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
Nate's avatar

Here's an example of "white male liberalism."

The the ACLU up until a few years ago. The old "white male liberalism" hews closely to classic ACLU mindset in which in everyone has the same capacity for maximum individual expression. Originally, this legal advocacy group took a libertarian and universal view of speech and would go as far as successfully defending neo-Nazi marches in Jewish neighborhoods as protected expression under the 1st Amendment in a famous court case. By successfully protecting the speech of the most noxious groups imaginable in various rulings, the ACLU ensured that fewer precedents for blocking freedom of expression (as they would likely occur in court cases like the above) occurred in court rulings; these potential precedents could be cited in future, less controversial cases and result in situations where limiting protecting free speech is easily done by judges. Essentially, everyone's egalitarian access civil liberties is presumably worse off in the future if the ACLU does not make a bold stand for whatever controversial act of expression is being fought in court.

Contemporary law schools not encourage this worldview anymore. Specious "marginalized groups," which are invented whenever their politically expedient, need to have laws that replace equal treatment (old liberalism) with preferential treatment for protected political blocks in the name of social justice. That's how I see it. I hope this posts helps.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts