right to vote, to run for office, etc.
No contradiction.
See Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2. -
I realize that the word contradiction was too strong of a term, I should have used more accurate language. However, no matter how many times I read the paragraph you reference I can find no mention of, or reference to universal suffrage, nor have I read any historian who claims that Jefferson was a proponent of the idea.
-
A spiritual dimension seems to be missing from Fukuyama’s typology. (I’ve read only the book review.)
It would seem that an additional element is needed to preserve the coherence of classical liberalism’s four characteristics. Without it liberalism spins off into radical directions. Which is Fukyama’s thesis: liberalism is inherently unstable and is in need of constant correction.
Fukuyama agrees with the critique of liberalism from religion: liberal orders leave a “spiritual vacuum” and a “thin sense of community,” but apparently his main prescription for better health is bigger doses of federalism. Fair enough, but is federalism the principle that holds the four characteristics together?
Solzhenitsyn made a similar critique of liberalism from the point of view of religion in his speech at Harvard in 1978.
That’s where I’m stuck. I agree with the critique from religion. I incline towards Fukuyama’s four characteristics, but I think something’s missing from them and it’s not to be found in the secular domain. -
Mark,
Well, there is no explicit reference in the Declaration, para 2, to universal suffrage via the phrase ‘universal suffrage,’ but the reference is implied via the sentence ‘all men are created equal.’
By ‘men’ human beings are meant, not males. TJ was a careful writer. If he meant to exclude females he would have said so.
In any case, my Substack piece was not about universal suffrage. -
Jim asks,
>>Fair enough, but is federalism the principle that holds the four characteristics together?<< We need more federalism, but it cannot hold us together nationally. It might, however, keep us from tearing each other apart. >>That’s where I’m stuck. I agree with the critique from religion. I incline towards Fukuyama’s four characteristics, but I think something’s missing from them and it’s not to be found in the secular domain.<< You're stuck in the right place. It's a nasty problem. Given how far things have degenerated, there is probably no solution that a large majority can agree on. Polarization has bred extremism. For example, there are morally decent and very intelligent people to my Right who think that women should be excluded from political life because women as a group are inferior to men as group in their political judgment. I don't imagine you go as far as that. About all we can do now is postpose our collapse until guys like you and I are dead. After us, the deluge!
Leave a Reply to BV Cancel reply