What Non-Liberals Dislike About Liberalism (restored)

Politics and religion
1

So one thing popped up in my head while reading this forum recently: there are plenty of folks who are really down on Trump and the national GOP but are also equally down (or more so) on the Democrats and liberal politics generally.

I thought I would start a thread to elicit some discussion on this topic. For the liberals (including me) let’s try not to shout down responding posters about how wrong they are unless it’s something meaningful and specific that would add to the debate.

In my view, at least some of the anti-liberal feeling is driven by the right-wing media machine, but there’s more going on that just that IMO. Another factor in my view is the weight and priority different people place on different emotional values (purity versus tolerance, unity vs diversity, individual versus collective responsibility, and on and on.) Plus there’s probably more. I’m curious for some viewpoints on this, especially those different than mine, b/c I only have my own experience to draw from

2

On twitter earlier this year someone shared this thread from Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) about “what it means to be a conservative”. I really liked it, and much of it resonated with me. It’s sort of answering your question by contrast. I don’t know much about him beyond what I just read on his Wikipedia page, I’m sure someone will be along shortly to point out what a horrible human he is. But here’s his tweet thread, first tweet linked, and then the thread reformatted together and quoted below:

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status/967965932181245953?s=21

I was asked what it means to be conservative. I don’t speak any conservatives but myself, but I’ll take a whack at it, since after this CPAC “conservative” seems to mean “unhinged nutbags,” and there’s nothing conservative about that. /1
I think the basic issue is the view of freedom, human nature and history. Conservatives start from a position - sometimes too much so - of individual freedom w/o the presence of the state. Every incursion of state power must justified. Taxes and laws are tools, not holy writ. /2
We don’t see the state as a good thing in itself, some benign entity that is meant to create a better life or institute justice. We think that comes from within each person, and the state is merely an agent that keeps order against the inevitable failures of human virtue. /3
Likewise, we don’t think human nature as a blank slate upon which the state can write its own code, and thus somehow create a New Man. Human nature (for most cons, I think) is relatively fixed and prone to sin and failure as well as great virtue. /4
Thus, the state has no right to engage in great projects of reforming human nature: the state is our servant, not our teacher or headmaster. It has no existence beyond our will to support it and our recognition and continuing approval that it is acting justly. /5
Likewise, most conservatives (I think) reject the kind of moldy Hegelianism that says that history goes in inevitable directions. “History” is not a thing. It’s the sum of human actions and it has no agency (and requires no duty from us). However… /6
This does not mean we reject transcendence; to be conservative is respect and value what came before, to realize the temporariness of now, and to maintain foundations for tomorrow. (We are not progressives: we are not about breaking down the past to build the future.) /7
Moreover, we respect virtues that are based in traditional stoicism, valuing prudence and reflection over emotion. In this, we often commit the sin of intellectual arrogance, believing the mind to be superior to the heart. (At least until recently.) /8
We also assume that a natural condition of freedom is superior to state organization, but imo solid conservatives reject the extremes to which libertarians take this. Markets are better than state control, for example, but most of us know there needs to be some regulation. /9
So, why am I a conservative and not a liberal? A few points and then I’ll stop. For one, I do not believe in trashing the past as inevitably inferior to the present. (Some conservatives take this to an extreme: irrational nostalgia is a central characteristic of fascism.) /10
Second, I reject relativism. I do not believe in infinitely flexible standards of human behavior that must move with “History.” Yes, some things change, and should, but good and evil look a lot like they did 2000 years ago. /11
Third, I believe in prudence and incremental change. I innately distrust mass emotion and popular movements, and believe that intellect is the bulwark against cheap agitation (even when the cause may be just). /11
Finally, I think conservatism historically represented a rejection of the adolescent ego as the driver of public life, instead demanding some sort of civic virtue as the price of living together, so that own discipline could limit the need for state intervention. /12
Conservatives, for example, have traditionally refused to reorder the basic atomic building block of civilization - the family - merely to appease our own appetites. We (some of us) have accepted that what constitutes a “family” has changed, but that its obligations remain. /13
Yes, we are flawed. We prize stoicism too much. We place too much value on markets and transactions as creating the “good” in itself. We fall into ancestor worship. We hate the state, unless it is for power and military virtue. (Too much Rome, not enough Athens.) /14
But I remain a conservative because I believe an understand of the good and the just comes from within, and is not taught or enforced by the state, its agents, or some nebulous mysticism about History and its inevitability. /15
This is not even close to a full accounting of conservatism, or why I remain one, nor it is one to which all of my conservative friends would agree. But I think that about covers the major stuff - for me, anyway. /16x

3

The terms conservative and liberal aren’t too useful anymore to describe the American polity. The liberals in the Lockean tradition have been thrown under the big conservative umbrella but they prefer the term classical liberal. Much of the conservative position from Burke is all but gone and many of today’s “conservatives” are populists and have little in common with the conservative position.

