The liberal regimes’ dilemma
I’ve often had a similar thought, which the following passage by Roger Kimball expresses so well (and “liberal” and “liberalism” in the following doesn’t just mean “liberals” as in “progressives,” but also “liberals” as in “classical liberals”):
Liberal regimes have always suffered from this paralyzing antinomy: Liberalism implies openness to other points of view, even those points of view whose success would destroy liberalism. Tolerance to those points of view is a prescription for suicide. Intolerance betrays the fundamental premise of liberalism, i.e. openness.
Of course (may I say “of course”?), there is a sense in which the antinomy is illusory, since any robust liberalism, i.e., a liberalism buttressed by a core of conservative backbone, understands that tolerance, if it is to flourish, cannot be synonymous with capitulation to ideas that would exploit tolerance only to destroy it. The “openness” that liberal society rightly cherishes is not a vacuous openness to all points of view: it is not “value neutral.” It need not, indeed it cannot, say Yes to all comers.
And yet that basic instinct for practical self-preservation, that paradoxical prohibition necessary for the general openness, is often ignored today. “Democracy is not a suicide pact”—at least, it shouldn’t be.
The origin of that phrase lies in several statements by historic Americans, but the most specific one was by Supreme Court Justice Associate Justice Robert Jackson in 1949, in a dissent to the decision in the freedom of speech case known as Terminiello:
…[Jackson] wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court’s four page decision, which concluded: “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
I think that’s a possibility we’re facing now. What used to be known as Western Civilization can’t seem to get out of its own way. Its enemies have no such problem; excessive tolerance in not their thing, but the excessive tolerance of the West is something on which they heavily rely.
Thank you. Well said.
And well over a hundred years before Jackson, there was Jefferson:
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
-Thomas Jefferson, (in a letter to John Colvin, 1810)
It may be taken as the wisdom of the ages that a world awash in —isms, all of them consigned by history as so much unsalvageable flotsam and jetsam, and that still gives short shrift to our endowment via natural law of common sense is ready for the ash heap of history. No-one so intent on the reconciliation or reformation of that which had got us to where we are should be given so much as a hearing. Jefferson’s medicament of an insurrection once every twenty years as being a wholesome feature of national life is now what? Six generations delayed?
I’m reminded of another saying:
“Liberals are people whose minds are so open, their brains fall out.”
Liberals are people who follow the profits of power, money, sex, ego, and leisure. Their wombs are so open that their babies fall out, decapitated and dismembered by their own or, recently, contractor hands. Liberal societies are their own worst enemy. Unfortunately, the prevailing alternative is equally bad.
As for classical liberalism, when tempered with a suitable religion (i.e. moral philosophy), it represents the best opportunity to equitably reconcile individual dignity, intrinsic value, and the chaos of the natural order. The first step is for people to be honest about themselves and their motives. Generational or progressive liberal societies are built on a developing pretense.
This country was founded with the idea of just laws that would protect people’s rights particularly to own, rent, or sell private property; to live amicably with one’s fellow citizens; and to be free to peacefully follow any religion or none.
Those basic principles are not incorporated into Islam, which is both a religious belief and a system of government. Intolerance is built into Islam, which makes those who practice it in detail unable to live amicably with those who believe in the principles of the USA. Our leaders need to recognize that there is a conflict between these two systems of governance that can only be settled when Islam changes and becomes a tolerant religion that is divorced from government or when they are defeated in battle. This is an existential struggle, but the invention of the concept of multiculturalism puts our society in a position where it is intolerant of us to defend ourselves from Islam. That’s why we can’t seem to get out of our own way.
“the excessive tolerance of the West” has an expiration date. That date is unknown but its defining criteria is the degree of personal threat. When sufficiently threatened, tolerance is jettisoned in favor of survival. That some few will allow themselves to be thrown off the cliff, in no way obviates the truth that survival is the deepest instinct. Political correctness is a fragile construct in the face of a mortal threat.
Our founding fathers understood full well the value and importance of an armed populous. If the SHTF the Muzzies will have nowhere to hide, no air cover and no logistical support. They can disrupt and harass, but they can’t take over territory. There are about three million guns and great amounts of ammo.
