I've had so many of the same thoughts that you express here in your post; the limiting factor of the left, history rhymes, etc.
It's hard for me to describe why the Israeli conflict is so important, as compared to something like what is happening in Ukraine. I think it's something more like a proxy war for Western Civilization.
Even without regards to which side "wins," the public opinion of which side is in the right or wrong seems to be a trial run for who can recognize Western Civilization and will support it even when the going gets tough.
When I read your piece the other day on the Brutus quote I could see that our ponderings are clearly traveling a similar path. It's even more obvious with your post today, lol.
I think you make such a cogent point re: the Israeli conflict acting as a proxy for the war against Western Civ.. The fact that we have so many Americans in the streets and on our campuses actively siding with terrorists against a democracy, arguing the cause of people whose stated aim is genocide, even shrugging off sadistic butchery as tactic of "decolonization," and doing so without instant, overwhelming LOUD institutional and public condemnation seems like a neon signal that we have reached the edge of our civilization.
So, Leah, I have been mulling over the difference between "conservative and liberal", between Republican and Democrat et. al. for many years. Growing up in a military family started me down the conservative path, but being in liberal education (and mostly Catholic/Jesuit secondary education which is traditionally very left-leaning) generally put me in a "me vs. them" scenario. The hard part for me was to think that maybe I was wrong in my views, that I was just brainwashed my dad (my hero actually) and so wasn't thinking clearly or sympathetically enough. After all, why shouldn't we follow the gospel and "feed the hungry, clothe the poor" etc. I was actually accused of being anti-gospel if I voted for Mitt Romney years ago.....by a dear Jesuit priest friend of mine. and these were all friends of mine whom I respected. But I couldn't shake my perspective. So....I kept working to see why my view was quite possibly a very good one....and actually the better way, while still seeing flaws in the binary options. I finally settled - and not with any joy - on the notion that Republicans/Conservatives are more pessimistic about human nature. They (we) see that human nature needs guidelines and boundaries - just like you wrote in this piece! If people are left to their own instincts from an early age, they will be self-serving....which is a reason for religion and the wonderful teachings of Christianity. But, as for a political system to "run" a nation, we must have laws and rules. (One of my favorite plays was
"A Man For All Seasons" in which Sir Thomas More says that we must protect ourselves from the devil - and ourselves - with laws.) And... as parents and teachers, we must use what I see as "tough love." If you spoil a child, he/she does not become strong and independent and altruistic. If you make your classes too easy, nobody works to his/her potential. Raise the bar high... but help people reach it. They may not reach the pinnacle, but they will be stronger for working harder to reach a higher bar. Limits.....with help. And - as you suggested - without limits, there is a great abyss for all.
Just a few musings....still a work in progress as I try to find the best ways for our nation and people to survive and prosper.
Thanks for sharing this journey, Ellen. I've come to many similar conclusions and a few different ones. Your point about the differing ways that liberals and conservatives view human nature is right on target, I think. Have you read Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions? And my friend @Tommy here, has also written cogently on that subject, though I'm not finding it in his Substack at the moment. The disparity between us on that point is a key piece of the picture—an enduring truth that helps make sense of our divergent ways of framing the problems of society, to say nothing of our disparate solutions. It does seem to be crunch time now though; survival is beginning to feel more the urgent goal than mere prosperity. Whoever thought we'd actually be arriving at this point...? Praying to God we manage to pull ourselves together...
Hi Leah. I haven't read Sowell yet although I almost grabbed his latest book at the book store yesterday. I have heard so much about him, so I should add him to my list, for sure. Is this the book you most recommend as I know he has others. I am praying for a true leader to step forward in our nation to bring us all together towards a positive vision....we are in desperate need of this now. Ellen
Well, you know who *I* think is a true leader stepping forward with a positive vision to unite us—which is a big reason he has polled so well right out of the gate.
Re: Thomas Sowell, I haven't read his work, only heard much about it from others who have. Prompted by your question, I was perusing his trove of wisdom last night wondering where I would start were I going to dive in. I think Social Justice Fallacies likely would be my first choice, in part because it's his most recent work. Honestly, based on what I know of him and the interviews I've watched of him, his scholarship through the years is so relevant that one can learn a lot from any of his work.
As James Burnham has pointed out, “no enemy to the Left” combined with a “preferred” (and required, to the extent that if it doesn’t exist they will invent it) enemy to the Right is baked into liberalism, and is its fatal flaw. We are seeing that play out now.
I definitely agree we are seeing the demise of liberalism play out, largely because true liberals have failed to recognize their enemies on the Left—or become too afraid of them to speak out against them, or to stand up for those who do.
