Category Archives: Liberalism

Crises of Democracy are not Unprecedented

American Fascism, Authoritarianism, Fascism, Liberalism, Populism, Tyranny and Fascism

 

People should not be surprised when there is a crisis in democracy. People should be surprised when there is none. As the American political philosopher Robert Kagan said:

 

“The American Revolution did not just produce a new system of government dedicated to the protection of the rights of all individuals against government and community, the first of its kind in history. It also produced a reaction against those very liberal principles by slaveholders and their white supporters, by religious movements, by those many Americans who have sought to preserve ancient, traditional hierarchies of peoples and beliefs against the leveling force of liberalism.”

 

Many Canadians and Americans want to deny that this is part of their history. They do so at the peril of democracy, which cannot survive without constant support. As Robert Kagan showed, this tension between liberalism and illiberalism has dominated America, and it has likewise dominated Canada, and looking away from that reality is dangerously foolish. Democratic crises are part of our lifeblood. They are in our DNA.

 

Kagan called the notion that all Americans share a commitment to the founding principles of the country “a pleasant myth, or perhaps a noble lie.”

 

As he could have said equally about Canadians, he pointed out that,

 

“We prefer to believe we all share the same fundamental goals and only disagree on the means of achieving them. But, in fact, large numbers of Americans have always rejected the founders’ claim that all men are created equal, with ‘unalienable’ rights to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they have persistently struggled against the imposition of those liberal values on their lives. Great numbers of Americans, from the time of the Revolution onward, have wished to see America in ethnoreligious terms, as fundamentally a white, Protestant nation whose character is an outgrowth of white, Christian, European civilization. Their goal has been to preserve a white, Christian supremacy, contrary to the founders’ vision, and they have tolerated founders’ liberalism and the workings of the democratic system, only when it has not undermined that cause. When it has, they have repeatedly rebelled against it.”

 

That is why he called his book Rebellion. The rebellion he described and saw repeatedly, was an illiberal rebellion. It was a rebellion repeated over and over again by men—usually men—who wanted to preserve their privileges over those perceived as being “beneath” them. They never believed in equality. They believed in hierarchies with themselves and their kin and their fellow travelers at the top, in natural positions of dominance and privilege. This rebellion has repeatedly expressed itself as backlash. Over and over again every liberal step forward was followed by backlash, even when there was no over reach in the first place. These backlashes were not always corrections. That was always just a myth of the favoured minorities. And these myths must always be guarded against for they can hide the truth. And the truth must always be faced, no matter how uncomfortable.

 

The truth is that a lot of Americans, and Canadians, like their hierarchies, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Liberal Myths

Authoritarianism, Death of Democracy, Fascism, Liberalism, Populism, Tyranny and Fascism

 

 

There are some American and Canadian political leaders who fail to understand that illiberalism is part of the American and Canadian traditions every bit as much the liberal tradition. We are not all sweetness and light to use the illuminating terms of Matthew Arnold.  If we don’t recognize this fact we will cease to be on the lookout for slippage into the darker sides of our nature.

 

That great American political thinker Robert Kagan got it right. We are both liberal and illiberal. He made the case clearly in his wonderful book, Rebellion: Donald Trump and the Anti-liberal Tradition in America. In fact, he opened that book with a quote from Patrick Henry who understand this fact back in June of 1778 when Virginia had its Convention ratifying the magnificent new American Constitution. That Constitution was magnificent, and Americans were right to be proud of it, but too many of them  have forgotten it was not perfect nor are they.  Canadians, also proud of their much later Constitution and Charter are subject to the same hubris and must always guard against it.  This is what Patrick Henry so wisely said: “Virtue will slumber. The wicked will be continually watching. Consequently you will be undone.” If we want to preserve the liberal institutions that protect our liberty we must be constantly on guard. Even if we constitutions. People can get around them if we let them.

 

Robert Kagan understood that “The institutions America’s founders created to safeguard liberal democratic government cannot survive when half the country does not believe in the core principles that undergird the American system of government.” And we know what happened in the presidential election of 2024.  More than half the Americans who voted, marked their ballots for a man, Donald Trump, who had clear autocratic tendencies, because they thought that was what America needed to avoid oppression by the liberals, and rejoiced at his efforts to curtail the liberal movement. In effect, they made clear at that time that they did not want the liberal democracy that was born out of the Revolution to continue. They voted no to liberal democracy and those Americans are every bit as real Americans as those who support liberal democracy. All who cherish liberal democracy, like me, whether Canadian or American, must realize that many of our fellow countryman do not share that love.

