About those liberals
This observation by Robert Frost has long been one of my favorite descriptions of a liberal:
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
Of course, that’s only true when the quarrel is with a member of a protected group. A liberal has no such reluctance when quarreling with a conservative.
Looking for a site with the Frost quote led me here, where I found some others worthy of contemplation, such as this from William F. Buckley Jr.:
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
I would add that liberals have a tendency to ascribe those views, when found and heard, to prejudice and/or malevolence.
Here’s Niall Ferguson:
So much of liberalism in its classical sense is taken for granted in the west today and even disrespected. We take freedom for granted, and because of this we don’t understand how incredibly vulnerable it is.
We’re learning fast, but not fast enough to stop the process, it seems.
”•
”•
I love the Buckley quote. It’s like the upper class women who think they are walking in another’s shoes, but all those shoes are Manolo 5-inch heels.
I believe Churchill said that neutrality in a contest between a fire and the fire brigade is not a virtue.
Another characterization of liberals, or of a particular subset of liberals/radicals/activists, comes from Tom Lehrer who ironically, is himself an arch liberal. Here are the relevant verses from The Folk Song Army.
When I first heard this song when I was a high school student, I didn’t like it. Years later I realized I didn’t like it because its lampooning of liberal/radical/activist self-righteousness struck too close to home.
Gringo:
Of course, Lehrer was (and is) a liberal himself. But he still likes to skewer pretentions.
Another interesting musical lyric critique of liberalism from the left (the far left, in this case) was that of Phil Ochs in “Love Me, I’m a Liberal.” His criticism of liberals was mainly for their not being leftist enough. But he also got in some more general zingers about hypocrisy.
Stupidity is a luxury and you will find time and time and time and again that those who are overwhelmingly on the left are those who can afford to be. — Evan Sayet
Somewhat related: Neo (and others), have you read James Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism? I’m only about 60-70 pages in but so far it’s the most incisive thing I’ve read on the soft totalitarianism that liberalism is attempting to erect. Some on the right probably wouldn’t like it because he makes the case that current liberalism is a logical development of classical liberalism, not a deviation.
A man “too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel” is a man profoundly uncertain as to what he believes.
Those who are “shocked and offended to discover that there are other views”, who then ascribe as motivation “prejudice and/or malevolence” declare their inability to offer reasoned rebuttal and in seeking to demonize their opponent, declare their own essential dishonesty.
To take freedom and liberalism in its classical sense for granted and then disrespect it is to declare opposition to freedom and classical liberalism.
Ace and his co-bloggers (or cob-loggers) frequently write excellent posts.
But in my opinion, Monty is in a class by himself, and this morning he wrote a post about the liberal mind that is a must-read:
The Torturer’s Horse
rickl
Thanks for the link. It is as you said.
There will be a few who will have learned how valuable and vulnerable liberty is. They will be the ones who will build another republic after this one is gone.
Liberalism as a philosophy is generational and therefore unprincipled.
Progressivism as a philosophy is also generational, but unlike liberalism, it is selective.
Classical liberalism is neither liberalism nor progressivism. It is unambiguous and constant.
Just like the rule of law, a philosophy derived from ambiguous or selective principles, will sponsor corruption. For example, this is why there is corruption when children born to Americans, illegal aliens, and invaders are all classified as “natural born”. Another example, this is why there is corruption when individual dignity is denigrated for purposes of redistributive or retributive change. And another example, this is why there is corruption when human life is devalued through the normalization of premeditated murder (e.g. elective abortion) for money, status, or convenience. A law or philosophy cannot be ambiguous or selective.
As for why unrefined liberalism always suffers a dysfunctional convergence:
Liberty is only suitable and possible for individuals capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior.
Judge a philosophy or religion by the principles it engenders.
“Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.” –Unknown
No matter what individuals believe about progressive ideology and theology, what makes them a problem for humanity is how easy they are to control. They do not have a heart, a mind, or a soul fit for an independent human being. As such, human progress cannot proceed when such beings have the power. For it is not they who decide which cities and towns are burned to fulfill the progressive prophecy.