View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Edward Alexander |
February 12th, 2006
Since the liberal view of the world is daily confuted in Iran, in Gaza, in Europe, by the tenacity of Muslim rejectionism, ever more desperate "explanations" of what is happening must be contrived.
"If liberalism has a single desperate weakness," wrote Lionel Trilling in 1943, "it is an inadequacy of imagination; liberalism is always being surprised." Although the revelation of human depravity has been one of the chief enterprises of the human mind for over four centuries, its discoveries have never been sufficiently conclusive to dislodge liberalism from its entrenched belief in human and social goodness, its dogmatic attachment to the belief that human wickedness is invariably "caused" by an unjust or unequal or anomalous society. Every modern calamity — German death factories, Soviet gulags, Islamic suicide bombings — that did not fit into liberalism's Marxist categories caught it by surprise.
The recent horrors of the Palestinian elections that brought to power a Nazi-style regime of crazed religious fanatics and the Cartoon War that has turned the ever combustible Muslim mob against the Danish infidel have also caught liberals by surprise.
Liberal optimism, epitomized in the solemn idiocies of the New York Times editorial columns and the sophisticated confusion of the New Yorker, quickly concluded that the electoral victory of Hamas, despite the suicide bandanas and swastika armbands worn by its blood-stained bands of ruthless killers, was really a popular mandate for less graft and more efficient garbage recycling than the Palestinian Authority had delivered. The globe-trotting Jimmy Carter stopped by to pronounce it "a beautiful election" and assured Larry King that Hamas would soon turn from terror: "they told me they want…a peaceful administration."
Since the liberal view of the world is daily confuted in Iran, in Gaza, in Europe, by the tenacity of Muslim rejectionism — of Israel, of America, of free expression, of women's rights — ever more desperate "explanations" of what is happening must be contrived.
Thus the violence occasioned by the "blasphemous" cartoons is being explained by liberals as a reaction to, among other sore grievances and "root causes," the Danish government's having recently (and of course too late) imposed limits on immigration and declared advocacy of terrorism a criminal offense. All over the world the liberal intelligentsia are debating (for the very first time!) whether it is "wrong" to insult someone's religion; and while Muslim mobs in London are chanting "Bomb, bomb Denmark" Britain's foreign minister Jack Straw is warning that freedom of speech does not include the right "to insult or…be inflammatory."
His scolding is directed not at the would-be killers, of course, but at the Danish cartoonist.
The allliance of recent years between liberals and Islamic terrorists has been likened to the Soviet-Nazi pact of August 1939, in which two ostensibly opposed extremes joined together. By now we are familiar with the paradox whereby American liberals who oppose every other "faith-based initiative" give their blessing to distinctly illiberal (indeed fascist) Islamicist suicide bombers acting in the name of religious faith. For the truth is that most liberals do not believe that anybody is motivated by faith; as a result, the more barbaric the actions of terrorists the more certain are liberals to "explain" them as a reflective measure of their mistreatment by — their victims.
Thus each new act of terror — beheadings, lynchings, suicide bombings, butchery that would shame animals — is interpreted by liberalism's angelic sociology as further proof of just how oppressive are the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Americans. The more savage the terror, the greater the guilt of its victims. To this precipice has liberal philosophy brought us, and if we do not pull back from it, it will prove as fatal to us as the bombs and bullets of our declared enemies. As the famous liberal John Stuart Mill wrote, "philosophy, which to the superficial appears a thing so remote from the business of life and the outward interests of men, is in reality the thing on earth which… in the long run overbears every other influence."
eaengl@u.washington.edu
Visit their website at:
Responses to "Liberalism is Always Being Surprised"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dear Sir:
Your statements are true and very well stated. The presuppositions of liberal thought lead ineluctiblly to the illogical conclusions you so eloquently exposed. I am still interested in explication of the roots of liberalism, the philosophical foundations of such irrational lines of reasoning. I have been led to conclude it lies along the lines of the necessity of denying intrinsic evil because, to acknowledge it, inevitably mandates acknowledgement of God. The latter is, appropriately, more terrifying then the other fears they deny but may encounter in this world. Hence, "their minds are darkened".
