Liberalism and its inevitable demise

[betsy]

How can liberalism continue to survive and flourish when it conflicts with its own philosophy and its own tenet ensures its own demise?

Liberalism believes and enforce that every culture and religious belief must be equally tolerated and accepted, and that no moral values/culture be deemed superior and imposed over others.

So how can this kind of "equality" be explained under liberalism: Islam religion trumps women's rights and gay rights. And if the recent firing of a black tv journalist simply for expressing his own personal feeling of insecurity everytime he sees a Muslim on board a plane is an example of things to come, then Islam also trumps race.

The recent provocative display of contempt and insult on Remembrance Day in London, England when a group of radical Muslims jeered and taunted the people celebrating Remembrance Day by chanting: "Our soldiers are martyrs. May your dead British troops burn in hell...," and and all that time the police were there to ensure the safety of these Muslim radicals from retaliation from the public. This is a brazenly provocative display on a solemn ceremony.

Liberalism cannot even impose its own value of equality and tolerance, since by doing so it breaks its own philosophy that no culture/belief should be imposed on others. So when faced with this kind of threat....what's a liberal supposed to do?

-

[Sir Bandelot]

Liberalism is in decline now. for these very reasons. Eventually it must fail. Liberalism is not a panacea solution for our society, it creates moral dilemmas of its own So for this reason people are increasingly turning away from it. Liberalism leads to the eventual disintegration of society, through moral decay and loss of values, loss of culture. The family unit needs to have structure, morals and rules. Children are naive and need to be taught the difference between right and wrong, at a fundamental level. Then they can grow up to be adults and make their own, wiser choices. But without limits, anything goes, they grow up to be failures if they even grow up at all.

It's not a question of whether we should be liberal, or conservative. Conservatism taken to its ultimate end also must eventually fail. And suffice it to say, despite my generally conservative leanings I would rather live an an ultra-liberal society, than an ultra-conservative one. But in either case it's the extremes that fail, and we humans must learn to walk that middle road. To make judgements and balance decisions on a case-by-case basis, not by dogmatic attachment to ideals. That's where the great struggle is, and has ever been thus.

[bloodyminded]

Liberalism believes and enforce that every culture and religious belief must be equally tolerated and accepted, and that no moral values/culture be deemed superior and imposed over others.

The most significant problem with your idea here is that it's simply not true. So that sort of undermines your entire post.

[Shady]

The most significant problem with your idea here is that it's simply not true.

It's completely true. Although I'd describe it as neo-Liberalism/multiculturalism.

[bloodyminded]

It's completely true. Although I'd describe it as neo-Liberalism/multiculturalism.

No, it's not "completely true." It's juts that "left-hatin'" is yoru cherished hobby, so you wish it to be true.

[Shady]

No, it's not "completely true." It's juts that "left-hatin'" is yoru cherished hobby, so you wish it to be true.

Yes, it's completely true. It's significantly evidence in most if not all Western countries. Stop ignoring reality.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, it's completely true. It's significantly evidence in most if not all Western countries. Stop ignoring reality.

Actually, you're asking me to ignore the reality of what I and almost every other liberal-minded person feels and thinks.

[Bonam]

Actually, you're asking me to ignore the reality of what I and almost every other liberal-minded person feels...

Your feelings do not constitute reality.

and thinks.

So what it is that you think? The sentence that you quoted, which states that all cultures and religions should be tolerated and that moral values should not be imposed on people of other cultures certainly seems in accord with the tenets of multiculturalism, which has become a core value of modern liberalism. Do you disagree?

[bloodyminded]

Your feelings do not constitute reality.

So what it is that you think? The sentence that you quoted, which states that all cultures and religions should be tolerated and that moral values should not be imposed on people of other cultures certainly seems in accord with the tenets of multiculturalism, which has become a core value of modern liberalism. Do you disagree?

Let's stick to what exactly was said, since that's precisely what I was disagreeing with:

Liberalism believes and enforce that every culture and religious belief must be equally tolerated and accepted, and that no moral values/culture be deemed superior and imposed over others.

Not only do I disagree; everybody does.

What Betsy was actually saying is this:

"I'm going to caricature your opinion, and then inform you that my caricature of your opinion is not a wise opinion."

[Shady]

Let's stick to what exactly was said, since that's precisely what I was disagreeing with:

Not only do I disagree; everybody does.

What Betsy was actually saying is this:

"I'm going to caricature your opinion, and then inform you that my caricature of your opinion is not a wise opinion."

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's the very definition of multi-culturalism/neo-liberalism.

[bloodyminded]

It's not opinion, it's fact. It's the very definition of multi-culturalism/neo-liberalism.

Well, I'm just happy that y'all know me better than I know myself; that you understand how my own opinions are not even my true opinions.

Let's recap yours and Betsy's general political philosophy: "The Left!" "The Left!" "The Left!" "The Left!" "The Left!"

