Just don't conflate the "left" with "liberal". — Harry Hindu

I wish that distinction were made clearly enough in a dictionary and in political parlance for everyone to understand the same meanings.

The point being that people that do their research actually vote for candidates, not parties — Harry Hindu

Or policies, maybe? Or one particular issue? Or a leader they prefer as head of their government? Or some other aspect of candidate and/or party that is meaningful to that voter?

T Clark votes for party. When you do that you don't bother doing research. — Harry Hindu

I don't believe you know his motivations, his experience or what research he's done.

You don't bother questioning your group when the majority (the more moderate Dems) allow the actions of a few (the extremists (socialists/communists that are trying to erase diversity, not promote it) — Harry Hindu

That's not what I'm seeing in US politics currently.

This wording signifies a right-leaning thingy where people believe everything should be approached with a sense of sacredness. I couldn't be more thumbs-up to that whole idea. That would really help people. Yet, it would be over my burned and rotting corpse that any religious group would step a foot into a public school in my area to talk about anything. Public schools are not for religious indoctrination. The answer is no.

I find it strange that you think that "education in virtue" must necessarily be religious. Military training involves a lot of ascetic training in virtue and character development and it isn't religious at all. Aristotle and Plato both have political philosophies that center heavily on education as the cultivation of virtue, and neither justifies this in religious terms. Instead, they make the quite defensible argument that collective self-government at the level of the polis requires self-governance at the level of the individual.

The idea that the main role of education was fostering virtue is a norm throughout Pagan thought as well as Christian thought, and was dominant in India and China too. The idea that it must instead belong to some separate, "private sphere of religion and spirituality," is itself a positively indoctrinated dogma of liberalism.

.. Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood.

. The idea that it must instead belong to some separate, "private sphere of religion and spirituality," is itself a positively indoctrinated dogma of liberalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The fact that the philosophical orientation you follow disagrees with the cartoonishly defined category you are passing off as liberalism doesn’t make the latter a ‘positively indoctrinated dogma’. It just means that it relies on different metaphysical assumptions , and you don’t like those assumptions. I suspect I wouldn’t care much for whatever alternative you have in mind, but I’m not threatened enough by it to go around accusing it of being an indoctrinated dogma, unless of course those that adhere to it want to think of it as a dogma. You do seem to be on some sort of anti-liberal crusade. Perhaps that’s because of its dominating hold on academia?

The fact that the philosophical orientation you follow disagrees with the cartoonishly defined category you are passing off as liberalism doesn’t make the latter a ‘positively indoctrinated dogma’.

I'm using the term "liberalism" in the same way its most popular advocates (e.g. Fukuyama) and critics (e.g. Deneen) use it. As people have noted, "globalized capitalism" might work as well, but this would tend to exclude its political and cultural elements.

I think it's fairly obvious, given the distance of hindsight, that every culture in history has positively indoctrinated its members in its dominant philosophy and anthropology. This was true of the ancient Greeks, the Romans, medieval Europe, and Qing China. So too, it was certainly true for liberalism's 20th century rivals, communism and fascism. If it can plausibly claim to be excluded from this otherwise universal tendency, it is only because of the transparency of ideology mentioned in the OP.

This is particularly true because liberalism has been extremely evangelical, spreading itself through hard economic coercion, military funding, supporting coups, and even invading foreign countries to set up liberal states by force, while also generally refusing to recognize the legitimacy of any competitor systems. This is particularly true in the era of globalization, but it's been there from the beginning when revolutionary France was invading its neighbors and setting up "sister republics" by force, or sending the "Infernal Columns" to genocide devout Catholics loyal to elements of the ancien regime (i.e., their own local clergy, nobility, and customs). And even then it had its tendency for totalizing automation. When they couldn't behead priests fast enough with the guillotine they built barges with removable planks so they could fill them with chained prisoners and sink them all at once.

When they couldn't behead priests fast enough with the guillotine they built barges with removable planks so they could fill them with chained prisoners and sink them all at once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean, liberals did that :yikes: ?

