Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chesterton's Fence Repair Co.'s avatar

As a matter of logic, I don’t think it’s that hard to defend the old guard liberal position. Rich white men lucked out — through the whims of history and geography, they were in a position to first discover certain very effective principles in political and economic theory. Call this the extension of the “Guns, Germs, and Steel” argument to the realm of human affairs. The application of those principles has, itself, expanded the pool of people entitled to participate fully in our democracy (as well as business, academics, etc.). Thus, while there is an accidental set of historical circumstances that mean that white men first discovered and implemented these principles, the principles are available to anyone and indeed demand that everyone be allowed to participate.

There are plausible objections to this narrative, of course, but as a narrative it holds together well enough.

I think the old guard liberal position has struggled for three reasons. First, under the influence of (I’m sorry to use this term) post-modern academic thinking, liberals have abandoned the core idea that liberal principles are universal. Second, the above argument is just rhetorically more difficult than the new left argument. It’s harder to fit in a tweet or on a placard than “Old white guys — they suck, amirite?” And third, some of the rhetorical force of the old guard position and its claim to universalism has been squandered on patently awful experiments in export like Vietnam and Iraq, to say nothing of a fair amount of brutality and hypocrisy at home. Failure to live up to a principle doesn’t make the principle wrong, of course — the fact that your doctor doesn’t exercise doesn’t mean he’s wrong that exercise is good for you — but as a knee-jerk heuristic people have a hard time trusting someone who fails to follow his own advice.

So… liberalism struggles.

Expand full comment
William Lane's avatar

Thanks for sharing this, Richard. I'd been a long-time subscriber to The New York Review of Books, but as my politics and theirs have both changed from 2010 to the present (I became more skeptical of modern progressivism, they became less), I've been searching for a replacement publication. The Claremont Review seems like it fits the bill. I'll tell them you sent me.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts