The Dead End of Contemporary Liberalism
I highly recommend Matthew Dallman’s article “Contemporary Liberalism Is Dead.”
He concludes:
Also, it is vital to realize just what “Classical Liberalism” was and how it lives on in conservative circles, in various ways both simple and complex. In that way, liberalism is not dead. But that its tenents do not have much of a place in what we think of “liberalism” right now is instructive and damning.
Contemporary liberalism (see sources such as Chomsky, Zinn, Air America, Salon.com, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, The New Yorker, The Nation, Foucault, Pacifica Radio, and many more) is dead. The party is over. If you want to participate in the contest of ideas that will shape the future of this country, then you have to let “liberalism” rest in peace.
Ideas that are authentic have consequences, and all the authentic ideas, and idea development, are in conservative circles. If you care about ideas in the political realm, quite simply, you have to go there.
My suggestion: read The Corner often, understand the dynamics beneath the surface (why, for example, Derbyshire is different than Goldberg is different than York is different than Lopez is different than Kurtz, and so on) and then let your curiousity take you where it goes.
I’ve done so for over five years now, and let me tell ya, it’s been an ‘effin instructive ride.
I believe he’s right.
This article strikes me as incredibly parochial. The kind of ideologies that are considered “liberal” in the US would be considered centre-right in Canada, Western Europe or Latin America. (Countries less influenced by Europe are a bit harder to fit onto a left-right spectrum.) On a global scale, they remain far more popular than American-style conservatism.
The article is certainly right about the diversity of views among American conservatives, which is well worth paying attention to. But is liberalism dead? Please. (And I don’t mean “classical” liberalism.)
Amod,
You’re unquestionably right about the popularity of liberalism (by various names) around the world.
Dallman’s point, though, was that liberalism is intellectually dead, as a source of vibrant new ideas about how to solve the world’s problems.
That is a very interesting point, and a rather valid one, in my experience.
In any case, you’ll have to do better than calling it “parochial,” or noting that it is very pervasive around the world, to argue against it.
You really haven’t said anything that addresses the points in his article.
Joshua
Well, the three problems he thinks are a “mortal wound” to liberalism are religion, nationalism and national defence. Traditional liberalism’s discomfort with religion makes it unappealing to “the average American” - so what? This is where the parochialism objection is serious. It might be the case that the average Palestinian, at this point, may refuse to accept any viewpoint that suggests the state of Israel continue to exist. Then are all remotely Zionist approaches intellectually dead, because they don’t appeal to the average Palestinian?
Similar points on nationalism. I don’t think the article has an intellectual defence of nationalism to make - it just ASSUMES that internationalist viewpoints are intellectually dead. Again, it’s probably true that the average American wants a nationalist viewpoint, but that cannot be the standard for what counts as an intellectually fruitful position. To take the views of the average American as a standard on either question seems to me both parochial and wrong, and the two are intimately connected.
As for the third point about national defence, the parochialism objection is less of a rebuttal. However, I don’t think it can be a reason to declare liberalism intellectually dead either. American right-wingers have proclaimed left-wingers unfit for military issues for decades, at the same time that left-wingers proclaimed right-wingers to be warmongers. The latter accusation didn’t make conservatism dead in the ’60s, and the former doesn’t make liberalism dead now.
I think you make some good points, and I can see your perspective on these issues.
Of course, I can also see Dallman’s perspective. And what stands out to me most right now is that you seem not to see his perspective — or, at least, you see no merit to his perspective. Which would be an unusual confession to hear from a Buddhist such as yourself.
Is this because you’re only arguing one side of the equation, or are you genuinely unable to see Dallman’s perspective on this topic?
I mean, his thoughts didn’t arise out of nowhere, and there’s a darned good chance that he could offer rebuttals to your rebuttals. Are you able to anticipate what he would say, without dismissing or minimizing his viewpoint?
That seems like a decent test of whether you can see his perspective.