liberalism and misdirection

High-minded Liberal causes draw even Conservative sympathies. However, whatever the liberal cause, political correctness in “woke” political factions on the left often leads to a certain il-liberal inclination.

The illiberal left holds Democrat Party members to embrace left-leaning political pressure groups, extending that embrace to Black Lives Matter, MeToo, LGBT, Occupy Wall Street, etc. Conceptual basis for such socio-political movements may leak out from university graduate research projects (eg, Critical Race Theory). CRT, albeit rigorously researched, may not be ready for K-12 classrooms; nevertheless advocates take such ideas to political or educational fora in a quest for justice of oppressed people.

Illiberal tendencies (epitomized by “cancel culture”) are a means to achieve ideological purity. It resembles the “confessional state” that characterized European thought before classical liberalism took root by the end of the 18^th century, with loyalty a primary value instead of openness.

Neither the illiberal left nor conservatives are satisfied with the process of reform. They want reform said and done, eg, stop racial and sexual discrimination; yet some discrimination still prevails and may endure indefinitely. Reform awaits fairness in education, labor, taxation, hierarchies, indeed all social structure. Means are as important as ends—reform must be achieved thru classical liberal processes.

Fairness in this way is not an imposition – equity cannot be imposed. It is individuals, not acronym groups who must progress through open debate and resulting change. Social equity anyway is only one priority of society, which is also concerned with law and order, economic ends, welfare, etc – ultimately survival and the environment.

Group social equity requires a sort of grass-roots debate where privileged elites or others in power must be “cancelled” to some degree. Otherwise power comes before process, ends before means, groups and parties before individuals.

Group loyalty to Party can supersede loyalty to truth; end designs supersede fair process. This is how the left and the right have created political hatred which has seriously damaged the democratic process. It has become tribal. Criticizing one’s own party is blasphemy; transgression against Donald Trump is treachery. On the left, focusing on one’s selfish democratic rights or historic injustice to one group bogs down the patient progress of civilization for which liberal debate should strive. The only winner becomes extremism on the right and the left. 

Western democratic processes have diverged from classical liberalism since the Enlightenment, a severe challenge for society to address. Liberalism (ie, “classical”) has evolved robustly with progress intentionally brought about by open debate and deliberate reform. Certain principles have guided progress, such as valuing the individual, open markets and free enterprise, limited government and separation of powers, legal due process and democratic restraint (plus respect for science and its methodologies).

In China, Western democracy is seen officially as selfish and unstable. In America, controversial liberal values are seen by some populists as imposed by privileged elites.

Classical liberalism embraced free trade and (ultimately) globalization. Today liberal principles still compel a realization that global integration of economies and people (globalization) is the manifest destiny of world society.

Trump’s populism fomented distrust of ”experts” who ostensibly had foisted liberal priorities and institutions on the people. Trump turned to economic nationalism and away from multilateralism; but Biden also has resorted to unilateralism and protectionism –little improvement, in principle. The GOP depicts Biden as a hapless Bolshevik whose government must be thwarted. With Democrats, Biden seems a hostage of his own illiberal left and loyalty to woke causes. Thus, policy “gridlock” continues.

Political division seems irreconcilable in America –and indeed worldwide. Individual freedom threatens social order or vice versa, from the most riotous protests to government crackdowns. A left-right divide prevails even within the American Catholic Church, eg, contesting the Pope’s more liberal handling of “sins of modernity”, in contrast with the less lenient response of his two more traditionalist predecessors. 

Perhaps Pope Francis’ emphasis on “pastoralism” (rather than advocacy of morality) poses a lesson for politicians: to simply stress comforting of constituencies rather than engage in divisive argument advocating a righteous cause. The Pope certainly retains similar moral scruples as conservative Catholics, but he adopts a non-confrontational, caring approach.