This is particularly true because liberalism has been extremely evangelical, spreading itself through hard economic coercion, military funding, supporting coups, and even invading foreign countries to set up liberal states by force, while also generally refusing to recognize the legitimacy of any competitor systems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The preferred method of Americans was to loan money to a country, wait until they were about to default, and then reorganize their economy so as to create an elite class and a destitute underclass. This is neo-liberalism.

I think you know very well that you're over generalizing

Neo-liberalism is the dominant form of right-wing liberalism after about 1980. Yet this sort of thing happened plenty before neo-liberalism was a thing. CIA support for the coup of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, who was freely and fairly elected, occured in 1953 at the height of the post-war New Deal consensus. It was done in part because of the socialization of lucrative industries and the withdrawal of concessions for multinational firms (i.e., in defense of property rights), but even more so it was justified by the idea that the action was required to secure the liberty of the Iranians from prospective "communist oppression." Likewise, at the height of liberal progressivism after the First World War the US (and the rest of the Entente democracies) deployed troops to Russia to help the Whites on fairly similar grounds. Or you could look at America opening Japan to trade at gun point in the 19th century, or the Opium Wars, etc. Neo-liberalism just continued the trend.

John Locke justified colonial invasions and enslavement on the grounds that indigenous people would be "liberated" in the long run by the successes of the liberal economic order and increased consumption in future generations. "Liberation from indolence." Indigenous people did not have true ownership of their lands on the grounds that they failed to invest in their development.

Neo-liberalism just continued the trend. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plus the British financed their industrial revolution by their involvement in the Atlantic Slave Trade. They were the second biggest participant behind Portugal.

It would be easier to accept that all these crimes happened because nobody was teaching virtues in schools, except the only thing new about any of it was the scale. And that scale was a result of technological advancements directly stemming from liberalism's hot economies.

Another effect of liberalism: the small pox vaccine, which has been estimated to have saved 200 million people. Which of liberalism's crimes compares to that good?

I feel this is the case for most trans people. Their mental states at large, and their reports of same, seem to indicate this. I don't think this is society doing anything wrong. They want to be something they aren't, and that hurts. I am not the greatest singer in the world, and it irks me. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is simple as you are painting it. We all have something of the female and something of the male in us. It's not as black and white as genitalia and bodily sexual characteristics might make it seem. I think you trivialize the desire to identify as other than those biological characteristics indicate by comparing it to being a firefighter. I believe it can be an overwhelming, all-encompassing disposition. In any case are such matters any of our business really? Why does it matter to you?

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified
— Janus

I disagree. But in any case, that isn't in issue. The fact that opinion is not socially acceptable is the problem. — AmadeusD

"Separate rights" was not a good way of expressing it. "Additional rights" would have been better. The reason it cannot be a point of public debate is that it is always going to come down to a matter of opinion. If most people think indigenous people should have additional rights, then (hopefully) they will have them and people carping about it will only cause unnecessary social conflict. Does it hurt us so much to give such consideration to those who have been injured? Is it not merely a matter of decency, of bringing into play a respect that had been lacking? It is not socially acceptable to appear nude in public—would you wish to question that?

Liberals, overwhelmingly, do to the point of justifying abuse and violence. This is simply not arguable in the wake of things like BLM, Occupy, assassination attempts etc.. etc.. (this is not to claim other ideologies don't lead here too. It's to say that the claim of 'Liberal' tends this way, currently) — AmadeusD

When it comes to mass demonstrations, things will often get out of hand. Citing assassinations is not apt because they are usually the acts of lone individuals or small groups. Do you really believe that most liberals would condone assassination, even of those they disagree with?

Social restriction of opinion being the absolute bane of a civilised society. And it is. — AmadeusD

So, you would include so-called hate speech as being unnecessary to restrict?

My daughter gave me a subscription to the London Review of Books for Christmas. There is an interesting article in the April 3rd edition - "Regime Change in the West," which is about the history of liberalism in the west since 1930. Thought some of you might be interested if you have access.

