From the Newman Newsstand: The Threat From the Illiberal Left
Image courtesy of the Economist.
Author’s note: Though sadly out of date, a review of this article is nonetheless relevant still, as is reading the original article. The discussion of politics in America that was published in September in The Economist describes a political landscape that looks very much the same today, and behaviors that are ongoing. The nature of politics shifts slowly over a time frame that is much longer than the lapse between the original publishing of the article in question and the finalizing of this review.
Article In Review: “Aggression and Complacency: “The threat from the illiberal left,” Sept. 4-10, 2021 issue of The Economist”
For the better part of 250 years, the United States of America has been a model to the world of achievement and social progress attained through the system of classical Western liberalism. Classical liberalism is the philosophy that man has an inclination and a right to free thought and open speech and debate, and that through these means societies may attain justice, human achievement, and social progress. Liberalism promotes social change born of such free and open sharing of ideas, and thus originating from individuals, because by that means alone can man flourish in society. This is as opposed to social change imposed by higher powers – rulers or institutions – which cannot advance the best interests of every individual. America was designed to facilitate the freedom of man on an individual level, and its openness and freedom are what allows for the social progress that made America the ‘leader of the free world.’
The Western democratic nations built on classical liberalism that used to be considered just and free are now in political turmoil spurred by a significant contingent of their members. While open debate has been a central tenet of liberal society from the start, attacks on liberal society itself have erupted in recent years more fiercely than ever. In America, the attacks come mainly from the political ‘left,’ the farther-left reaches of the Democratic party, while classical liberalism has been relegated to Republicans on the political ‘right.’ How left-leaning ‘liberals’ took on views and practices overtly opposed to classical liberalism is a transition that The Economist explores to find its fundamental nature and suggest how we as a nation and society must proceed.
In explaining the threats posed to classical liberalism in America, liberalism is defended from a position that holds both the left and the right beyond the very moderate contingents of each in error, referred to respectively as the “illiberal left” and the “populist right.” Each of these groups is rightly held accountable for behavior and political schemes that are an affront to liberalism’s free exchange. In this way, the article presents a balanced view of the beliefs and behavior of the political left and right, the flaws of each, and what each says and does that can be viewed positively.
Mainly, the right is criticized for failing to defend liberalism as the left, and others from around the world (China, as well as progressives in other Western nations where the political scene is similar to that in America), denigrate liberalism with fierce vocal opposition and political efforts to destabilize liberal ideology and dismantle the systems built upon it. These efforts are appraised in the article as nothing less than concerted efforts to destroy liberalism, and the authors believe that not nearly enough people are rising to the occasion of this test to uphold the central dogma of America and Western civilization, because it is worthy and necessary. Whether those on the right do not see this or are unwilling to take a firm stance is left as a question.
In the appraisal of the beliefs of contemporary progressives and conservatives, which is balanced and clear, readers are reminded of the historical nature of bi-party American politics: a common vision is pursued by all, with different means proposed for its attainment. Support for each means is where party divisions are drawn. In this way, even in today’s harshly divided political landscape, those on opposite sides of the isle hold at least some views in common. The most fundamental are that our efforts be directed toward progress and social change, as well as a shared “suspicion of authority and entrenched interests.”
While at one time it was certain that both sides also believed in the right and ability of people of every demographic to be a part of human progress, the authors may be somewhat generous in ascribing this still to progressives in America. While classical liberals support bottom-up social progress, believing that such means prevent the interference of central powers who would alter the course of true, organic progress, those on the left have clearly become more adamant in their belief that the destination of progress for all people is clear and they have the knowledge of how to attain it – namely, to dismantle social structures that are seen to inhibit progress toward the progressive vision.
Nonetheless, the authors provide an honest analysis of how each party approaches politics and the dangers of falling too far askance of classical liberalism, whether that be toward the ‘illiberal left’ or the ‘populist right.’ Happily, the authors also recognize that classical liberals still do exist in America on the political left, “Progressives of the old school” who still identify as Democrats of the stratum of decades past when all ‘liberals’ operated in the order of classical liberalism.
Before reaching a conclusion, a useful consideration is made why classical liberalism may be difficult for some to grasp. Liberalism can easily seem counterintuitive, difficult to understand as a theory and more difficult to practice, because it forfeits the notion of authoritative action based on one’s own beliefs and even the notion of certainty. People are called upon instead to analyze their viewpoints honestly and question even that which they believe to be right, which is done in the interest of intellectual integrity and understanding opposing viewpoints. Even when the viewpoints of others may be clearly erroneous, the right to free and uninterrupted speech must be honored. In short, liberalism requires “humility and self-doubt,” practiced in a constant manner that does not wane when certainty of one’s beliefs is attained. Instead, the virtues are repeated.
Liberalism is not a perfect system or belief. It cannot on its own form a perfect society, and those who adhere to it have a list of faults and failures just as any human does. Liberalism is, however, the best solution to the shortcomings of human nature and the most apt means to achieving the goals of a just society. Its ability to represent the interests of all people and its support for open exchange of ideas – constructive debate – lays a foundation from which all people may progress toward a more just and prosperous society. Even its manner of challenging people to maintain honesty when it would be easy to disregard opposition makes it a system more certain than any other of justice and progress toward the truest ideals of mankind.
The conclusion of the authors proclaims adherence to classical liberalism as the means to heal our social ills, just as it has been for as long as it has been an established system. These ills include the current dilemma of a divorce from liberalism. The myriad other social ills we face are not solved by abandonment of our integral system of societal operation, but perhaps by re- embracing it we can address all things effectively.