But I'm not sure I agree it is baked in to liberalism because once upon a time in my lifetime, liberals regarded Marxism/Leninism as an enemy on the left. I think the real failure of liberals was in not seeing through that enemy's disguise when it showed up in their midst, reframed as identity politics and waving the banner of civil rights. Liberals' raison d'etre of tolerance and acceptance led them to throw open the gates and clear a path for the Trojan horse, defend its presence, not realizing their need for limits on their core principles and how their failure to recognize and stand for them would invite catastrophe. If that failure is regarded as inevitable then "baked in" makes sense. I'm just not sure I'd presume that's true.
One can quibble about phraseology but it’s certainly not presumption. Burnham published his analysis in the early 1960s and now we have an additional half century of history which supports his observations about liberalism.
Your point about liberals “not seeing through that [Leftist] enemy's disguise when it showed up in their midst” actually supports the argument, especially when you consider liberals’ constant hypersensitivity to perceived similar threats from the Right, often to the point of paranoia.
I concede that there are a few liberals who see this clearly and have raised their voices against anti-liberal threats from the Left, but they are an extremely small minority, and they are pilloried by their fellow travelers.
So looking back on the last 70-80 years of liberalism in practice, it’s hard not to conclude that this weakness is indeed genetic, so to speak.
I do see that framing the issue re: there being no limiting principle on the Left is the same basic idea as no enemies on the left, and that my point that liberals failed to recognize the absence of such a principle, or grasp it when it showed up through the emergence of identity politics, is similar to saying "baked in" given how antithetical principles of tolerance and acceptance are to drawing a firm boundary. I guess I hesitate to label their failure as inevitable, which is what I hear being implied by "baked in."
EDIT to add: I see the "no enemies" stance as more of a partisan mindset than an baked in artifact of liberal thinking, especially since it can be seen among some on the political right who refuse to condemn further rightward extremes out of a misplaced sense of solidarity against the "libs."
Holy cow, Leah….this piece is amazing! I have been out of internet lately and will be slammed for a bit, but I want to comment a bit more on this piece at a later date. So much to chew on - I think you’ve finally helped me understand the key differences between the Left and Right. I’ve been grappling with it for a long time. And your response to Tommy is something that I cannot say “like” … I need a way to say… “too true and scary”. Thank you!
Thank you, Ellen! I'm so gratified to know it sparked something for you, and I will look forward to hearing more of your thoughts when you find time to write. I've been stewing on the question ever since I first hear Jordan Peterson pose it a few years back. The answer feels more urgent than ever!
I've had so many of the same thoughts that you express here in your post; the limiting factor of the left, history rhymes, etc.
It's hard for me to describe why the Israeli conflict is so important, as compared to something like what is happening in Ukraine. I think it's something more like a proxy war for Western Civilization.
Even without regards to which side "wins," the public opinion of which side is in the right or wrong seems to be a trial run for who can recognize Western Civilization and will support it even when the going gets tough.
When I read your piece the other day on the Brutus quote I could see that our ponderings are clearly traveling a similar path. It's even more obvious with your post today, lol.
I think you make such a cogent point re: the Israeli conflict acting as a proxy for the war against Western Civ.. The fact that we have so many Americans in the streets and on our campuses actively siding with terrorists against a democracy, arguing the cause of people whose stated aim is genocide, even shrugging off sadistic butchery as tactic of "decolonization," and doing so without instant, overwhelming LOUD institutional and public condemnation seems like a neon signal that we have reached the edge of our civilization.
So, Leah, I have been mulling over the difference between "conservative and liberal", between Republican and Democrat et. al. for many years. Growing up in a military family started me down the conservative path, but being in liberal education (and mostly Catholic/Jesuit secondary education which is traditionally very left-leaning) generally put me in a "me vs. them" scenario. The hard part for me was to think that maybe I was wrong in my views, that I was just brainwashed my dad (my hero actually) and so wasn't thinking clearly or sympathetically enough. After all, why shouldn't we follow the gospel and "feed the hungry, clothe the poor" etc. I was actually accused of being anti-gospel if I voted for Mitt Romney years ago.....by a dear Jesuit priest friend of mine. and these were all friends of mine whom I respected. But I couldn't shake my perspective. So....I kept working to see why my view was quite possibly a very good one....and actually the better way, while still seeing flaws in the binary options. I finally settled - and not with any joy - on the notion that Republicans/Conservatives are more pessimistic about human nature. They (we) see that human nature needs guidelines and boundaries - just like you wrote in this piece! If people are left to their own instincts from an early age, they will be self-serving....which is a reason for religion and the wonderful teachings of Christianity. But, as for a political system to "run" a nation, we must have laws and rules. (One of my favorite plays was
"A Man For All Seasons" in which Sir Thomas More says that we must protect ourselves from the devil - and ourselves - with laws.) And... as parents and teachers, we must use what I see as "tough love." If you spoil a child, he/she does not become strong and independent and altruistic. If you make your classes too easy, nobody works to his/her potential. Raise the bar high... but help people reach it. They may not reach the pinnacle, but they will be stronger for working harder to reach a higher bar. Limits.....with help. And - as you suggested - without limits, there is a great abyss for all.
