What are the principles of liberalism these assholes are ostensibly fighting for if they only uphold the current structure? How do they think they’re different from conservatives? I guess I’ve always thought of liberalism as being interested in the liberation of people. But I guess not at the expense of examining our prejudice and violence. Aren’t we trying to become a fairer, more egalitarian society? Thank you for this article. I always learn something new from you.
That's the kind of (Neo)Liberalism I'm always getting angry about—the kind that says, "We'll still oppress the not-White, not-Straight, not-Male world, but at least we'll pay lip service to the savages!" The difference is largely performative, with the odd incremental step towards equality and equity...accompanied by a great fanfare, as if the world should bow in gratitude to Liberalism's magnanimity.
It's what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" about "The White Moderate"—or at least I hope it is.
Thank you for explaining this thing I saw on Bluesky yesterday. I don't pay too much attention to Yglesias and his centrist ilk, but it's good to know they're still on their bullshit.
I’m in the middle of watching Ken Burns’s “American Revolution” and a theme that is front and center throughout is the idea that “freedom” as it relates to the tyranny of colonial Britain is at odds with the freedom of enslaved people, particularly those owned by the founding fathers. That General Washington, for example, allowed Native American and freed black people to serve in the Continental army, but was concerned with the implications and consequences of doing so once America did, indeed, get their independence.
I bring this up because this liberalism conundrum feels like a rehash of these old issues. The Enlightenment of the 18th Century was at its core an intellectual pursuit by white, male Europeans and the Americans from whom they descended. It is the basis of our current concept of liberalism. And when that is challenged by people from outside that specific milieu, rather than embrace the expansion of liberal thinking, the white male power structure circles the wagons. It’s why feminism is often dismissed. It’s why black intellectualism feels alien to them. It’s why flirting with fascism to maintain the status quo feels like a good solution to them since it keeps white men, particularly white Christian men, at the top of the food chain.
If these people were truly educated and open minded, they wouldn’t be threatened by thinking that stems from a different POV. But they aren’t, and here we are.
it’s definitely a long standing issue. I don’t think it’s about education though; Kant and Mill were very educated!
Part of the issue is that the idea of freedom was often built on the idea of being not enslaved—ie, human people with rights were defined by being distinguished from people who had no rights. so it isn’t just opening the tent further; it’s kind of reshaping the core premise, which is structured on these exclusions.
I think that’s kind of what I meant, but probably didn’t articulate well enough. By “educated” I mean the formal education that continues to entrench these misguided ideas. They think they are truly “liberal” in the Enlightenment sense, but in fact just have blinders on to other ways of thinking. And it offends them when you tell them they are not liberal. A perfect example of this is Bill Maher, who insists he’s a real liberal when he’s really just sexist and a bigot, even though (or maybe because) he’s a product of the Ivy League.
Bill Maher identifies as a Libertarian, which is by no means a liberal. He used to be popular with liberals but he has really alienated a lot of his former audience. He has always liked to have provocative guests on his show but he’s gone over to the dark side. He’s besties with Bari Weiss, for example.
I think since college, I have been less interested in articulating a political philosophy and focusing instead on foundational values.
The best I have found on the foundational values of both democracy and science is the presidential address in 1980 by the president of the American Association for the advancement of science.
In that address, printed in the February 1980 issue of Science magazine, the late Kenneth Boulding, who was also a historian, laid out five founding ethics underlying a scientific subculture.
He then postulated that the same five foundational ethics also underlay democracy, which emerged at about the same time, and with a similar struggle with cultural norms of the times.
His historical perspective has been so helpful to me in times of confusing Politics and in finding where the source of violence lies.
Thanks for this. Another useful takedown is the "A Tent Big Enough for Bigots" article by Victor Ray in Liberal Currents, in which he points out that CRT is "a 40-year-old academic framework that was relatively obscure before the right-wing moral panic."
As far as I can tell, CRT is a collection of analytical strategies premised on the notion that our efforts to confront and end racism have not gone far enough. Given that this premise is obviously correct to anyone with eyes and a brain, it would seem reasonable to give CRT a fair hearing. The henhouse in its current condition is not worth defending.
What are the principles of liberalism these assholes are ostensibly fighting for if they only uphold the current structure? How do they think they’re different from conservatives? I guess I’ve always thought of liberalism as being interested in the liberation of people. But I guess not at the expense of examining our prejudice and violence. Aren’t we trying to become a fairer, more egalitarian society? Thank you for this article. I always learn something new from you.