Much of today’s liberals aren’t liberals at all but are more likely progressives and the intellectual descendants of Croly.

So what I don’t like about today’s progressives in a nutshell:
Believe in expanding governmental authority to restrict individual liberty because individual freedom needs to be sacrificed to achieve some greater good. (the good changes over time but the basic idea remains the same.(I’m astounded by number of people on left who admire Chinese government b/c it can achieve change more easily))
Believe that angels are men and the right people in government can make magic happen.
A return to belief in technocracy and ignoring basic human nature and individual rights.
Continually underestimate the importance of social capital and tradition as key elements of human progress and prosperity.
Valuing positive liberty instead of negative liberty.

I am amused that people who push for a stronger govt are continually shocked when people who they don’t like take control and then use and build on that power. The stronger a govt a) the more bitter politics will be b/c the government controls your life b) the more corrupt it will be because the ROI is huge. There’s a reason that the DC area is the richest in the country and it’s because of the massive rents to be extracted by using the power of the federal govt.

4

Good call on that one.

5

Thus far, the responses are primarily about principles and emotional values, like I figured. There are also some factual/interpretation type issues, as for, example, people disadvantaged by racial prejudice might have a very different view of “positive liberty instead of negative liberty” as a practical matter.

A big takeaway to me is that people like wahoo and wholly schmidt don’t have any real representation at the national level, and haven’t probably since the beginning of the Limbaugh/Gingrich era 25 years ago.

There are some folks who will say, “well the mainstream Democrats are so weakly liberal that they could represent people like wahoo & wholly” but I think that disregards the importance of certain principles. For example, I think that the concept of “Believe that angels are men and the right people in government can make magic happen.” as a critique of liberalism is just a key divide, at a deep level of emotion, values and principles, that the Dems are not ever going to bridge. I have a very different view on this issue, but that’s a pretty core difference.

6

Yeah, you should probably start with a definition of both non-Liberals and Liberalism to start (be it the fabricated media/pop-culture version, or the classical version, or both).

7

edit: oh crap, this is for NON libs (I am one). Sorry. I will leave my guff here in case its helpful, but I apologise I didnt understand the thread.

Just echoing some of the sentiments here. The only thing that REALLY pisses me off about my fellow travellers on the left is the apologists for regimes around the world which are either on paper left (like China) or are of a religion/race/culture which is subject to racism in the west (like many African or Islamic countries).

I am very comfortable calling the above countries regimes for being racist (like say Zimbabwe) or opposing basic human rights (like Saudi Arabia) AND I am even happy to say these countries are far worse than the United States in those regards.

Sadly it is fairly common among my friends on the left to not just turn a blind eye to these asshole regimes but actually try and excuse them, while reserving the most extreme rhetoric for democratically elected leaders in the west. It has been the source of my most heated disagreements with otherwise smart and decent people, even here. Shrug, I hope I have changed some folks mind over time, and while I listen to theirs they have not changed mine. So maybe it wont change. Shrug. I just feel that you are either pro womens rights or you are not, against racism or you are not, picking and choosing which countries to call out for it based on domestic events is what pisses me off the most.

8

I’m pretty done with liberalism’s willingness to accept the status quo. Part of how we got to where we are is that liberals were too interested in being liked to get shit done.

See, for a better explication of this idea, the thread: https://twitter.com/cricketcrocker/status/1008071987078549506

9

No, Tom Nichols is a principled conservative, and is aghast at what is taking place. I think he is someone a person on the left could have plenty of disagreements with about policy and still find him to be an honorable human being.

10

Agreed, it’s not been pretty. There are some I’ve gritted my teeth and supported, and there are some like Trump, who there is no way in hell I’d vote for. But as I mentioned to someone in another thread, it’s not like a lack of good candidates will make me switch sides. It just makes me sad, leaves me with no options, and I try to vote for the people I can at lower levels.