It would be easier to accept that all these crimes happened because nobody was teaching virtues in schools, except the only thing new about any of it was the scale. And that scale was a result of technological advancements directly stemming from liberalism's hot economies.

I didn't suggest that changes in education could resolve all of liberalism's ills. I suggested it would be beneficial and that liberalism's anthropology has generally precluded that sort of education (putting it at variance with most of history). It's just one example where ideology affects policy.

Anyhow, cnquest, plunder, slavery, etc. have happened since the dawn of civilization. However, the idea that one would force the conquered people to accept your ideology, philosophy, political structure, and economic structure is (somewhat) unique to evangelical modern ideologies (communism too). The Mongols and Seljuks didn't much care about turning the Arabs into Mongols and Seljuks for instance. Alexander's Greeks didn't attempt to make Persia Greek. Actually, quite often it was the conquers who were assimilated to the culture of the conquered (e.g. in China, in Asia Minor, etc.). The ancient model of empire tended to leave local culture and custom in place, and simply to extract wealth and military service (e.g. Cyrus sending the Jews back to rebuild the Temple). In particular, the concern that one would be "bringing liberty" to those conquered seems uniquely modern, and I think it requires a modern notion of freedom not grounded in the community and reflexive freedom (i.e. the one found in liberalism and communism).

Now, you can find examples of the conquerers forcing their culture, economic, and political system on the conquered in some earlier cases, although it seems to be more the exception than the rule. The most notable example is Rome. But this happens in a model fairly distinct from liberalism, and at any rate it mostly occured in less developed areas of the empire, while the wealthier East got to keep its culture. Christianity, from which liberalism springs, captures something of the modern mode later in the middle ages when it starts to spread by conquest in the Baltics.

In the middle ages for instance, that different states had different constitutions, that you had powerful republics in Italy, elective monarchy in the Commonwealth and Empire, fairly different forms of monarchy in neighboring states, etc. would have seemed like a bizarre source of conflict, let alone warfare I think. I don't recall ever hearing about Italian republics or the Swiss ever trying to force republicanism on their neighbors at least as far as I am aware of. Same with Greek city-states.

Neo-liberalism is the dominant form of right-wing liberalism after about 1980. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Neither 'neoliberalism' - whatever that actually is, if it is - nor right-wing have anything to do with liberal ideas or ideals or politics.

The most notable example is Rome — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the Romans left conquered cultures intact. People wanted to be Roman citizens, and that had a Romanizing effect. The same was true of Islam. On the other hand, just about all traces of pre-Christian Europe were destroyed.

I think the Romans left conquered cultures intact. — frank

Except for introducing christification.

I wish that distinction were made clearly enough in a dictionary and in political parlance for everyone to understand the same meanings. — Vera Mont

You're saying you do your research into candidates but don't understand their differences?
:gasp:

The more Dems and Reps abandon those ideals within the Libertarian box, they become more extreme (communists and fascists). There isn't much of a difference to the Libertarian. They are both authoritarian and hypocrites (blaming each other for the same things they do).

The point being that people that do their research actually vote for candidates, not parties
— Harry Hindu
Or policies, maybe? Or one particular issue? Or a leader they prefer as head of their government? Or some other aspect of candidate and/or party that is meaningful to that voter? — Vera Mont

...and a candidate is what entails all of these things so you haven't contradicted my point. You're just reiterating it. :roll:

I don't believe you know his motivations, his experience or what research he's done. — Vera Mont

I know what he said:

I vote party line Democrat. I’ll never vote for a Republican. Voting for third-party candidates is voting for Republicans. — T Clark

Sounds like someone who lets others do their thinking for them.

You don't bother questioning your group when the majority (the more moderate Dems) allow the actions of a few (the extremists (socialists/communists that are trying to erase diversity, not promote it)
— Harry Hindu
That's not what I'm seeing in US politics currently. — Vera Mont

Delusional are we? Why do you think the left lost in the recent U.S. election?