That's the kind of (Neo)Liberalism I'm always getting angry about—the kind that says, "We'll still oppress the not-White, not-Straight, not-Male world, but at least we'll pay lip service to the savages!" The difference is largely performative, with the odd incremental step towards equality and equity...accompanied by a great fanfare, as if the world should bow in gratitude to Liberalism's magnanimity.
It's what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" about "The White Moderate"—or at least I hope it is.
Thank you for explaining this thing I saw on Bluesky yesterday. I don't pay too much attention to Yglesias and his centrist ilk, but it's good to know they're still on their bullshit.
I’m in the middle of watching Ken Burns’s “American Revolution” and a theme that is front and center throughout is the idea that “freedom” as it relates to the tyranny of colonial Britain is at odds with the freedom of enslaved people, particularly those owned by the founding fathers. That General Washington, for example, allowed Native American and freed black people to serve in the Continental army, but was concerned with the implications and consequences of doing so once America did, indeed, get their independence.
I bring this up because this liberalism conundrum feels like a rehash of these old issues. The Enlightenment of the 18th Century was at its core an intellectual pursuit by white, male Europeans and the Americans from whom they descended. It is the basis of our current concept of liberalism. And when that is challenged by people from outside that specific milieu, rather than embrace the expansion of liberal thinking, the white male power structure circles the wagons. It’s why feminism is often dismissed. It’s why black intellectualism feels alien to them. It’s why flirting with fascism to maintain the status quo feels like a good solution to them since it keeps white men, particularly white Christian men, at the top of the food chain.
If these people were truly educated and open minded, they wouldn’t be threatened by thinking that stems from a different POV. But they aren’t, and here we are.
it’s definitely a long standing issue. I don’t think it’s about education though; Kant and Mill were very educated!
Part of the issue is that the idea of freedom was often built on the idea of being not enslaved—ie, human people with rights were defined by being distinguished from people who had no rights. so it isn’t just opening the tent further; it’s kind of reshaping the core premise, which is structured on these exclusions.
I think that’s kind of what I meant, but probably didn’t articulate well enough. By “educated” I mean the formal education that continues to entrench these misguided ideas. They think they are truly “liberal” in the Enlightenment sense, but in fact just have blinders on to other ways of thinking. And it offends them when you tell them they are not liberal. A perfect example of this is Bill Maher, who insists he’s a real liberal when he’s really just sexist and a bigot, even though (or maybe because) he’s a product of the Ivy League.
Bill Maher identifies as a Libertarian, which is by no means a liberal. He used to be popular with liberals but he has really alienated a lot of his former audience. He has always liked to have provocative guests on his show but he’s gone over to the dark side. He’s besties with Bari Weiss, for example.
I’m using “liberal” in the “liberal arts” sense, not the political sense.
Hm…
I think since college, I have been less interested in articulating a political philosophy and focusing instead on foundational values.
The best I have found on the foundational values of both democracy and science is the presidential address in 1980 by the president of the American Association for the advancement of science.
In that address, printed in the February 1980 issue of Science magazine, the late Kenneth Boulding, who was also a historian, laid out five founding ethics underlying a scientific subculture.
He then postulated that the same five foundational ethics also underlay democracy, which emerged at about the same time, and with a similar struggle with cultural norms of the times.
His historical perspective has been so helpful to me in times of confusing Politics and in finding where the source of violence lies.
Thanks for this article which got things rolling.
Thanks for this. Another useful takedown is the "A Tent Big Enough for Bigots" article by Victor Ray in Liberal Currents, in which he points out that CRT is "a 40-year-old academic framework that was relatively obscure before the right-wing moral panic."
As far as I can tell, CRT is a collection of analytical strategies premised on the notion that our efforts to confront and end racism have not gone far enough. Given that this premise is obviously correct to anyone with eyes and a brain, it would seem reasonable to give CRT a fair hearing. The henhouse in its current condition is not worth defending.
I linked victor’s piece in mine! He’s also written a short introduction to CRT which is worth reading. https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Matters-Should/dp/0593446445
Oops, can't believe I missed that. So much for close reading! Thanks for the book recommendation, this is just the kind of thing I was looking for.