“According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey — the leading source of international public information about firearms — the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns.”
The quandary Neo has presented is a real problem only in a society in which the only moral lodstone is tolerance. Toleration as the ultimate good is a characteristic of paganism including hedonistic modern paganism. Unbounded toleration inevitably leads to human degradation and misery since without moral boundaries the strong will be free to exploit the weak. In Rome this toleration of human wickedness led to widespread slavery and utter disregard for human life. Crowds of pagan Romans would cheer while other humans fought to death in the Colosseum without any regrets. Modern Paganism is moving rapidly in the same direction. They have already murdered 100,000,000 people in Communist countries. The Nazis killed their additional millions. While Judeo-Christian culture is relatively tolerant, tolerance is not the basis of morality. The freedoms valued by Christians and Jews are carefully guarded by moral and legal guardrails.
We are involved in a religious war whether we like it or not. At it’s founding and for the first two hundred years the USA was well positioned to protect itself from Islam. Everyone recognized that this country was a Christian country that protected the right for minority religions as part of Christian morality. That spiritual reservoir has been destroyed by activist judges who have imported the French concept of laicite and have enforced it on our country. The Constitutional rule that the Federal Government will make no laws governing religion has been changed into a separation of church and state in which Christianity has been chased from the public square. Since the Christian religion has been banned from public life traditional Western society has been stripped away from its moral and religious roots. Thus when we are attacked by religious zealots who hate Christians and Jews and who are determined to force everyone to bow to Islam, the West is not even able to name the enemy since naming that enemy would bring Christianity back into the public square from which it has been banned. If government officials were to openly state that Islam is inferior to Christianity that admission would automatically violate the separation of church and state which the left has been enforcing with increasing stringency for the last 50 years.
Mr. Frank,
There are over three HUNDRED million firearms and trillions of rounds of ammo in the hands of civilians.
American civilians have acquired more new arms during the reign of the Sun King than all the worlds armies combined. We are armed to the effing teeth.
Lest you believe that BS about fewer homes having arms, here is a true tale…
I helped a lib I know get all set up with an evil black rifle right before the great panic of ’13. This person quoted that BS study to me one day. I asked “you now have a gun, if a stranger calls claiming to be from Gallup or Pew or whomever asking you about guns in your house, would you tell them?”
After a few moments of silence I got back a weak “no”.
I said “aha, the sleeper has awaken”.
I once asked a guy that had enough semi-auto rifles for a rifle squad, “why so many?” Answer, “Because I like them. Besides, when the time comes, it’s arm thy neighbor.”
Personally, I am a live and let live, search for the win-win solution kind of guy. Back me into a corner though and don’t be surprised if you get a face full of 300 Blackout.
There aren’t any viewpoints that could destroy tolerance, Western Civilization, etc.
Lurker:
Good catch. As an NRA member I knew that and just had a brain fade.
If the SHTF the Muzzies will have nowhere to hide, no air cover and no logistical support. They can disrupt and harass, but they can’t take over territory. There are about three million guns and great amounts of ammo.
That’s why Islamic Jihad is allied with the Left. The Left will provide them air cover and logistical support in the US. After all, the Left already controls large amounts of territory.
Lurker Says:
January 21st, 2015 at 12:00 am
Mr. Frank,
There are over three HUNDRED million firearms and trillions of rounds of ammo in the hands of civilians.
American civilians have acquired more new arms during the reign of the Sun King than all the worlds armies combined. We are armed to the effing teeth.
Lest you believe that BS about fewer homes having arms, here is a true tale…
I helped a lib I know get all set up with an evil black rifle right before the great panic of ’13. This person quoted that BS study to me one day. I asked “you now have a gun, if a stranger calls claiming to be from Gallup or Pew or whomever asking you about guns in your house, would you tell them?”
After a few moments of silence I got back a weak “no”.
I said “aha, the sleeper has awaken”.
