The contradiction that destroyed classical liberalism

By -
“Classical liberalism” was an organization of society that would have better been called “broad Protestant integralism”: it was a form of social organization structured by the values and interests of white, Protestant, property owners.

But given that the people formulating its ethos were bewitched by enlightenment ideas of universal reason, they found themselves generally unable to state this fact. (Locke recognizes it somewhat when he refuses to extend religious toleration to Catholics: and right he was! Catholicism is incompatible with classical liberalism.)

Because they had adopted this pretense of universality, the guardians of the classical liberal order found themselves severely hampered, almost unarmed, when challenges to the order arose from those not sharing its worldview. If they had been honest, they could have said “Of course public schools will display the 10 Commandments, and teach that the pope is the whore of Babylon: our society is built on these beliefs.”

But that would’ve expose their claim to universality as the façade that it, in fact, was. And so to maintain the façade, they let the enemies of the structure hack away at its supports. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more