Liberal Hour: Babel Toppling Again

By: Jonathan Seidel

                                                     Fate or Future?

        Liberalism has gone too far with obligatory essentials. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness has transformed into everyone deserves the world. It is the extensive liberality that is dangerous. There is a sort of sassy egocentric authorisation. There is a privileged essence that demands more. There is a well-intentioned backdrop but it mitigates the particularity of others and the right for them to hold an opinion. The enlightenment in its abstract universality sought to change the world and better it. Yet, this uniformity demurs diversity and forges a monolithic vision of liberty. To take a recent example: the Texas abortion law. Many liberals cried over this bill as an attack on women. Yet, picturing from their side is concern for the baby. It is not just a life but how their ethic fits the mould. Their particularism is not utilitarian nor necessarily rational. For them the baby comes first. Their model is specifically targeted to aiding the innocent. It is a value. To argue on scientific grounds that it is not a real life is unintuitive. Another example is Soloveitchik’s example of his grandfather putting on his teffilfin instead of staying with his daughter on her deathbed. Hartman ridiculed this model but Soloveitchik praises it to an extent. Even if one finds it morally troubling, categorically abstractly it need not favour our moral tide. There is a certain valuational strand that need not be overturned because it makes us feel weird. Upset with the fact that women choose to cover their hair in observant communities is misconstrued as a patriarchal attempt to subdue women instead of raising their modesty. The banning of muslim head coverings in England is atrocious. 

        Liberalism is a utopian vision, a philosophical project that is rooted in an abstract robotic ideal. The real question is when did liberalism become a monster in of itself? Sacks notes that its triumph was its biblical roots but where is the disconnect? Where did liberalism go wrong? When did it shift to inevitable failure? As soon as Kantian analytic philosophy entered the frame. The anti-metaphysical style led to its eventual downfall. The political banter to manifest destiny. The heart of the individual, where freedom become absolute in a sense of autonomous expression. This in turn dissociated the masses from the internal link. The right to something exceeds its privileged status. The ontological component reminds the regal given right. It only furthers a sense of obligation. It may bring liberty in the short run but what about the future gesture? 

The application of the exodus story to the American revolution ensured a democratic future via an embedded narrational ethic but the immersion of Lockian philosophy led to certain adverse problems. Paine's advocation of religious texts inspired the colonists to victory but the narratives were for the short term. In constructing a legal constitution the concept “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” applies to who? This phrase was historically regulated to certain individuals—white people, then black and then women over time. Today according to liberals a foetus does not receive those rights because it is still tied to the mother. Even a formed baby does not fit the bill. There is a hermeneutic element but it is applying a theory to humanity. Alternatively, the commanded-ness aspect brings along a duty, a responsibility. For babies, a person has a duty to concern them. It humanises the situation. Duties are earned not deserved and are thus worked for. There is a clean slate of the individual. The relation between one and the other is an achieved accomplishment not an institutional gift. 

        The greatest issue with Lockian philosophy is its governmental genus. Rights are granted by the government insofar as they are protected. In early democratic regimes rights were particularised to privileged races. Even today, despite a firm unbelief in this principle, racism is still prevalent. The government is also the last person to confide this power in. The may publicise a democratic vibe but that does not negate the intentional polemics to certain marginalised groups. The government though elected is a single entity with tremendous power. There is no overlord to fear. twentieth century communist goals failed because they neglected contemporary human nature, democratic idealists fall into the same trap. People are greedy and selfish. The divine entity mitigates these lustful actions. The Kantian God is a mechanical construction, it does not hold the same weight to the biblical god, the creator of the world who split the Red Sea. The narrational aspect heightens a since of definition to it and personal connection. 

        Man-made models are fallacious and lead to destruction. The anthropocentric mentality is selfish and cruel. Ideally it is plausibly beautiful but it has been weaponised as a crutch against diversity. The French and Russian revolutions both taught us the failure of philosophical execution to validate liberty. It is unequivocally the reason that the revolution led to the reign of terror and subsequently to Napoleon’s tyranny. To give but a fictional example. In the show Vikings despite the dynastic and even odd ruling controversies, There is a code they follow. Their mythology and value system promotes a certain ethic. After Lagartha kills Queen Aslaug, Ivar swears vengeance in his mother’s name. Yet, he does not go out to murder her in the streets. Evidently he leaves it up to the gods. To him there is fate involved in it all. Whether or not the gods are real and deciding fate is irrelevant. They have a code that transcends their own finitude. They discuss fighting in front of the gods on the battlefront. Israeli soldiers sense God in their battles as well. The theocentric model is less about submission and more about humility. There are limits and man is bordered by his finitude. Existentially it makes for a more profound experience. 