 

In fact, when you look at obviously undemocratic measures such as gerrymandering, where people decide it is acceptable for the political leaders to choose their electors rather than have the people choose their leaders, it also obvious that many Americans don’t really love democracy at all. That includes people who support both Republicans and liberals for both parties do it all the time.

 

Illiberalism is real and it is dangerous. If we don’t understand that, we don’t understand much. Before that 2024 presidential election Kagan said this: If he [Trump] wins, they will support whatever he does, including violating the Constitution to go after his enemies and political opponents, which he has promised to do.” And of course, he was right. That is exactly what Trump did after that election. And many Americans loved it. And still do.

 

Kagan predicted that democracy would fracture as a result. It did. It did not collapse, but it surely weakened, and as Kagan ominously added, “perhaps irrecoverably.” Joe Biden was seriously wrong when he said, “this is not who we are.” That is exactly who we are. And I refer to both Americans and Canadians when I say that.

 

We must always remember that the rule of autocracies is common. In fact, they are much more common than democracies. We must never assume democracy will prevail. Usually, it does not. If we love democracy, we always have to treasure it and protect it from harm. Or we will lose it.

 

Viewpoint diversity is as good as biodiversity

Extremism, Liberalism, Moral Humility, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, Polarization, syncretism

 

If we really want to find the truth, we need viewpoint diversity. It is as important as biodiversity and basically for the same reason. Cross fertilization breeds strength. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher of liberalism, said,

 

“He who knows only one side of the case knows little of that.  His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no good ground for preferring either opinion.”

 

Such an attitude automatically respects that others may have some truth. We may have something to learn from others. As a result, such an attitude automatically leads us away from extremism.  We then can’t just shout hooray for our side.

Mill makes the point that if you have no viewpoint diversity and listen only to one side, and as a result your ideas are not exposed to challenge, you get stupid! You get intellectually lazy and you just believe dogmatically and then, if you are pushed to explain your viewpoint or defend it, you can’t.

Mill says you should listen to the other side because you might be wrong and because the other side might be right. If you are wrong and you listen to another viewpoint your error might be exposed and then you might avoid making a mistake. That is good!  Similarly, if you are right and yet you listen to another opinion you learn how to defend your opinion and strengthen it. Your opinion will be more solid, more defendable. That is good too! Such humility is also the basis of syncretism and pluralisms, two of my favourite things.

 

Will Braun is a person who enjoys talking with the other side, because he is curious about them, but also because he realizes he might actually learn something from them that he did not know before.

 

Braun, like me, lives in a very conservative area of Manitoba.  When Justin Trudeau was first elected, he said we must remember, “Conservatives are not our enemies; conservatives are our neighbours.” In nearly every debate of substance we must remember, the other side is not our enemies, they are fellow travelers. In Steinbach it is literally true. The conservatives are my neighbours not my enemies. Sometimes I forget that. When I do forget, I am wrong. My bad. Maybe Trudeau forgot that later too. It is easy to forget these wise words. We all do it.

 

Remembering we might be wrong can temper the extremes. That is another good reason to have doubts. Doubts are good.

 

 

Murderous Extremes

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Liberalism, Pluralism

 

As far back as 1791 the Marquis de Salaberry had described people in the Balkans s as “the unpolished extremities of Europe”.  There is some truth to this.  The countries, it seems to me, were all ruled by extremists.  And when you turn your country over to extremists no one should be surprised when lethal mayhem follows. And many believed it was inevitable that they would bubble over much as they had done in centuries past.  It seemed that this is exactly what happened. Murderous animosities fueled by memories of injustice and vengeance took over a whole nation. In 1992 the American Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said, “Until the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats decide to stop killing each other, there is nothing the outside world can do about it.” This is the same thing that happened in Gaza and Israel. The extremists led each to war and the ensuing slaughter was as vicious as you would expect.

 

According to the second view the Balkans tragedy was rather the fault of outsiders.  After all, as outlined over the past 2 centuries the Balkans had been fought over, conquered, divided, and exploited by others.  These exploiting countries included Turkey, Italy, France, England, Austria, Germany, and Russia.  They were to blame for creating the bad blood between the peoples.  The problem was not ethnic hostility, but rather imperial manipulation for the benefit of the colonizers at the dire expense of the colonized. The irresponsible interference of foreign countries magnified the local hostilities. According to this view, things like the overly hasty recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia by some European countries such as Germany, led in 1991 to a decade of disaster. This view has the attractive feature of aligning with centuries of dominance and interference by outside countries.