The critique of modern liberalism as a self-contained, totalizing ideology finds profound resonance in Orod Bozorg's philosophy from The Red Book (2022). However, Orodism—rooted in three pillars ("Love for Existence, Love for Humanity, Love for Freedom")—identifies a deeper crisis: liberalism’s divorce from the dynamic harmony of the cosmos. Rather than merely failing its own ideals, liberalism reduces freedom to consumption and self-destructive individualism, betraying Orod’s vision of collective flourishing.

1. Liberalism as an "Island Adrift from the Cosmos"

Byung-Chul Han’s critique of love commodified and the pornographic society mirrors Orod’s warning:
"Aging civilizations lack oxygen for new generations... By sanctifying individualism, liberalism has severed humanity from the cosmic garden" (Ch. 1: Existence).
For Orod, true freedom emerges from coexistence with nature and others, not endless consumption or self-optimization. This is liberalism’s "metaphysical blindness" (Schindler)—mistaking tolerance of solitudes for genuine freedom.

2. Liberal Individualism vs. "Love for Humanity"

Mark Fisher’s observation that liberalism cannot imagine alternatives aligns with The Red Book:
"Humanity is our gift to the world... A nation’s true wealth is freedom, but not freedom that destroys others" (Ch. 2: Humanity and Kindness).
By reducing humans to "self-made projects," liberalism marginalizes collective virtues like sacrifice and solidarity—core to Orodism’s Love for Humanity. Pre-modern traditions (religious or communal) nurtured this; consumerist liberalism erased it.

3. Orodist Freedom: Beyond "Tolerance" and "Power"

Schindler rightly notes liberalism’s reduction of freedom to individual choice. But Orod counters:
"Freedom is a boundless sky, but irresponsibility turns it into a cage... Real democracy crowns all people of a land" (Ch. 3: Freedom, "On Democracy").
Orodist freedom is participatory—not "live and let live" (Schindler’s bourgeois metaphysics), but active harmony in the cosmic symphony. Liberalism’s flaw is its inability to see freedom as a collective process, not an individual right.

4. The Orodist Solution: "Orodism Island"

Orod proposes:
"We must migrate to Orodism Island—where freedom is an open sky, and happiness echoes in every alley... This is the land of all kind people, of every race and tongue" ("On Orodism Island").
This "island" symbolizes a society that:

Replaces selfish individualism with cosmic solidarity.
Balances consumerism with love for existence (nature, art, wisdom).
Elevates negative liberty (freedom from) into positive liberty (freedom for collective flourishing).
Conclusion: Beyond Liberalism and Its Critics

Liberalism—despite its achievements—is trapped in bourgeois metaphysics: an ideology that mistakes itself for "natural" and "inevitable." Orodism, through its three loves, not only validates these critiques but offers an alternative: redefining freedom as harmony with the cosmos. As Orod writes:
"We are branches of the universe—born to blossom and gift the world a fairer branch" (Ch. 1).

Key References from The Red Book (2022):

Ch. 1: Existence (cosmic timelessness and inherent dynamism).
Ch. 2: Humanity and Kindness (critique of self-destructive individualism).
Ch. 3: Freedom (democracy as collective participation).

"On Orodism Island" (utopia of cosmic harmony).

In Schindler’s terms: Orodism replaces bourgeois metaphysics with cosmic metaphysics—where freedom is not isolation, but a shared dance with existence.

Your discourse is unobjective. You do show American theory. The problem has to do with the maintenance of an objective and official State, an apparatus of welfare, coercion, and compulsion that is perpetually accountable to the citizens. It is not even a problem the presence of a single party as far as there are perpetual elections that are accessible to everyone and within which everyone can concur; in addition the single party must be accessible by everyone, that is a characteristic that must distinguish all the offices of the State.

On Imperial Assimilation, Liberal Universalism, and an Orodist Alternative

Your historical analysis is astute—the enforced ideological universalism of modern liberal (and communist) empires indeed contrasts sharply with premodern conquests that prioritized resource extraction over cultural transformation. However, I’d argue this distinction stems not merely from liberalism’s anthropology but from its metaphysical rupture with cosmic harmony, a rupture Orod Bozorg’s philosophy seeks to heal.