It's a sober consideration, and much food for thought.

Edited November 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

How can liberalism continue to survive and flourish when it conflicts with its own philosophy and its own tenet ensures its own demise?

Liberalism believes and enforce that every culture and religious belief must be equally tolerated and accepted, and that no moral values/culture be deemed superior and imposed over others.

So how can this kind of "equality" be explained under liberalism: Islam religion trumps women's rights and gay rights. And if the recent firing of a black tv journalist simply for expressing his own personal feeling of insecurity everytime he sees a Muslim on board a plane is an example of things to come, then Islam also trumps race.

The recent provocative display of contempt and insult on Remembrance Day in London, England when a group of radical Muslims jeered and taunted the people celebrating Remembrance Day by chanting: "Our soldiers are martyrs. May your dead British troops burn in hell...," and and all that time the police were there to ensure the safety of these Muslim radicals from retaliation from the public. This is a brazenly provocative display on a solemn ceremony.

Liberalism cannot even impose its own value of equality and tolerance, since by doing so it breaks its own philosophy that no culture/belief should be imposed on others. So when faced with this kind of threat....what's a liberal supposed to do?

-

This is really just silly.

First of all you seem to suppose that liberal or conservative ideology is static or exists in a vacuum. Thats simply not the case. Both are reactionary ideologies, and both liberals and conservatives have shown over and over again a willing to depart from them in response to the "situation on the ground".

Liberalism cannot even impose its own value of equality and tolerance, since by doing so it breaks its own philosophy that no culture/belief should be imposed on others. So when faced with this kind of threat....what's a liberal supposed to do?

Actually liberals have never had much problem imposing their culture on others in the name of "liberty", and have a history of supporting intervention in the affairs of others to one degree or another, often to my dismay.

So when faced with this kind of threat....what's a liberal supposed to do?

Same thing everyone else does... ignore parts of their ideology out of convenience or in reaction to real world events. Political ideology is not the panacea of directing human behavior. Thats the biggest problem with your assumption, and why generalizations like this always lead to such abject failure. 90% of people are "fair weather" ideologes at best.

So how can this kind of "equality" be explained under liberalism: Islam religion trumps women's rights and gay rights.

Why dont you ask women and gays who who they feel have fought for their rights... these rights are almost exlusive to liberal societies, and conservatives have opposed them every step of the way, right up to present day.

In any case there COULD be a valuable conversation about part of liberal ideology that may have to be left behind in response to events and changes in society. But this isnt one... its nothing more than a sophormoric rant full of the same old rehashed crap.

Edited November 14, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Why dont you ask women and gays who who they feel have fought for their rights... these rights are almost exlusive to liberal societies, and conservatives have opposed them every step of the way, right up to present day.

Yes, which is why it's quite a spectacle to watch them "stand up for women and gays," when actually it's nothing more than a rhetorical tool for the sake of "winning" an argument.

So if one thinks the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea (ie the overwhelming majority global view), then he or she is "supporting the oppression of women and gays." QED.

I guess when arch-conservatives become the Official Enemy, such debates are bound to get a bit wonky. The Cold War's left-right paradigm is no longer valid...though many on the Right seem quite desperate to maintain that particular fight within a very different context.

[Shady]

Well, I'm just happy that y'all know me better than I know myself; that you understand how my own opinions are not even my true opinions.

It's not about you. Nobody cares what you're opinions are. The OP isn't addressing your opinions, or you at all. It's the liberal notion of multi-culturalism that's challenged.

[Bonam]

Yes, which is why it's quite a spectacle to watch them "stand up for women and gays," when actually it's nothing more than a rhetorical tool for the sake of "winning" an argument.

As if there are no women and/or gays among conservatives. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth, that these groups are oppressed in Islamic (and some other) societies. Embracing multiculturalism means tolerating cultures which include such oppression, even if our laws are nominally designed to prevent (or at least punish) overt acts of oppression from being carried out in Canada, it nevertheless allows this mindset to fester here. And multiculturalism is certainly a component of modern liberalism.

So if one thinks the war in Afghanistan is a bad idea (ie the overwhelming majority global view), then he or she is "supporting the oppression of women and gays." QED.

More like failing to oppose such oppression where it is happening. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. There is certainly a variety of conflicting valid arguments here, such as the sovereignty of states, the best use of the West's resources, the desire to stand up for human rights, the security concerns, etc. One can certainly oppose Afghanistan based on valid reasons.

[Michael Hardner]

But this is all a complaint about people, really. Criticizing liberals, just like criticizing bad drivers... there's nowhere for it to go...

[Guest TrueMetis]

As if there are no women and/or gays among conservatives. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out the truth, that these groups are oppressed in Islamic (and some other) societies. Embracing multiculturalism means tolerating cultures which include such oppression, even if our laws are nominally designed to prevent (or at least punish) overt acts of oppression from being carried out in Canada, it nevertheless allows this mindset to fester here. And multiculturalism is certainly a component of modern liberalism.