 

While the causes may be muddy, it is clear that a decade of catastrophe followed.  It is important however not to let the local Yugoslavs off the hook. They were far from blameless. As Tony Judt said in his magisterial history of modern Europe, Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945,

 

“To be sure there was a lot of history buried in the mountains of the former Yugoslavia, and many bad memories too.  And outsiders did indeed contribute crucially to the country’s tragedy, though mostly through irresponsible acquiescence in local crimes.  But the break-up of Yugoslavia—resembling in this respect the dismantling of other former Communist states—was the work of men, not fate.  And the overwhelming responsibility for Yugoslavia’s tragedy lay not in Bonn or any other foreign capital, but the with the politicians in Belgrade.[Serbia]”

 

The key is to control the extremists. Don’t give in to them.  Once more that is what countries like Canada and the US must do. That is what Israel failed to do. Don’t give in to the loudest voices. Give in, if you must, to the dull boring middle, if you want to improve your chances. That’s really what pluralism and liberalism are all about.

 

Is Social Liberalism the problem?

Decline of the west, Health, Liberalism, Social Media

 

I am still looking at the issue of why there are so many youth suicides. What happened?

Ross Douthat of the New York Times thinks Jonathan Haidt, the social psychologist, did not go far enough. He should have looked more at the society into which this new technology fell. Douthat said this:

“One answer is that social media entered into a world that was experiencing the triumph of a certain kind of social liberalism, which the new tech subjected to a stress test that it has conspicuously failed.”

 

We must realize that by “social liberalism” he did not mean exactly what you might think. He is not talking about the woke culture that Republicans are currently constantly criticizing. He does not think anti-racism or diversity equity inclusion (‘DEI’) is the real problem. He thinks it is the liberalism that preceded it—the individualism of the 1960s that included secularization, which replaced the decline of religion in the 2000s. From Douthat’s point of view, which is clearly Christian and conservative, (though not in the Trumpian sense), is that social and sexual permissiveness, widespread and open pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock child rearing, and marijuana use all contributed to the problem. I would point out that Douthat has not backed up his claims with the rigorous kind of evidence Haidt did, but his ideas have some attraction. All of those factors which might even have been morally justified and rational, might very well have contributed to the moral instability of youth, particularly young girls.

Douthat saw such liberalism this way:

“All of which has made social liberalism look much more unsustainable and self-undermining than it did in 2008. It’s threatened not just by political radicalism and returning disorder, but by a collapse of familial and romantic and even sexual connection, a terrible atomization and existential dread, a chasing after ever stranger gods.

These modern technologies fell on soil that was fertile to growing insecurity and anxiety and thus wrecked havoc on our youth. Freedom can be difficult for anyone, let alone youth and children.  They needed a moral foundation to support these liberal freedoms, which was often absent as parents did not know how to supply them, often relying solely on religious teachings and dogma that were not always adequate for the purpose. This combination of new exciting technologies, exhilarating freedom, and dubious religious instructions did not give youth the solid grounding they needed. Freedom alone can be hell.

Douthat concluded this way:

“If you were comfortable with the world of the early Obama years, it makes a lot of sense to focus on the technological shock that brought us to this place, to lament and attempt to alter its effects.

But those effects should also yield a deeper scrutiny as well — because what looked stable and successful 15 years ago now looks more like a hollowed-out tree standing only because the winds were mild, and waiting for the iPhone to be swung, gleaming, like an ax raised with less family stability and weak attachments to religion, with a strong emphasis on self-creation and a strong hostility to “normativity” — to enter and forge a new social world. And they went forth and created the online world we know today, with its pinball motion between extremes of toxic narcissism and the solidarity of the mob, its therapy-speak unmoored from real community, its conspiracism and ideological crazes, its mimetic misery and despairing catastrophism.”

 

I think Douthat’s analysis provides some helpful supplements to Haidt’s scientific analysis. In other words, in my view, new technologies, new freedoms without a solid moral foundation is what left youth unanchored, and weak religious teachings combined to create the debacle of the 2010s. And sadly, that all started a chain reaction which has fed a steady stream of youth suicides. And we are not over it yet.

Summing Up John Stuart Mill’s advocacy for Free Speech

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Truth Seeking

 

Mill says there are 4 reasons for this all of which he has really commented on already.

 

  1. We must remember that it is because we are fallible that we should consider contrary opinions. This would not be necessary if we were infallible. We must always remember, what Mill says: “if an opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”

 

  1. Even though the silenced opinion is wrong it often contains a portion of the truth (no matter how small) we should consider and weigh it in the balance. This can only help our conception of the truth. As Mill says, “though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” That is why we must always respect and even encourage dissent and must never constrain it. Only with dissent can we supplement a partial truth.

