Are Objections to Liberalism Overstated?

The Tyranny of Liberalism

James Kalb

The Reality of Liberalism

The differences between contemporary liberal societies and recent extreme tyrannies, important though they are, should not mask similarities taht are also foundational and justify some similarity of descriptive language. Totalitarianism is a consequence of the modern abolition of the transcendent and the deification of human will. Why not expect the same cause to create similar tendencies within all modern political systems? It should be obvious that there is no such thing as openness or pluralism in the comprehensive sense contemporary liberalism proposes. Every society functions on definite principles viewed as basic to public order and the common good, and every society ensures in one way or antoether that those principles are inculcatted and obeyed. The widespread conviction that liberal societies are different proves only that things are not as they seem and that something is being overlooked or concealed.

In contrast, the contemporary West inclines toward tyranny and even a sort of totalitarianism, at least if one recognises (1) the nature of the liberalism as self-contained and all-embracing scheme for life in society, (2) the ability of ruling elites to reinterpret that scheme for life in society, (3) the barriers to political action at odds with that scheme, and (4) the degree to which the centralisation of social life and pervasive regulation make all significant social institutions agents of the state. Western countries are governed by liberal elites and institutions that reject custom as a standard and whose power to define liberal ideology and force it on society is not limited by any substantive external point of reference. They claim to be bound by ideals of freedom and equality - by the popular voice - and by law. Freedom and equality, however, are content-free and can be made to mean anything when taken as ultimate standards. The popular voice can be managed, and in any case is subordinate to basic legal principles. Furthermore, the judges who define the law are themselves part of the elite and draw their power from the liberal ideology to which they are committed. 

'Tyrannical' and 'totalitarian' do not mean 'brutal'. Lack of freedom can take a softer form. A tyranny is an irresponsible government not limited by law or binding custom. A totalitarian regime is a tyranny based on an all-encompassing theory that does away with all institutions other than those controlled by a ruling elite able to make the governing theory mean what its interests require. On those definitions mediaeval monarchies were in general neither totalitarian nor tyrannical. They were limited by law and custom, other institutions retained independent authority, and the Christian outlook that justified and limited the social order was in the hands not of the king but of the church, a body distinct in fundamental ways from secular rulers, often at odds with them, and bound by authoritative texts and traditions and ultimately the will of God.

The minuteness and comprehensiveness of the social controls available today make up for the comparative mildness of the sanctions they impose. The softness of a tyranny, its reliance on bribes, obfuscation, petty regulations, and voluntary cooperation among ruling institutions and elites rather than force, does not altogether do away with its character as tyrannical or even as totalitarian. One should look, rather, at consequences. Because man is social, tyranny can inhere in the relationship between an irresponsible ruling class and its society as well as between a government and the individual. 
 

A man who arbitrarily imprisons me or confiscates my property is a tyrant. Institutions and general ways of thinking that destroy the social institutions and relationships that make me what I am; that attack the family and abolish gender distinctions, communal ties, and traditional moral standards; that drive religion out of public life and tell private associations what members to choose and why – these are also tyrannical. Imprisonment and exile are punishments because they deprive a man of his social setting. The intentional destruction of that setting is plainly worse. Genocide was originally defined to include the intentional destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups. Liberalism does that to all national groups by abolishing the constituents of nationality. How can that be acceptable? When everyone must praise such actions as incontestable demands of justice, when it is all but impossible to make protests heard and critics are treated as enemies of humanity, when the existence of any higher standard is denied, then the tyranny, however maintained, takes on a totalitarian quality.” 

James Kalb 'The Tyranny of Liberalism' p128-29

Alexander Boot "How the West Was Lost"

Modman v Westman:

Modman's two sub-species: philistine and nihilist.

"One could, however, venture a guess, and here the pre-Enlightenment methodology of this book can come in handy. The philistine Modman tries to impose, and nihilist feigns to accept, the materialist, mercantile idea of happiness. Many a time throughout the blood-soaked twentieth century, the philistine showed eagerness to kill untold millions in defence of his right to be happy in that tastelessly comfortable way of his. And, as he proved in the skies over Serbia a few years ago, he does not mind slaking his thirst for power with innocent blood. Moreover, so deeply is he attached to his overheated paradise that he is even prepared to die for it – the only thing worth dying for because, to the philistine, comfort is the only thing worth living for.

Therein lurks the danger. The heat generated by his central boiler has steamed up the philistine's glasses and he cannot see the perils clearly. Enveloped in wet fog, the figure at a distance appears to be a fellow philistine, whereas in fact it is the disguised nihilist. He may be converging with the philistine, but he has not yet. Even when they are close to convergence, the two subspecies of Modman can still be at each other's throats, for they will be reaching for the same prize in their soulless world. Be that as it may, the nihilist is still very much with us, and this fellow craves either the philistine's money or his life, preferably both. Money he cannot have, at least not enough of it to make a real difference. Money for the philistine is what hair was for Samson: his source of strength. Shorn of money, the philistine is easy prey to any Delilah, and he knows it. He does not mind slicing his zero-sum pie this way and that, tossing the crumbs to the nihilist, but he will not want the pie to become much smaller.

And yet there is enough of the nihilist in him to be ready to walk the knife's edge. This is not just an exercise in the cheap thrills of brinkmanship, but a dire necessity. For the philistine too is a Modman first and foremost. As such, he is driven by his hatred of Westman, not just by affection for scented loo paper. And to push hatred to its logical conclusion, he needs more than just money. He needs power, and the more absolute, the better. So when he feigns ignorance of the nihilist threat, he is not being stupid any more than a leopard is stupid when stalking a rhino. Wittingly or unwittingly, he is trying to prod the nihilist into action, for the philistine hopes that his power will be annealed in the resulting fire. States make war and war makes states, the saying goes. That was partly the motivation behind Wilson trying to drag America into the First World War and Roosevelt into the Second, or behind the British and the French ignoring the Nazi threat in the 1930's, or behind today's West feeling safe – with some foolishly claiming that history has ended simply because the Soviets call themselves something new now. And the strategem has worked after a fashion."


(Also Tracey Rowland's gives short precis of Alexander Boot's 'How the West was Lost' here http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/10/13/3610041.htm )