I was in a local shop doing my part for small business by paying an exorbitant price for a box of Swiss 7.5 for a pristine K31 straight pull I was remodeling as a camp gun
I think we all have by now accepted the fact that liberal pacifism is largely an illusion, or a kind of social camouflage they put out.
They don’t like guns when they have no use for one and you do. Other than that they are fine with both guns and violence.
Ahem,
“I was in a local shop doing my part for small business by paying an exorbitant price for a box of Swiss 7.5 for a pristine K31 straight pull I was remodeling as a camp gun …”
as I was saying … ” a few years ago, when the disgusted proprietor looked up at me and said, ‘Any chance you want a Springfield Armory M1A1 ?’
How much?
“$1,395.00”
“No thanks. I’m all gunned up anyway. What’s the problem?”
He says, “I have all these people who have never owned a gun before swamping me with orders. This one is for some woman, a school teacher I think, who doesn’t even know what she bought. I have been waiting 2 weeks for her to pick it up”
“Pretty heavy for a schoolmarm”
“Yeah, like I said …”
Anyway I suppose it may be better to make a convert than watch an obnoxious sinner writhe and stew in their own left-wing ideological juices.
Maybe.
The problem is not that they are open, but how certain groups sell that openess, or define how that oppeness should exist.
the idea that a person cant be open and freindly, but still carry a weapon in case of unfreindly is not the norm in how they cell it… they sell it nowmore like laying on your back and exposing your belly to any and all comers, some of which will slit it on passing. that is idiocy, but in now way defining liberalism… it defines idiocy as liberalism so that we lie down and get eviscerated.
Our leaders need to recognize that there is a conflict between these two systems of governance that can only be settled when Islam changes and becomes a tolerant religion that is divorced from government or when they are defeated in battle.
no…. that is not true… our leaders do NOT HAVE to do anything… we as a people have to exchange those leaders for others, and stop making power pleas to totalitarians to fix things by including in our speeches the idea that X needs do this, and Y has to do this…
we as a people should only decide to exchange such people for the kinds of people who would lead the way we want, or should be led, and do not expect totalitarian socialists plying their adjenda to listen to such corrective missives – unless such missives further their own goals and feather their beds.
i hear the feinsteins are going to make over a billion on the cuba deal… who do you think they would listen to, a tiny nobody like me speaking in exposition of what they need pretending self importance, or the idea they could walk away with a billion dollars and buy a tiny country of their own?
Pretty heavy for a schoolmarm”
yes, but can you imagine the resale?
this M1A1 was only used by a kindergarden teacher on the weekends… 🙂
(remembering the old jokes about used car sales)
Late to the thread, but I have 5 rifles, 1 shotgun, and 2 handguns. I reload for all but my sole 22LR. I have at a minimum of 5000 rounds for every center fire round I routinely shoot, and I routinely shoot every round my firearms chamber. Unintended consequences rules the 2nd revolution.
artfldgr, “no…. that is not true… our leaders do NOT HAVE to do anything… we as a people have to exchange those leaders for others, and stop making power pleas to totalitarians to fix things by including in our speeches the idea that X needs do this, and Y has to do this..”
True, that. It’s up to we the people to get the leaders we need.
TR once said that ” One must have an open mind, but it shouldn’t be so free that geese roam freely about it “.
The dilemma was the death of liberalism in the USA and the cause of its replacement by our current hateful, ideological regime.
I’m put in mind of what I think may well be the best Star Trek episode ever, a DS9 episode called “In The Pale Moonlight”.
The Federation is losing the war against the Founders, and needs to get the Romulans to get off the fence and come in on the side of the Federation/Klingon forces. Otherwise, the Founders will tear all three up piecemeal.
So Sisko gets involved in a plan to trick the Romulans into believing that they are being prepped for a sneak attack.
Yes, very, very unlike the ideals of the idealistic “Federation”, as Roddenberry suggested it was.
But then, there’s a reason why their top-end vessels all went to space with a lot of firepower in their hands, too… but that part is left unsaid.
It’s an entropic world out there, and ideals can only be applied so far. At some point, the survival of your meme is more important than the purity of your implementation of it.