 

  1. However, even if an opinion is true, or even in some rare cases the whole truth, we must still respect dissent. Without dissent and opposition truths wither on the vine and become pale imitations of their former selves. Even truth needs opposition; not just error. Again, as Mill points out, “even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth, unless it is suffered to be, and actually is vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of the those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.”

 

  1. Finally, Mill says, unless truths are challenged from time to time, their very meaning is forgotten. As he says, “the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

 

After that summary of his position Mill also considers a possible qualification on the unencumbered right to free thought and discussion for which he has so eloquently argued. He considers whether freedom of thought and discussion can be constrained if it is not temperate or in good taste. The problem that Mill sees with this position is that it is exactly those whose opinions  being attacked that are most likely to be offended by the debate. They are the ones who are most likely to see an opponent as intemperate. In fact, the more effective the counter argument the more likely it is that the dissent will be experienced as intemperate or offensive.  As Mill said, “experience testifies that this offense is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.”

All of this goes to show that offense is a poor grounds for restraining the freedom to think and discuss. In a free and democratic society we must be willing to permit freedom of expression and discussion and this sometimes means that we will be offended by what others say.

 

The problem with complaints about intemperate comments, says Mill, is that invariably this complaint is only levied against those who challenge the prevailing opinion. “Against the unprevailing view they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions… In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of prevailing opinion does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.”

 

This does not mean that one has the right to give offense. It just means that those who try to give offense are invariably on the side of the establishment.  Dissenters cannot afford to give offense. This of course is the vituperation that should most often be challenged. It is when the powerful and influential are offensive that the most harm is engaged. That is why one need not worry about offensive attacks on religion. They will only rarely happen. As Mill said, “there would be much more need to discourage attacks on infidelity than on religion.” You can only be a jerk if you are in the minority, and then of course, you can’t afford to be one as it will help to defeat your own cause.  Therefore, Mill does not advocate restraining either.

There are many good reasons to permit free speech and few good reasons to curtail it. Later I will talk about some restraints.

In essence: if you are looking for truth you had better respect free speech.

 

No monopoly on Truth

Extremism, Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Moral Humility, Truth Seeking

 

 

It is strongly implied from the analysis of John Stuart Mill, that whenever we are involved in a dispute we should remember it is very likely, though not certain, that there is some truth to the position of our opponent.  Most disputes between competing doctrines and opinions work exactly like that, but too often we tend to forget that. I know I have too often forgotten that. I need to see the other side of a question. I may reject most of it, but if I reject all of it, I am likely making a serious mistake. The truth is usually shared as Mill said. Looking for all of the truth on one side of a serious debate is short-circuiting the search for truth. That is why we must welcome diversity of opinion and listen to all sides. Only then will we find the whole truth and not just a partial truth. That is why free speech is so important for society. Free speech is a human right, but it is more than that. It is also a social good.

 

Mill gave one more example, which I also liked. He talked about liberals and conservatives. There is often truth on both sides, though perhaps not equally balanced. Mill said,

 

“In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away.  Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reasons and sanity. Unless opinion favorable to democracy and aristocracy, to property and to equality, to co-operation and competition, to luxury and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and to discipline, and all the other standing antagonisms of practical life, are expressed with equal freedom, and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is not a chance of both elements getting their due; one scale is sure to go up and the other down. Truth in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of reconciling and combining opposites, that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has to be made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners. On any of the great open questions just enumerated, if either of the two opinions has a better claim than the other, not merely to be tolerated, but to be encouraged and countenanced, it is the one which happens at the particular time and place to be in a minority. That is the opinion which, for the time being, represents the neglected interests, the side of human well-being which is in danger of obtaining less than its share. I am aware that there is not, in this country, any intolerance of differences of opinion on most topics. They are adduced to show, by admitted and multiplied examples, the universality of the fact, that only through diversity of opinion is there, in the existing state of human intellect, a chance of fair play to all sides of the truth.  When there are persons to be found who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, even if the world is in the right, it is always probable that dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence.”

 

 

Even if there are few contrary voices (as in the case of Rousseau versus the Enlightenment above) we ought always to pay attention and respect to the voice of the dissenter. Otherwise there is, as Mill said, “not a chance of both elements getting their due.”  The rebel is critically important, even when we least expect it. It is virtually impossible for one side to capture 100% of the truth. Let the rebel help us to find what is missing for the winning side will always benefit.