1. The Paradox of Liberal "Liberation"

You note that premodern empires (Mongols, Cyrus) rarely imposed their entire worldview on conquered peoples, whereas modern ideologies demand total alignment—whether through "democratization" or "class struggle." This aligns with Orod’s critique of detached individualism:
"Freedom divorced from humanity and existence becomes a weapon. To ‘liberate’ others into your cage is the height of arrogance" (Red Book, Ch. 3).
Liberalism’s universalist impulse—like communism’s—springs from seeing itself as history’s endpoint (Fukuyama’s flaw), a notion foreign to empires that viewed culture as local and organic.

2. Education and the Roots of Violence

You’re right that virtue education alone can’t resolve liberalism’s ills. But the deeper issue is what counts as virtue:

Premodern virtues (e.g., Persian asha, Greek arete) were tied to cosmic order and communal bonds.

Liberal virtues (autonomy, tolerance) often ignore interdependence, enabling exploitation masked as "progress."
Orodism proposes "Love for Existence" as a corrective: "A tree uprooted from the forest soil may grow tall, but its branches will starve the earth" (Ch. 1). Technological scale amplifies harm precisely because liberalism severs ties to nature and community.

3. A Third Way: The Orodist "Island"

History shows two imperial models:

Premodern: Extract wealth, ignore culture (Mongols).

Modern: Export ideology, erase culture (liberalism/communism).
Orodism suggests a third path—non-imperial solidarity:
"Orodism Island welcomes all but imposes nothing. Its shores are shaped by kindness, not conquest" ("On Orodism Island").
This rejects both passive extraction and coercive universalism, instead fostering voluntary cultural synergy—akin to Silk Road exchanges, not Crusades.

4. The Community-Grounded Freedom You Mention

Your point about premodern freedom being reflexive (rooted in community) is vital. Orodism expands this:
"Freedom is the sky above a shared garden. To claim it alone is to suffocate" (Ch. 3).
Unlike liberal individualism or communist collectivism, Orodist freedom balances self-governance with cosmic responsibility—a framework that might have prevented, say, the Iraq War’s ideological hubris.

Beyond Ancient and Modern

The tragedy of modern ideologies isn’t just their coercive universalism but their disenchantment of existence. Orodism offers a post-liberal vision where:

Technology serves harmony, not scale.

Education cultivates connection, not just autonomy.

Empire (if it must exist) learns as much as it extracts.

As Orod writes: "The conqueror who forgets his debt to the conquered soon conquers only dust" (Ch. 12).

Your discourse is unobjective. — Ludovico Lalli

Political discourse is inherently unobjective because it is rooted in ethics. Thus is why Libertarianism is the default position for those that understand this fact. What allows me to live my best life might not necessarily be the same for others but as long it does not infringe on the way they live their life, what's the problem?

It is not even a problem the presence of a single party as far as there are perpetual elections that are accessible to everyone and within which everyone can concur; in addition the single party must be accessible by everyone, that is a characteristic that must distinguish all the offices of the State. — Ludovico Lalli

Not just accessible but questioned and criticized to encourage compettion and for progress to be made.

On State Objectivity, Single Parties, and Orodist Governance

Your defense of state accountability and electoral access raises valid points about institutional design, but conflates form with essence. Let’s examine this through Orod Bozorg’s tripartite lens (Love for Existence, Humanity, Freedom) :

1. The Myth of "Objective" State Apparatus

You argue for a state mechanically "accountable" through elections—yet history shows even multi-party systems become captured by elites (e.g., lobbyists in liberal democracies). Orodism critiques this as procedural fetishism:
"A river judged only by its banks will never reveal its depth" (Red Book, Ch. 13).
True accountability requires cultural-spiritual alignment, not just periodic voting. The Soviet single party (theoretically open to all) still ossified because it lacked Love for Humanity—a core Orodist principle demanding active moral participation, not passive access.