Comment by Stephen Jamison | February 13, 2006
Mr. Jamison:
Your observation on denying intrinsic evil is very perceptive.
Lawrence Auster observes, “. . . what started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a (Leftist) demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.” Because liberalism, by definition, knows no limit, it necessarily over time approaches the absurd. For example, the movement to eliminate racial discrimination and religious intolerance have become a demand to eliminate ALL INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION, even intolerance of criminals and discrimination based on merit. As Auster further observes, “a society based on traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s ACTIONS, and so is capable of SEEING and STOPPING REAL EVIL WHEN IT APPEARS. By contrast, . . . a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably END UP TOLERATING EVIL, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ULTIMATELY LOSE THE AUTHORITY to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by definition ‘unequal’ and ‘exclusive’ and thus (by modern liberal / Leftist standards) illegitimate.”
My own personal observation is similar to yours regarding acknowledgement of God. Modern liberals reject God because they believe that human nature is changeable, and consequently, man can perfect himself and find his own salvation.
Modern liberals think they are original in their ideas, but there is nothing new about man being seduced by his own human pride, the original fall. It is also described in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Whether or not you believe these Biblical stories literally is of no consequence. They could be simple allegories to illustrate the point that human nature has not changed since the beginning. The modern liberal is simply re-hashing the same thing that was served many times before in many places and in many guises.
Comment by G of Sedona | February 13, 2006
Totally in agreement with both the article and the comment on it
The best example we have of their idiocy is that Jimmy Who, who is actually making a living out of endorsing every dity pollig process in the world.
First he endorsed the Peruvian reelection of Fujimori, proven later on to be a hoax.
Then he endorsed the Chavez Venezuelan referendum, shamelessly tricked electronically and now he endorses the Hamas election and not nly that, but he assures us that once in power, moderation will set in.
Well, the same was said about Hitler and the rest is history……..
You are right : liberals believe the fallacy of the perfectibility of the human species
Comment by jacob mandelblum | February 15, 2006
I believe G’s comments about Liberalism being in its essence replacing God with man. This makes the liberal a Marxist in the purest sense. What fascinates me is the rank and file liberal, the college student, actor and coffee house manager; those not connected with the more esoteric foundations of their ill-conceived ideology.
These people tend to be a conflicted mass of political correctness intertwined with hyper-sensitivity. “On the one hand Islamic radicals are intolerant religious zealots, but on the other hand I can’t really criticize them because they’re not white. One the one hand resorting to violence to over throw freedom of speech in the form of Danish political cartoons seems wrong, but on the other hand they are poor and oppressed, besides the Danes are really, really white. On the one hand the Bush administration seems to place women and minorities in positions of power and responsibility, but on the other hand can articulate, intelligent, conservative self-made people of color still retain their minority status?”
I’m sure these and other burning questions have them feverishly pouring over their charts on political correctness over a double Latte. Maybe Liberalism is merely the result of spoiled, over caffeinated people with too much time on their hands?
Comment by Sean | February 16, 2006
There is no such thing as intrinsic evil, and if there is then show me the gene. Do you know what I think is the nearest thing to evil that I have seen in the last five years, the culture of amorality that lets neo-conservatives feel okay about slaughtering tens of thousands of people in Iraq for political and economic motives.
You people are fooling nobody except yourselves.
Comment by Max Godwin | February 21, 2006
The nearest thing I've seen to evil is the "culture of amorality" that lets liberals slaughter tens of thousands…. oh yeah, make that tens of millions of (unborn) Americans for political and economic reasons.
Comment by Shane Atwood | February 23, 2006
Mr. Alexander (no relation) succinctly states what I have been saying for years: That liberals are sheltered, overindulged people who are deluded by the naive assumption that there really is no evil in the world. And that if we are just really nice to to all those poor/third world/minority people (who might also be violent, oppressive or just plain evil) then they will all be nice back. Part of this mindset comes from their own guilt at being spoiled and overindulged themselves. So when that doesn't work, then they make further excuses for the evil behavior based on pc victimology.
Comment by Elizabeth Alexander | March 20, 2006