 

This approach of always making room for the rebel opinion has a lot of worth. It is only if one side is infallible that we can escape this approach. Infallibility is unlikely ever to be found. I wish it were otherwise.  But one side rarely holds the entire truth. It can always benefit from some overlooked truth from the other side.

 

In today’s market place of ideas, acknowledging that the other side might have some truth is deeply unpopular. This is particularly true in the United States where to merely acknowledge the other side might have a point is considered traitorous. Members of the group are quick to jump on anyone who even hints at compromise with the wicked other.  In many places in Canada this is also all too common.

 

Mill also wants us to understand that this approach applies to all important issues, not just religious issues, because no side ever has a monopoly on truth. II really think Mill has found a key here in these 3 important propositions that all call for permitting—no encouraging—diversity of opinion. It is the closest we can come to a royal road to the truth.

I must admit that I find this amazingly well argued. How about you?

The Adversarial System

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

 

John Stuart Mill in his classic book On Liberty takes pains to point out that he is not saying that there must always be dissenting opinions. He does not say that a truth unanimously adopted does not at that moment stop to be a truth. Mill admits that when a doctrine does achieve near universal acceptance, that makes it more difficult. That is a serious drawback, because the necessity of explaining it to opponents or defending it against their attacks is most beneficial. But the absence of that does not end the matter. He says then teachers or others who are trying to persuade must find a substitute. They must find “some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question present to the learner’s consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for conversion.”

 

This is precisely the method adopted by the legal system. We call it the adversarial system. Both sides of a dispute are represented by competent advocates who make sure that the judge or trier of fact or law is fully apprised of all arguments in favor of a proposition or against it. That is why judges never want to proceed unless both parties to a dispute are represented by capable advocates. If they do not ensure this, the judge might make a mistake. Of course, even under the adversarial system, judges can make mistakes, but the chances are much less when that system is respected. It is a system that has stood the test of time.

 

Mill uses another example of a contrivance to substitute for full argument by both parties. This is the use of the Socratic method so loved by my insurance law professor. The system was based on a proper understanding of the classics of Greek philosophy brought forth by Plato. I remember reading some of those dialogues in my first year of university. Plato had Socrates often start a discussion by considering a commonly held opinion and then chipping away at it. Socrates referred to himself as an annoying “gadfly.” Annoying yes; but essential to the task of seeking the truth. Mill put it this way,

 

“The Socratic dialectics, so magnificently exemplified in the dialogues of Plato, were a contrivance of this description. They were essentially a negative discussion of the great questions of philosophy and life, directed with consummate skill to the purpose of convincing any one who had merely adopted the commonplace of received opinion that he did not understand the subject—that he as yet attached no definite meaning to the doctrines he professed; in order that, becoming aware of his ignorance, he might be put in the way to obtain a stable belief, resting on a clear apprehension both of the meaning of doctrines and of their evidence.”

 

Mill also mentioned how a similar approach was used by the famous “school disputations of the Middle Ages.” This technique was designed to make sure that a young student of theology understood fully his own position and in consequence the position of his opponent so that he could successfully argue for one and confute the other. Of course, as Mill realised, the Schoolmen had one fatal flaw that Mill would never countenance by his methods, the Schoolmen accepted authority rather than reason. That made them infinitely inferior to the Socratic dialogues.

 

Law courts in the common law system suffer from the same defect. In matters of law Common Law courts accede to the authority of precedent that they are not free to challenge. At least theoretically that is the case. In practice sharp judges can often reach the conclusion they want to reach. While I love the adversarial system of Common law courts, I too am opposed to dogged obeisance to authority and think this is one of the reasons that courts make so many serious mistakes. If an aeronautical engineers used this method no one would want to fly.

 

For all of these reasons Mill emphasizes that it would be eminently foolish to disregard the opportunity to hear contrary opinions when they are offered. It is so difficult to create artificial contrivances to ensure that contrary views are heard, that decision makers should never forgo genuine contrary views. They should be embraced, never constrained. Mill concludes as follows, “If there are any persons who contest a received opinion, or who will do so if the law or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is someone to do for us what we otherwise ought, if we have any regard for either the certainty or the vitality of our convictions to do with much greater labour ourselves.”

 

Free speech is always beneficial to the holder of opinions, whether true or false, provided the commentary is genuine and not frivolous or vexatious or totally absurd. As Mill said, such opinions should be “embraced, not constrained.’’ the contrary opinion and then deal with it.

That is why we need free speech.