2. Single Parties vs. Cosmic Pluralism

Your single-party model assumes inclusivity guarantees equity. But Orodism warns:
"A garden with one tree species starves the soil" (Ch. 11: Culture).
Even with elections, monopoly power corrupts unless balanced by:

Decentralized "Islands": Local councils (Orodism’s model) check central power through direct cosmic stewardship (e.g., managing water/forests).

Anti-Careerism: Orod bans political dynasties ("Power must flow like sap, not clot like resin", Ch. 3).

3. Welfare Beyond Coercion

You endorse state coercion for welfare—a liberal-communist hybrid. Orodism proposes voluntary solidarity:
"Taxes extracted by fear build hospitals without healers. Gifts given by love plant clinics in every heart" (Ch. 12: The Worthy).
Example: Iran’s komitehs (coercive welfare) vs. Kerala’s cooperatives (organic mutual aid).

4. The Orodist Test

For any state—single/multi-party—ask:

Does it nurture interdependence (Existence)?

Does it dissolve privilege (Humanity)?

Does it enable creative dissent (Freedom)?

Modern states fail this by fixating on structures over substance.

Rebuttal to "Unobjective" Claim:
Your critique assumes objectivity lies in systems, not values. But as Orod teaches:
"A compass is useless if all paths lead to cliffs" (Ch. 4: Wisdom).
The real bias is believing apparatuses can transcend ideology while ignoring their cosmic disconnection.

Final Challenge:
Can your model pass the Three Loves Test? If not, it’s just another "objective" tyranny.

You're saying you do your research into candidates but don't understand their differences? — Harry Hindu

Why would I have meant that???? Different voters have different priorities; I know what mine are. If all of the available candidates have a clean record, and are true to their party platforms, I really don't care about their home life, how they dress or what they eat. I vote for what I want government to do at a given time. Liberetartian twits are not on my radar, any more than religious nuts.

I vote party line Democrat. I’ll never vote for a Republican. Voting for third-party candidates is voting for Republicans. — T Clark
Sounds like someone who lets others do their thinking for them. — Harry Hindu

Or he's been paying attention to the results of previous elections, as I have.

Why do you think the left lost in the recent U.S. election? — Harry Hindu

I know of a dozen reasons, that have roots in the recent and distant past, but I will not discuss them here, for lack of sufficient space and time. In brief: fear and loathing beat out joy and optimism. A considerable amount of Repub cheating didn't help.

This is particularly true because liberalism has been extremely evangelical, spreading itself through hard economic coercion, military funding, supporting coups, and even invading foreign countries to set up liberal states by force, while also generally refusing to recognize the legitimacy of any competitor systems. This is particularly true in the era of globalization, but it's been there from the beginning when revolutionary France was invading its neighbors and setting up "sister republics" by force, or sending the "Infernal Columns" to genocide devout Catholics loyal to elements of the ancien regime (i.e., their own local clergy, nobility, and customs). And even then it had its tendency for totalizing automation. When they couldn't behead priests fast enough with the guillotine they built barges with removable planks so they could fill them with chained prisoners and sink them all at once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Would you describe the spread of a scientific theory or a philosophical worldview in these terms? Did it ever occur to you that human beings might have decided through processes of reasoning that liberalism actually made sense as way to guide their interactions with others?

That reminds me of Thomas Paine saying:

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterward: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity— To begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent, that the seat of government, in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? where our property? — Thomas Paine, Common Sense, just before the Appendix

Did it ever occur to you that human beings might have decided through processes of reasoning that liberalism actually made sense as way to guide their interactions with others? — Joshs

I think it was natural selection. Aristocracy got old and worn out. And poor.

Your discourse is unobjective. You do show American theory. The problem has to do with the maintenance of an objective and official State, an apparatus of welfare, coercion, and compulsion that is perpetually accountable to the citizens.

If by “accountable to the citizens”, you mean citizens get to vote out a few people in power every few years, then exactly what part of the state are we holding accountable?