        Liberalism is its own ideologue. It purports its own methodology that confounds the human mind. In its socialistic ideal it promises equality and liberty but does so in a guise of danger and frivolity. To give an example: some view ancient slavery as less brutal than modern American slavery with more rights and freedoms. According to Douglass it may have been better to be a slave in the south than a free man in the north. The illusion of freedom with wage slavery produced a sense of liberty encased in slavish notoriety. The push for liberty is important but it also came with a technological boom. Existence with a sense of inalienable rights strikes the believer as unorthodox. Even if the social contract is an advanced invention. 

        The most democratically advanced society also produced one of the most immoral methods. This points to a failure in personal ethics. The narratives so essential to the revolution were overridden with enlightenment ideological hollowness. The ideology is a ploy to be perceived as promoting certain values at the same time corrupting the world. The US’ involvement on the world stage whether corrupt activity in Central American countries in the early 1900s or the CIA’s actions toppling governments had dreadful effects. There is a selfish self-interest involved. Even the Iraq war has been criticised on its war profiting. Things are not always at they seem. 

        Liberalism is a front for a much darker reality. Yet the idea of providing liberty to citizens and thus free to do as please otherwise is simply ridiculous. A man-made philosophy can be altered and shifted to meet certain needs. Values grow old and are replaced. The historicist model is temporal. Even if the king sits on the throne it does not necessitate that he is in power. The viceroy is pulling the strings. The mortal will vanquish. The Greeks had a democracy that led to the Roman republic and ultimately led to an empire and then to monarchies once again. Socialist experiments rose and fell and now rising again. We revamp old models with new tweaks. 

        Is the obvious conclusion that religion is the sole answer? Not necessarily. Well at least not institutionally. The monistic attitude in the medieval era harnessed a disastrous violence. Yet, a solution to liberalism is to revive it with traditional values. Some meta-historical merited methodology. Imbibing the system with a sense of fate ensures a warranted destiny. The security fo these values awakens a trans-generational behavioural complexion. The action may change but the expression will remain the same. Democracy has due to be a successful form of equity but its implementation needs rewiring. 

        Liberalism has two dangerous paths ultra-capitalism and communism. The ultra capitalism is a lone market based system devoid of governmental intervention. This would forgo aiding minorities and elevating employer power. On the other hand, the larger governmental intervention transforms into in its own aristocratic model with the government controlling people’s lives. We have seen the disaster of the latter too many times to count and the former’s travesty is more conjecture played out in cinematic thrillers. Then again, corporate exploitation does occur. The current trend is enforcing more governmental regulations stealing people’s rights. If anything this present order is undermining its own system or very much eating itself whole. 

        A governmental model will not uphold a modest order. It is shaken with an arrogance. The medieval age showed us the dangers of institutionalised ideologies. Religious fervour led to massacres. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia presented centralised governmental oversight resulting in excessive tragedies. The liberal mindset is perverting its own ideals. Take the right to bear arms, initially an inalienable right that is currently being ousted or mitigating freedom of speech via the hate speech slogan. Liberalism is killing itself by cutting off its own hands. The conservative side of the house has its own misgivings that prevent proper equality.  They want little federal involvement but will institutionalise state governments. Abortion is not a right in of itself but state prohibition is an attack on the liberty of that individual to do as they please. Basing it on religious texts is not a good defence either as it there is a separation of church and state.

        The concept of rights are state given and thus reliance on the state becomes central. This mentality only furthers association with the state as a helpful parent even if the state is truly a witch. The state is a demon. It protects at the cost of stealing your hard earned money for alleged causes that never follow through. The entire complex is a scam. The way to avoid this scam is to push back. The state is critical for order. Hobbes’ theory has merit but that does not mean we should bend the knee. The state works for the people and must be reminded of that. People must fight back for their rights on valuational grounds. Since we talk in “rights” instead of “duties” as long as the state does not infringe on rights it is okay. If the state has a duty to its citizenry it must comply with a certain order. People must reinvest their values into the system. To stop playing politics and live earnestly. These values are honed from birth. They are our heritage and possess incredible value on the future of our lives. We need to hold by our convictions and not be coerced by some external margin. The insular values of loyalty and fidelity at work and at home will foster a nobler society. A society of trust and respect.