No if a component of your culture is opposed to our constitution of laws you have to leave that part behind. If this wasn't true there would be Sharia law courts in Canada.

[Bonam]

No if a component of your culture is opposed to our constitution of laws you have to leave that part behind. If this wasn't true there would be Sharia law courts in Canada.

The fact that we can keep Sharia law out of Canadian courts (for now) doesn't mean we should be happy about the fact that women are oppressed in Islamic culture and that such values continue to exist in many Muslim families and communities in Canada. No doubt you or someone else will now ask for a citation for such a statement, but it really isn't necessary. Members of a debate need to have a certain factual reference frame in common or else it is pointless to continue.

[dre]

It's not about you. Nobody cares what you're opinions are. The OP isn't addressing your opinions, or you at all. It's the liberal notion of multi-culturalism that's challenged.

No its more than that. Heres the title...

Liberalism and its inevitable demise

Its really nothing more than tripe. If she wanted an intelligent debate about multi-culturism that would have been great, but thats not at all what her origional point implies. This is just nothing more than the same sophormoric doom-saying that we see week in week out. Liberals and converstavies have beening constantly heralding the impending demise of their respective opponents for literally centuries.

[Bonam]

Its really nothing more than tripe. If she wanted an intelligent debate about multi-culturism that would have been great, but thats not at all what her origional point implies.

That's been done. Well, maybe not the "intelligent" part.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The fact that we can keep Sharia law out of Canadian courts (for now) doesn't mean we should be happy about the fact that women are oppressed in Islamic culture and that such values continue to exist in many Muslim families and communities in Canada. No doubt you or someone else will now ask for a citation for such a statement, but it really isn't necessary. Members of a debate need to have a certain factual reference frame in common or else it is pointless to continue.

I disagree that it does exist in many Muslim families. It exists amongst a tiny portion of stupid people who thought that it would be allowed. As for it existing in Islamic countries I thought we were talking about multiculturalism?

[dre]

The fact that we can keep Sharia law out of Canadian courts (for now) doesn't mean we should be happy about the fact that women are oppressed in Islamic culture and that such values continue to exist in many Muslim families and communities in Canada. No doubt you or someone else will now ask for a citation for such a statement, but it really isn't necessary. Members of a debate need to have a certain factual reference frame in common or else it is pointless to continue.

Right. We should be in favor of individual liberty and equal rights for muslim women. Thats the exact definition of Liberalism.

The argument is over how best to do it. And until you have substantive policy proposals theres not much to discuss. Woman have been subjugated for thousands of years in almost every culture in history. The liberal approach to this has been to build societies around individual liberty and equality. I personally think its worked pretty damn well and that muslim women living in liberal democracies will are probably treated much better than muslim women in conservative theocracies, and that eventually they will achieve equality, and muslim immigrants will be forced to leave their conservative and orthodox roots behind. This takes some time unfortunately and if you have substantive ideas on how to make it happen faster Id be more than happy to listen. The problem is that some of the ideas being floated around infringe on the concept of personal liberty and those are gonna be a tough sell.

Ironically... the solution being floated by some folks claiming to be concerned about how muslim women are treated is to not allow these women to immigrate away from the conservative theocratic societies that oppress them to liberal democracies where they at least have protection of the rule of law and a chance to empower themselves.

Edited November 14, 2010 by dre

[betsy]

Actually, you're asking me to ignore the reality of what I and almost every other liberal-minded person feels and thinks.

You keep saying "it's not true..." and yet you offer no other explanation as to why you think it's not true. Should I assume therefore that you repeat this mantra in order to convince yourself?

[bloodyminded]

It's not about you. Nobody cares what you're opinions are. The OP isn't addressing your opinions, or you at all. It's the liberal notion of multi-culturalism that's challenged.

No it isn't. Perhaps you didn't read the OP. It's an absolute blanket condemnation of "liberalism," in which some non-existent entity--here called "liberals"--believe that all ideas are equal, and that everyone should be equally respected for their beliefs, and so on.

Which is flatly untrue.

[dre]

You keep saying "it's not true..." and yet you offer no other explanation as to why you think it's not true. Should I assume therefore that you repeat this mantra in order to convince yourself?

You havent articulated a cogent point to refute.

Besides I already set fire to most of your silly assertions you just ignored me.

Both liberal and conservative ideologies are not static. They are a reflection of snapshot of society at any give time. Conservatives dont stand for the same things they did a century ago and neither do liberals. To suggest an impending "demise" is ignorant of what the political spectrum IS in the first place.

I assure you... that in a thousand years liberals and conservatives will still be quite alive and well, and probably having this exact same argument.

Edited November 14, 2010 by dre