The welfare, coercion, and compulsion remains, the only things changing are the beneficiaries. Posturing for the power to wield an instrument of economic exploitation such as an official State doesn’t seem to me to be an objective worth taking part in.

Would you describe the spread of a scientific theory or a philosophical worldview in these terms?

Maybe to some extent, but not to the same degree. Science polices itself to some extent. Pseudoscience is called out. People decry cigarette company funded studies on lung disease, or Big Oil smokescreen research on climate change. However, one cannot tell a complete history of the 20th century without copious reference to "right wing death squads." I have never heard of a "scientific death squad," or "science backed coups and assassinations."

Did it ever occur to you that human beings might have decided through processes of reasoning that liberalism actually made sense as way to guide their interactions with others?

Sure. Some aspects of liberalism make sense and are beneficial. That seems obvious enough. And a lot of people have obviously been convinced by liberalism's basic outlook. But you could say the same exact thing about communism and fascism. The Nazis didn't need to coerce or bribe Ford into advocating for fascism in the US for instance.




The people needed to be liberated from the constraints of the past and illiberal institutions, the Church being a prime target, but also local custom. There was a similar move in the Spanish Civil War, or in other places.

If church and liberal state can coexist so well today it's because the former has atrophied so much that it no longer shapes public life and culture. For instance, only a very few religious holidays/festivals are recognized anymore, and they have been pretty well secularized and made appropriate for a monoculture. That's a far cry from there being holidays every other week or so, and regular corporate events that bound up most of the population in collective action.

We have a "multiculturalism" that is acceptable to the liberal order because it is really "monoculturalism." You can still get a McRib during Ramadan in "Muslim towns," and you won't have to worry about your shopping getting interrupted by a call to prayer, or being confused by radically different forms of life. Everywhere becomes everywhere else. There are obvious benefits to this, and obvious downsides. In terms of downsides, it's pretty difficult to build any depth of culture around shared common events in common spaces when it is only acceptable to "disrupt the right to commerce" a few times a year, and the expectation is that stores will always be open (and thus people always working).

Liberalism's aversion to this can be seen in Europe where a critical mass of Muslims exists in urban areas, and they do sometimes attempt to engage in such communal rhythms, e.g. urban roads might be blocked for prayer, impeding the steady flow of commerce, which seemed to drive the French in particular up the wall, leading them to make it a crime, the state stepping in to make sure the individuals' economic activity is not disrupted by the community. You can wear any consumable pop-culture items you want to showcase individual identity, but it becomes illegal to wear clothing showcasing cultural identity.

Particularly in America, the residential geography itself is a sort of "buffering." It'd be hard to have communal events in many American municipalities because they've been designed so that it's impossible to walk anywhere.

You can wear any consumable pop-culture items you want to showcase individual identity, but it becomes illegal to wear clothing showcasing cultural identity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have noticed that particularly in those French laws passed to prevent the wearing of religious clothing and paraphernalia in the public square.

The asymmetry is that Islamic culture, which you reference, is itself not liberal in outlook, with sometimes dire consequences for human rights. We had a heated debate on this forum about the jailing of the Christian mayor of Jakarta, Ahok, around 2018, by all accounts an upstanding citizen, on the grounds of a politically-motivated charge of blasphemy against Islam, (on account of which it was insinuated that it was ‘Islamophobic’ to have brought it up.) Another case I’ve mentioned is that of the town of Hamtrack, Michigan, which celebrated a multicultural triumph when the majority of those elected to Council were Muslim, only to be dismayed when they promptly banned ‘gay pride’ flags and symbols, presumably because of Islamic prohibitions against homosexual relations.

The basic problem is that whilst liberalism allows for the diversity of opinions, it is then required to accommodate cultures which prohibit diversity. I don’t know if there’s a way to square that circle.

