Thank you Mike for an excellent analysis again. I shall have to read and reread. I have felt that the terms Liberal and Liberalism are problematic in a not dissimilar way to "free" and "freedom". George Lakoff in "Whose Freedom" excellently (please read anyone who hasn't) how the Right and the Left describe Freedom in different ways. Succinctly for the Right Freedom means "protection from government interference (except for law, order, and morality enforcement)". For the Left, Freedom means " removing barriers (economic, social, or legal) that prevent people from reaching their potential." For the Right WIng a liberal economy is generally preferred as it means freedom from government intervention. But this ultimately (as Thomas Piketty pointed out) leads to unbridled capitalism and increases in riches of the rich and poverty of the poor. So this economic liberalism helps people at the top. It is questionable how much it helps people at the bottom. But social/cultural liberty is something different. In this, a liberal (denounced libtard by the uncouth right) is typically someone who believes in a woman's right to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, of sexual preference, to take mind altering drugs,freedom of expression and of reading (no banned books!). So the Right is content with Economic liberty, which is apt to exploit - only owners choose how much to pay; employees have no liberty to choose their rate of pay usually. But many on the right do not want to endow on other people their right to their own philosophy and hence we have had the murder of Socrates, Jesus, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Taliban. So no indeed they only believe in a "small government" when it comes to have few restrictions on their individual ability to extract what they can from the marketplace. They believe in big government, frequently but not always, in terms of their maintenance of control (armed forces, police, prisons)and policing of other's religious and educational/literary liberty (defunding public education, book banning, banning of abortion). And what is missing from the Right, as Mike alludes to is the love of the neighbor, of the "commons", responsibility to the whole of society to function well, not just rewards to the top. Merit is seen by the Right as something to be earned. For the Left EVERYONE has merit, whatever they think, do or don't do.
As I mentioned on Andrea Hiott’s podcast, I use the word liberalism fully aware of the cultural baggage that now surrounds it. I’m advancing a form of liberalism that I believe sits within the classical tradition—though I imagine some would quibble with that claim, especially in light of certain metaphysical positions I hold.
But as Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
He was speaking specifically about constitutional reform. But the larger philosophical insight applies: as our conception of truth has evolved—and as our scientific understanding has converged to where it is today—we find ourselves needing to reexamine certain foundationalist assumptions, including natural law claims that no longer seem tenable under scrutiny.
Still, I believe we can recover ethical foundations that support liberal values—not through appeals to metaphysical certainty, but through a philosophy of coherence, of moral clarity earned through tension.
That’s what I’m trying to do with The Grand Praxis: to articulate a liberalism that is emotionally serious, philosophically grounded, and spiritually adequate to the conditions of modern life. A liberalism that doesn’t collapse into technocracy or tribalism. A liberalism that holds.
Indeed progressives can have moral clarity through compassion (which he absurdly described as “the fundamental weakness in western civilization”). Liberalism through compassion is what we need. Unbridled “liberal” capitalism has no compassion and has no part in a truly civilized world.
Thank you for saying concisely and clearly what I have been thinking ever since the pandemic. During those dark times I heard a lot about personal freedom. It seemed like the only way some defined freedom was doing whatever they wanted to with no regard to how it affected their fellow citizens. (One person told me that his responsibility was his family, and that was it.) I’m glad you wrote this and I’m passing it along.
So beautifully articulated--I will read again & again.
Thank you for this.
Beautifully put.
Thank you for articulating so clearly the different perspectives.
One to read again and again and again.
Thank you Mike for an excellent analysis again. I shall have to read and reread. I have felt that the terms Liberal and Liberalism are problematic in a not dissimilar way to "free" and "freedom". George Lakoff in "Whose Freedom" excellently (please read anyone who hasn't) how the Right and the Left describe Freedom in different ways. Succinctly for the Right Freedom means "protection from government interference (except for law, order, and morality enforcement)". For the Left, Freedom means " removing barriers (economic, social, or legal) that prevent people from reaching their potential." For the Right WIng a liberal economy is generally preferred as it means freedom from government intervention. But this ultimately (as Thomas Piketty pointed out) leads to unbridled capitalism and increases in riches of the rich and poverty of the poor. So this economic liberalism helps people at the top. It is questionable how much it helps people at the bottom. But social/cultural liberty is something different. In this, a liberal (denounced libtard by the uncouth right) is typically someone who believes in a woman's right to choose, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, of sexual preference, to take mind altering drugs,freedom of expression and of reading (no banned books!). So the Right is content with Economic liberty, which is apt to exploit - only owners choose how much to pay; employees have no liberty to choose their rate of pay usually. But many on the right do not want to endow on other people their right to their own philosophy and hence we have had the murder of Socrates, Jesus, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Taliban. So no indeed they only believe in a "small government" when it comes to have few restrictions on their individual ability to extract what they can from the marketplace. They believe in big government, frequently but not always, in terms of their maintenance of control (armed forces, police, prisons)and policing of other's religious and educational/literary liberty (defunding public education, book banning, banning of abortion). And what is missing from the Right, as Mike alludes to is the love of the neighbor, of the "commons", responsibility to the whole of society to function well, not just rewards to the top. Merit is seen by the Right as something to be earned. For the Left EVERYONE has merit, whatever they think, do or don't do.
As I mentioned on Andrea Hiott’s podcast, I use the word liberalism fully aware of the cultural baggage that now surrounds it. I’m advancing a form of liberalism that I believe sits within the classical tradition—though I imagine some would quibble with that claim, especially in light of certain metaphysical positions I hold.
But as Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
He was speaking specifically about constitutional reform. But the larger philosophical insight applies: as our conception of truth has evolved—and as our scientific understanding has converged to where it is today—we find ourselves needing to reexamine certain foundationalist assumptions, including natural law claims that no longer seem tenable under scrutiny.
Still, I believe we can recover ethical foundations that support liberal values—not through appeals to metaphysical certainty, but through a philosophy of coherence, of moral clarity earned through tension.
That’s what I’m trying to do with The Grand Praxis: to articulate a liberalism that is emotionally serious, philosophically grounded, and spiritually adequate to the conditions of modern life. A liberalism that doesn’t collapse into technocracy or tribalism. A liberalism that holds.
He = Elon
Indeed progressives can have moral clarity through compassion (which he absurdly described as “the fundamental weakness in western civilization”). Liberalism through compassion is what we need. Unbridled “liberal” capitalism has no compassion and has no part in a truly civilized world.
Thank you for saying concisely and clearly what I have been thinking ever since the pandemic. During those dark times I heard a lot about personal freedom. It seemed like the only way some defined freedom was doing whatever they wanted to with no regard to how it affected their fellow citizens. (One person told me that his responsibility was his family, and that was it.) I’m glad you wrote this and I’m passing it along.