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