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.

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.

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

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.)