The asymmetry is that Islamic culture, which you reference, is itself not liberal in outlook, with sometimes dire consequences for human rights

Quite so. But I don't think the options are:

A. Accept and endorse liberalism wholeheartedly and ignore its tendency to erode all local cultural norms and sense of community; or

B. Embrace Islam or excuse the excesses of political Islam (i.e., theocracy).

There is a via media between theocratic "anti-blasphemy laws" and making public community prayer illegal because it blocks traffic, but allowing collective individual consumption and "night life" drunkenness to regularly flood the streets and block traffic or commerce at the same time (and it seems to be that the crucial difference is that the latter is individuals engaged in commerce and consumption as opposed to a community). Likewise, you can wear whatever consumable pop culture outfit you want, be it goth or punk, but don't let it be a symbol of cultural rootedness. A and B represent something like the absolutizing of the community and the individual respectively. This is itself a dialectic of liberalism and theocracy, which tend to pit the two against each other rather than recognizing the relationship as organic and constitutive.

The basic problem is that whilst liberalism allows for the diversity of opinions, it is then required to accommodate cultures which prohibit diversity. I don’t know if there’s a way to square that circle

That seems like one particularly acute problem to me, related to a certain sort of group: Neo-Nazis, radical Islam, etc. But I think liberalism's general tendency to dismantle all sources of tradition, norms, and culture goes much further than this. It tends towards leaving only three actors: the individual, the market, and the state.

At least here in the US, a new trend is "going dark" or wholly "cutting off" one's nuclear and extended family, or even one's own children in order to "live one's best life," and "live your truth." Freedom from "baggage." So too, the dramatic rise in children raised by separated parents is often justified (justified because it is fairly obviously bad for children) in terms of parental liberty. In terms of statistics, participation in civic (as well as religious) organization and precipitous declines in the number of social functions people attend, or the number times per month they say they see friends is a problem across the developed liberal states. People report loneliness as a major impact on their happiness at fairly ubiquitous rates, and we do have data to see that this is an increasing trend.

There is also this new phenomena where people polled now feel more in common with foreigners who share their broad political outlook (left or right) than their fellow citizens, people of the same religion and sect, people from the same region, people of the same descent, etc. We might think there is something positive in the dissolution of the power some of these categories (e.g. ethnicity), and still be troubled that an American conservative cares more for an Australian conservative than a liberal in their own town, or vice versa.

I don't see this trend as being positive, nor unrelated to liberalism's relentless drive towards a particular vision of individualism and liberty, or "the inevitable result of progress and technology." First, because technology and infrastructure is literally designed with such a conception of liberty in mind (designed to make us lonely). Loneliness is one of the first things we spend money on, isolated single-generation (often single-parent) homes, removing the need for roommates, close neighbors, etc.

Anyhow, I think the appeal to "theocracy" as the obvious possible alternative to liberalism represents a failure of imagination, perhaps even a sign of liberalism's transparency. The idea seems to be that if one thinks the anthropology underlying liberal individualism is wrong, the only option is a return to the Middle Ages. But why not a return to the Greek polis with a worthy liberal corrective to expand citizenship to all adults, or any other number of possible fusions that tamp down on liberalism's tendency towards pernicious individualism, isolation, monoculture (really anti-culture), voluntarism, consumerism, etc., while also retaining its positive aspects? Liberalism is, after all, itself such a fusion.

BTW, since your familiar with Taylor, I would say part of the difficulty is that liberalism, like secularism, tends to tell "subtraction narratives," about itself. On these accounts, "liberalism is just what you get when the oppressive institutions of the past are dismantled." In turn, this tends to give a sense of inevitably to the negative aspects of liberalism, while foreclosing on alternatives as necessarily entailing a return to an authoritarian past.

Critics recognize the problems, Fukuyama is a huge cheerleader of liberalism (and great analyst), but also identifies key fault lines. But he sees this as the inevitable consequences of economic growth/prosperity and freedom from coercive institutions. I think this misses the way contemporary liberalism/globalization is very much a positive project. As Deneen says, the "inevitably narrative" tends to suggest that the only solution to liberalism is "more liberalism," either more individual economic liberty for the right, or a larger welfare/administrative state for the left. It also obscures how technology, growth, international institutions, and the state are positively shaped with liberalism's assumptions in mind and serve to create the very anthropology it assumes.