The Cracks of Liberalism
You can read the definition of liberal here.
Save the stuff about being a member of certain political movements, who would suggest that being a liberal is a bad thing, philosophically? Due to clause 8, I would.
Definition 8 says: “open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.”
Ugly.
Not ugly because I hate open minds. FAR from it. But there are two key sections in that definition that bubble my blood a bit: 'tolerant', and 'free of…conventional ideas'.
First, the former. Does anyone want to go through life being tolerated? Does anyone want to spend their life merely tolerating others? I have never heard toleration as an ideal end in itself, and if one takes a closer examination of the word, it’s actually quite unattractive. “You there, with race A and gender B, with religion C and political affiliation D, all of which I happen to dislike or disagree with, I tolerate you.” How is that loving? The word “tolerate” implies a hierarchy where one is better than the other, the latter oughting to be thankful for tolerance from on high.
We have a higher calling. It’s called love. Tolerance doesn’t come close.
Number two can be as serious a dilemma. Freedom from conventional ideas is great, provided a competing unconventional idea is simultaneously brought to the table for us to examine and debate. Without it, we have a smorgasbord of options without singular favorites. All religions are to be preferred over any one. All political thoughts are to be preferred over any one. All tendencies, preferences, policies, etc., are to be preferred over any one.
The problem, if it isn’t obvious, is that such aggressive passivity leaves us with an embrace of a nothing blob of post-modernism vanilla. Truth dies, or at least the idea that truth itself even exists. Any discussion we can have about anything quickly turns into a dance around the eggshells of the liberal credo: don’t ask, don’t question, and certainly don’t object.
I’m all for open-mindedness, but wisdom demands a certain skepticism. Without it, we’re just not at all wise.
posted by Lyons at
1:23 PM
2 Comments:
tolerant (adj.)
1. showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others (Dictionary.com)
Respect is the key. I don't have to agree with your religious views, or adopt your cultural differences, I just have to respect them. That's a laudable goal, and I don't understand why you would criticize it. Respect is the very foundation of love -- if you hold contempt for me or my beliefs, I don't care if you say you love me, it's merely hollow words.
That ties into your second objection, to convention. You make it seem as if a liberal can't have principles. That's a gross mischaracterization. We have strong principles -- but we base them on logic and reasoning and a desire for fairness, not simply on tradition. Conservatives say, "this is how it's always been, therefore this is how it should continue to be." Libarals say, "just because it's always been this way doesn't mean it's right." That, too, is something of an oversimplification, but it's essentially true.
Finally, regarding your characterization of liberalism as "post-modernism vanilla" -- there is some grain of truth to what you say. I would counter, however, that there's nothing wrong with being able to say, "I don't know. Maybe your position is the correct one, maybe it's not." All people, but especially conservatives, have a knee-jerk desire to want to feel like they always have the answers. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have the answers, certainly, but we also have to accept that sometimes, we're not always right. Sometimes we just don't know. So while you may see that as an absence of Absolute Truth, I see it as an understanding that humans are imperfect and not omniscient.
I think it's ironic that it's the agnostic who gets that and not the Christian.
2:48 PM
To be specific, dictionary.com cites a number of online definitions for tolerant. You quote one, from Wordnet. If tolerance means what Wordnet defines it as, then I'm completely on board with that definition, and we don't have an argument.
The overwhelming portion of the rest of dictionary.com's definition of 'tolerant' is more in line with my earlier description, which I find disgusting.
For your second counter, my big fear in writing what I did was trying to avoid the assumption that liberals can't bring a competing argument to the table. Of course they can. They often do. They often don't. My point is that it's better to be wrong than to be nothing. I often get the impression that modern liberalism would prefer the opposite. THAT's where I disagree.
As a side note, you say "if you hold contempt for me or my beliefs," I can't say I love you. Our identity is not solely our beliefs, I believe the two can be divorced from one another.
10:28 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home