Sketches of Liberalism

Come warm yourself up at the end of history.

To be able to speak ideas succinctly and immediately is something I believe is valuable. It is a very old school and unpopular notion, to be able to unleash a series of dates and one sentence premises with quick recall. Yet I think having a useful toolbox of thoughts,  obedient ideas that can be promptly presented, is unto itself good. Of course, critical thought must be married with the bare contents (contents is what is being recalled). But the old school activity, derided as scholasticism or white male elitism, is a virtue which should be cultivated decently.

Liberalism is an idea (really a group of ideas) which I wish I could recall speedily. I think these ideas sketch liberalism and are the most important:

Representative democracy. People choose their representative power, which makes decisions roughly upon an agreed on platform. Government also maintains the rule of law.

Freedom. By which I mean freedom from tyranny, freedom from harm (Mill’s harm principle suggests the spirit: that our freedom can only be impinged if we are a real threat of harm to others) and freedom to expression (and, as implied, adherence). I think being free to express oneself is the main point, the thing to aim for. Tolerance is implied. If people can freely exist, exchange ideas that they have come to when left to themselves in society and won’t be hurt or exploited for holding ideas or living in specific ways then the necessary, basic freedoms of liberalism exist.

The Individual. Moral autonomy I think is the most important point regarding the individual. People should be responsible for their own ideas and actions. Also, people must vote hence they need to cultivate ideas and understanding (this is an important imperative which is perhaps not acknowledged enough). Equality must be guaranteed by law before which all are equal.

Those, I believe are the main points. I will touch on 2 ideas which I believe flourish thereon and don’t unto themselves demand emphasis and 2 ideas which don’t readily flourish which therefore need to emphasised.

Diversity and reason are two ideas implicit in liberalism. Diversity, one thousand flowers, should bloom given freedom. Reason I never considered an important guarantor which could be usefully demarcated. I think Rorty described reason/rationality best as ‘something like “sane” or “reasonable” rathe than “methodical”. It names a set of moral virtues: tolerance, respect for the opinions of those around one, willingness to listen, reliance on persuasion rather than force. […] On this construction, to be rational is simply to discuss any topic – religious, literary, or scientific – in a way which eschews dogmatism, defensiveness, and righteous indignation’ (I think paragraphs of Rorty’s like that will be long remembered for their conciseness and wisdom). As Rorty points out, being a civilized society necessarily involves this for discussion and coexistence to take place.

Justice and equality are two points which need to be emphasised as liberalism doesn’t readily lead to their fullest expression. Equality for both genders, all races, all faiths and all sexual orientations isn’t inscribed into the basic setup of liberalism and systemic discrimination takes a foothold consequently. Also economic equality, the pyramid of wealth sits atop a large underclass of the perpetually poor including many young. Muscular societal programs and efforts are required to balance out these inequalities. Real welfare, and although welfare is theoretically included in liberalism under the ‘safety net’ guise implementation and actual change needs a muscular, better effort then most talk associated with the safety net vocabulary. Arguably both these issues of justice and equality should have answers, if not have the theoretical answers within the body of ideas known as liberalism. It may be a matter of historical contingency that matters of gender equality and practically necessary welfare safety nets to undercut the existence of underclasses don’t exist. Nonetheless, lets not get too caught up in words. Lets get down to action.

Turning and Capitals

Europe has turned fatefully in on itself. “German history reached its turning-point and failed to turn. This was the fateful essence of 1848”. European history has reached its turning-point and is failing to turn. That is the essence of the beginning of the 21^st century. I believe Europe is threatening to become in the 21^st century what South America was in the 20^th century: irrelevant (this, of course, is political opinion which has nothing to do with my deep affection for the region). As politicians, elites and media guide the public sphere, and thus coax the people themselves, the project of Europe is coming apart at the seams. It will become like it’s past,  just another assortment of nation-states. That was affordable around, say, the 17^th century through to the 20^th century but now it will become a genuine weakness to all the countries of Europe. Their best hope is to tightly band together, yet they are not turning towards this path. Without that unity Europe is irrelevant and will not have its voice heard on the global stage and the influence of the fragments of Europe will be weak. The world could severely use Europe’s ideas of democracy, capitalism with oversight, the rule of law domestically and international law & human rights. History just needs a little bit longer to make sure these guiding lights take hold in every corner of the world. Europe can pretty much do as it pleases thereafter.

What is a capital? It is the representative of a nation-state. It is it’s head. It may be tragically fitting that the EU has it is capital in Belgium (apparently the de facto capital, couldn’t even agree on that… plus, of course, there is a rival capital or two…). Disunity is what Europe hath sown. Fragmentation. Stupid, needless, weakening division. And upon such stupid, stupid, stupid lines. Like Australia’s capital, in the middle of nowhere, relishing insignificance, sadly the capital illuminates too much.

People once took what they called “the grand tour” to Europe. There is now nothing inherently grand about it (I find it nonetheless a good and on some days very good tour), and the loss of grandeur reflects the loss of Europe’s gravitas. It is often called the Old Continent, but I think it shall become The Continent of the Past. Simply to learn about history to come one will not need to know Europe.

Three No’s

There are three words which the world could do without.

1. Neoliberal. Like “free-market fundamentalism” the term is too vague. The Washington consensus as well I find dubious. The attempt I understand as admirable to name and shame specific economic practices which generally have a ruthless Darwinian impulse to them. But I think we need to simply name the specific practices. This term in particular is inline with my views regarding “left” and “right” and ideologies. Nothing is right or wrong because it is part of a specific ideology (well, maybe with extreme ideologies). “Liberal” “conservative” “socialist” are just markers but all too often pass for critique and are too lazily used. We need the specifics nowadays to get past impasses. Not discussion about general bodies of thought.

2. Culture. The word is nebulous. If you want to talk about literature, religion, ethnic or social customs (like with a specific aboriginal tribe, for instance) then use those subjects. I think Heidegger sufficiently touched upon the heart of the word as people generally use it when he spoke about background. But the point about background, that is facilitating social practices and the like, is you can never explain, foreground them sufficiently. Culture ends up being an essentialist discourse which ends up having simple distinctions. In an attempt to respect difference much of the discussion around culture ends up simplifying it and making it static. The most that can be said about cultures, as they are commonly talk about, is that they are “not monolithic”. And that’s pretty much it. So not point sticking with a term which conceals more than it reveals (and isn’t discussing theology, poetry or art).

2. Civilisation. Much of the above. There is a somewhat interesting use though when it isn’t synonymous with culture just as a method to bracket a peoples. The interesting usage is about some level of social development where some threshold is passed and “barbarism”, or violent, undesirable social practices are precluded. Whilst I like the idea of trying to gauge social practices which are violent and undesirable and conversely learning what makes functional and livable society the dyad is ultimately unwieldily. It is like trying to shoot a fly with a bazooka.

Shooting flies with bazookas is probably the overarching concern with these three words. There are some words which try to abstract too much and become like trawl fishing when the intent was a more targeted catch. Refining our words is a lifelong pursuit, and here was an attempt to labor three parts of language at the grindstone.