The key weakness of liberalism — which, to be fair, has at times done much to improve society — is that it must assume as “given” the existence, and the continuing existence, of the society it hopes to improve. But liberalism, by its very nature — its pacifism, its sentimentalism, its opposition to hierarchy, its prioritization of the subjective over the objective, its orientation toward the feminine principle — has no capacity for assuring and defending the survival of its host society in mortal struggles against external, more illiberal enemies.
This is why warriors are seldom liberals.
Liberalism knows that it is parasitic upon its warrior class for its survival. It knows also that this relation is not symmetrical. This is why liberals generally dislike the military: it reminds them of their weakness.
10 Comments
I think you’re stating a fair criticism of “liberalism” circa 50 years ago. Today’s progressives, here and in Europe, seem to be trying to put in place a process by which the “host society” will ultimately – not immediately, but over the next few generations – be replaced by something neither European nor Western nor “liberal.” Of course, their voters don’t realize this, and even most of the politicians and journalists don’t understand it, but they unthinkingly follow the pied pipers of the Leftist intellectual class, who know exactly what their program is leading to.
The reality is the same, nevertheless. When the host dies, it takes anything that depends on the survival of the host with it.
What I’m disagreeing with is saying that the undercutting of the host society’s ability to survive is a weakness of today’s “liberalism” (which should probably just be called progressivism now, since it is rapidly losing all “liberal” characteristics). If the movement’s aim is to destroy the host society – and itself along with the host society – its effectiveness in achieving its own goal, or realizing its own telos, is not really a weakness. In other words, I’m suggesting that the Left of today is, at its highest level, a conscious suicide cult, not a misguided reform movement, as you seem to suggest.
It is a weakness in that very few liberals or Progressives, despite their belief in the sinfulness of our society, would really choose to pay the full price for the salvation-through-atonement that their new secular religion demands. (In this they are really no different from, say, Christians who fall short of what Christ calls them to be and do.)
What they want is a nation – and a world – increasingly ordered along Progressive lines, but which miraculously continues to offer them the comforts of a high civilization. It is an imaginable thing that in fact cannot be — like the philosopher’s “floating iron bar”.
You are right about this: the Progressive ideology’s universalism, transnationalism, egalitarianism, and opposition to all discriminations mean that it is, followed to its logical conclusion, necessarily suicidal to Western civilization. I suppose if we disagree here it is only about the extent to which the average liberal understands and embraces this. (Living where I do, most of the people I know are liberals, and I doubt that many of them consider themselves to be participating in a suicide cult.)
Progressivism needs more reminding of its weakness. With extreme prejudice.
Malcolm, of course I completely agree that the average liberal (or, as I prefer, progressive or Leftist) does not understand what his ideology is going to lead to. But I think the leadership of the movement – the law school and academic humanities faculties, the smarter financial backers (Soros) and politicians (Obama) know the destination toward which they are leading their faithful.
I agree with djf, especially about 0bama. This is why I consider him to be a traitor.
Henry,
With every day that goes by, I am more willing to go with that remind them of their weakness with prejudice part. No healthy organism should have to tolerate a parasite for long. We on the Right must be the most tolerant of people because we have almost tolerated the parasite to death-ours.
Malcolm,
(Living where I do, most of the people I know are liberals, and I doubt that many of them consider themselves to be participating in a suicide cult.)
A truism goes: a conservative will believe something when he sees it. However, a Liberal will only see something when he believes it.