My only quibble is with the idea that the modern Left aren't "liberals". In fact, we call ourselves "postliberals" precisely because we recognize that the Left ARE liberals, and their policies are simply the Locke's value-neutral state and Mill's Harm Principle taken to their (il)logical conclusion.
If Enlightenment liberalism (the marketplace of ideas, the value neutral state, procedural justice, etc...) were enough to right our ship of state (and it's worth remembering what form of govt Plato was talking about when he wrote that metaphor) there would be no need for a postliberal movement. As much as I respect Chris Rufo, this is something he doesn't understand. He thinks Locke is enough; I don't. And neither to most postliberals.
Locke's liberalism was an answer to the problems of his day: confessional European nobility slaughtering each other over rival views of God. We don't have that problem today. Our problems are different -- they stem not from too vigorous a defense of theology and virtue but from too weak of one -- so our solutions are going to be different, distinctly non-Lockean and non-liberal. Dare I say, Burkean?
Shakespeare used "liberal" to mean an agent of chaos or one opposed to the natural order. To the Left: if the shoe fits, wear it.
I am personally amenable to the argument that modern leftists are indeed liberals: they have taken liberalism to its logical conclusion. And I certainly did not (and do not) argue that Enlightenment liberalism is the answer to our current chaos.
My point, though, is that even if modern leftists are indeed the natural evolution of classical liberals, there are still many on the center left who behave as if they have not made this evolutionary jump. For those folks, who like to exchange and listen to reasonable ideas and all that, it is still worth having a rational conversation/argument. I do not say that these people are the same as postliberals/conservatives; they certainly are not. But they can be spoken to, reasoned with, etc. With them, we conservatives can still converse in the public square.
But for those who have made the jump into modern leftism, they have lost the ability to reason and speak about truth. And it is hear that I think Rufo is most useful, not for his proposed solutions, but for his understanding of the rules of engagement. These people need to be beaten with narrative, with the reform, recapture, or complete re-creation of institutions. The modern left must be engaged and beaten by means other than reasoned argument.
Got it. And I agree. There are many who consider themselves liberals (in the 1960's-90's free love, do what you want, live your life as you see fit vein) but would be appalled if they realized how their own "liberal" leadership has twisted (or as you and I might say, simply extended) that ideology.
Most people do not read politics or history books above a middle-school reading level, and they get their political views entirely from sub-rational, emotionalized "infotainment" like cable TV, social media, and talk radio/podcasts. This is just as true for conservatives as it is for liberals. Any one who claims that only the other side has this problem is being foolish.
Your point is true of many on both the right and left. But it is not the point I am making.
My point is not that pundits and politicians on the left are ignorant, uneducated, and base their arguments on bad sources. My point is that many on the left are captured by a philosophy that actually disregards what is true, seeking to use words to gain power regardless of whether they are true. This uniquely comes from philosophies/ideologies popular on the left.
My only quibble is with the idea that the modern Left aren't "liberals". In fact, we call ourselves "postliberals" precisely because we recognize that the Left ARE liberals, and their policies are simply the Locke's value-neutral state and Mill's Harm Principle taken to their (il)logical conclusion.
If Enlightenment liberalism (the marketplace of ideas, the value neutral state, procedural justice, etc...) were enough to right our ship of state (and it's worth remembering what form of govt Plato was talking about when he wrote that metaphor) there would be no need for a postliberal movement. As much as I respect Chris Rufo, this is something he doesn't understand. He thinks Locke is enough; I don't. And neither to most postliberals.
Locke's liberalism was an answer to the problems of his day: confessional European nobility slaughtering each other over rival views of God. We don't have that problem today. Our problems are different -- they stem not from too vigorous a defense of theology and virtue but from too weak of one -- so our solutions are going to be different, distinctly non-Lockean and non-liberal. Dare I say, Burkean?
Shakespeare used "liberal" to mean an agent of chaos or one opposed to the natural order. To the Left: if the shoe fits, wear it.
This is a good and legitimate quibble.
I am personally amenable to the argument that modern leftists are indeed liberals: they have taken liberalism to its logical conclusion. And I certainly did not (and do not) argue that Enlightenment liberalism is the answer to our current chaos.
My point, though, is that even if modern leftists are indeed the natural evolution of classical liberals, there are still many on the center left who behave as if they have not made this evolutionary jump. For those folks, who like to exchange and listen to reasonable ideas and all that, it is still worth having a rational conversation/argument. I do not say that these people are the same as postliberals/conservatives; they certainly are not. But they can be spoken to, reasoned with, etc. With them, we conservatives can still converse in the public square.
But for those who have made the jump into modern leftism, they have lost the ability to reason and speak about truth. And it is hear that I think Rufo is most useful, not for his proposed solutions, but for his understanding of the rules of engagement. These people need to be beaten with narrative, with the reform, recapture, or complete re-creation of institutions. The modern left must be engaged and beaten by means other than reasoned argument.
Got it. And I agree. There are many who consider themselves liberals (in the 1960's-90's free love, do what you want, live your life as you see fit vein) but would be appalled if they realized how their own "liberal" leadership has twisted (or as you and I might say, simply extended) that ideology.
Most people do not read politics or history books above a middle-school reading level, and they get their political views entirely from sub-rational, emotionalized "infotainment" like cable TV, social media, and talk radio/podcasts. This is just as true for conservatives as it is for liberals. Any one who claims that only the other side has this problem is being foolish.
Your point is true of many on both the right and left. But it is not the point I am making.
My point is not that pundits and politicians on the left are ignorant, uneducated, and base their arguments on bad sources. My point is that many on the left are captured by a philosophy that actually disregards what is true, seeking to use words to gain power regardless of whether they are true. This uniquely comes from philosophies/ideologies popular on the left.