Just a few musings....still a work in progress as I try to find the best ways for our nation and people to survive and prosper.
Thanks for sharing this journey, Ellen. I've come to many similar conclusions and a few different ones. Your point about the differing ways that liberals and conservatives view human nature is right on target, I think. Have you read Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions? And my friend @Tommy here, has also written cogently on that subject, though I'm not finding it in his Substack at the moment. The disparity between us on that point is a key piece of the picture—an enduring truth that helps make sense of our divergent ways of framing the problems of society, to say nothing of our disparate solutions. It does seem to be crunch time now though; survival is beginning to feel more the urgent goal than mere prosperity. Whoever thought we'd actually be arriving at this point...? Praying to God we manage to pull ourselves together...
Hi Leah. I haven't read Sowell yet although I almost grabbed his latest book at the book store yesterday. I have heard so much about him, so I should add him to my list, for sure. Is this the book you most recommend as I know he has others. I am praying for a true leader to step forward in our nation to bring us all together towards a positive vision....we are in desperate need of this now. Ellen
Well, you know who *I* think is a true leader stepping forward with a positive vision to unite us—which is a big reason he has polled so well right out of the gate.
Re: Thomas Sowell, I haven't read his work, only heard much about it from others who have. Prompted by your question, I was perusing his trove of wisdom last night wondering where I would start were I going to dive in. I think Social Justice Fallacies likely would be my first choice, in part because it's his most recent work. Honestly, based on what I know of him and the interviews I've watched of him, his scholarship through the years is so relevant that one can learn a lot from any of his work.
As James Burnham has pointed out, “no enemy to the Left” combined with a “preferred” (and required, to the extent that if it doesn’t exist they will invent it) enemy to the Right is baked into liberalism, and is its fatal flaw. We are seeing that play out now.
I definitely agree we are seeing the demise of liberalism play out, largely because true liberals have failed to recognize their enemies on the Left—or become too afraid of them to speak out against them, or to stand up for those who do.
But I'm not sure I agree it is baked in to liberalism because once upon a time in my lifetime, liberals regarded Marxism/Leninism as an enemy on the left. I think the real failure of liberals was in not seeing through that enemy's disguise when it showed up in their midst, reframed as identity politics and waving the banner of civil rights. Liberals' raison d'etre of tolerance and acceptance led them to throw open the gates and clear a path for the Trojan horse, defend its presence, not realizing their need for limits on their core principles and how their failure to recognize and stand for them would invite catastrophe. If that failure is regarded as inevitable then "baked in" makes sense. I'm just not sure I'd presume that's true.
One can quibble about phraseology but it’s certainly not presumption. Burnham published his analysis in the early 1960s and now we have an additional half century of history which supports his observations about liberalism.
Your point about liberals “not seeing through that [Leftist] enemy's disguise when it showed up in their midst” actually supports the argument, especially when you consider liberals’ constant hypersensitivity to perceived similar threats from the Right, often to the point of paranoia.
I concede that there are a few liberals who see this clearly and have raised their voices against anti-liberal threats from the Left, but they are an extremely small minority, and they are pilloried by their fellow travelers.
So looking back on the last 70-80 years of liberalism in practice, it’s hard not to conclude that this weakness is indeed genetic, so to speak.
I do see that framing the issue re: there being no limiting principle on the Left is the same basic idea as no enemies on the left, and that my point that liberals failed to recognize the absence of such a principle, or grasp it when it showed up through the emergence of identity politics, is similar to saying "baked in" given how antithetical principles of tolerance and acceptance are to drawing a firm boundary. I guess I hesitate to label their failure as inevitable, which is what I hear being implied by "baked in."
EDIT to add: I see the "no enemies" stance as more of a partisan mindset than an baked in artifact of liberal thinking, especially since it can be seen among some on the political right who refuse to condemn further rightward extremes out of a misplaced sense of solidarity against the "libs."
Holy cow, Leah….this piece is amazing! I have been out of internet lately and will be slammed for a bit, but I want to comment a bit more on this piece at a later date. So much to chew on - I think you’ve finally helped me understand the key differences between the Left and Right. I’ve been grappling with it for a long time. And your response to Tommy is something that I cannot say “like” … I need a way to say… “too true and scary”. Thank you!
Thank you, Ellen! I'm so gratified to know it sparked something for you, and I will look forward to hearing more of your thoughts when you find time to write. I've been stewing on the question ever since I first hear Jordan Peterson pose it a few years back. The answer feels more urgent than ever!