This is a separate matter from liberal/conservative, but my personal views on voting are that I don’t have a responsibility to choose the least bad option, or an obligation to cast a vote primarily against someone else I don’t like. I was as stunned by everyone else that Trump won, I assumed Hilary had it, but I never even considered my opposition to her as a justification to vote for Trump. When I said I’ve gritted my teeth and supported in the past, that only goes so far.

11

So, Wholly, what in particular about Hilary and/or the Dems more generally made it so that she was beyond the limits of your voting range? You don’t have to be super-specific but I’m curious in general terms.

12

What.

13

I believe his comment is coming from the perspective of someone to the left of American liberals.

14

It’s easier to type a one-word post than look at the explanatory link I posted, apparently.

15

I just want Leslie Knope to be real, and I want her to run for office in my home town.

16

That link was to a meandering hash of twitterspew. So I’m just going to stick with WTFing at anyone who apparently has conservatism and liberalism reversed with regards to which one defends the status quo and which one historically challenges it.

17

It was neither meandering nor hash. It’s okay if you don’t want to have a conversation, though.

18

I think I’m qualified to answer this.

My biggest issue with liberal is their misguided faith that passing news laws and/or creating Federal governmental programs is the best way of fixing societies problems. Some examples

55 MPH speed limit. Jimmy Carter was convinced that we could solve America’s dependency of foreign oil. Anybody that spent any time out west should have known that people’s time is valuable and asking people to spend 4 hours on 220 mile trip instead of 3 hours (My niece a bit further to go to Costco every month) was doomed to failure. It was only successful in turning tens of millions of Americans into lawbreakers.
The same thing is going to occur for an assault weapon ban, asking 10 million+ Americans to turn in their semi-automatic rifles is never going to happen. (Not to mention ineffective at making a significant dent on decreasing mass murders, much less overall gun homicides.)
The right is also guilty of this, thinking that outlawing abortions is actually going to result in a noticeable reduction of abortions but less so.

The bottom line, is that if a significant portion of the population (say >20-30%) oppose a policy, passing a law isn’t going to change things. You have to change their mind first. (See smoking in public places)

Government Programs
Head Start: It is true that poor and minority children start school behind their white, middle-class children. So logically giving poor kids Pre-K programs to help put them on the path to learning should be beneficial. Yet for more than 50 years we’ve been running Head Start (and similar programs at the state level) study after study, after study have found minimal,and in some cases, negative benefits for kids in Headstart programs after the 2nd or 3rd grade. Yet we continue to not only spend money but demonize Republicans when they try and cut funding.

Hunger programs: Perhaps as many of 40 million Americans have food insecurity. It makes no sense in a country that produces more food that we can eat. In fact, about 40% of food produced in America is wasted, thrown away in a landfill, or sometimes used to feed hogs. The liberal response, let’s expand food stamps (SNAP). Despite the existence of large number of privately running soup ktichens and food pantries

Let’s give poor people money so they can buy food at stores. Sounds simple, but it is not. First we have to define who a poor person is then we have to set up a program to ensure only poor people get assistance. Next we have to define what food is, an set up a system to ensure that food stamp only can be used to buy food. Finally we have 3rd system to monitor stores and make sure are complying with both other systems.

In contrast, food banks and soup kitchen provide food to anyone who asks. They are run by non-profits about 90% faith based organization. Most use free labor, members of the church or the charity, and very often folks who are or have in the past received assistance. Most importantly food banks primarily rely on food that is going to waste, 2 day old bread or produce from stores, excess food from restaurants, donated and often expired can goods from individuals. In rural communities, farms donate much of the food directly. As a result it costs a soup kitchen about $1/meal, and food pantries under $.25

Almost no business or individuals are going to donate government organization.

19

I think that it’s an often well intentioned, but ultimately misguided idea that the government can fix everything.

One thing that should be made readily apparent with the rise of someone like Trump, is exactly why we should be wary of yielding too much power to the government.

Power that can be wielded to do good things can also be wielded by a monster to commit atrocities.

20

Poking my beak in again but I found your food program comment interesting (genuinely not as in a “hah” way.) What do you think of Universal Basic Income as a notion?