It's fascinating to listen to Tara and Harrison Lowman kinda sorta talk themselves into what can only be called an undefined political space, a space referred to most often as post-liberal, but is otherwise ill defined. At the same time the sentiments I'm picking up are impatience and stylistism, as if liberalism, properly understood, su…
It's fascinating to listen to Tara and Harrison Lowman kinda sorta talk themselves into what can only be called an undefined political space, a space referred to most often as post-liberal, but is otherwise ill defined. At the same time the sentiments I'm picking up are impatience and stylistism, as if liberalism, properly understood, suffers from mold, hideous Pantone shades and really wide lapels.
In a far more sinister turn, Sohrab Ahmari conflates every human foible and excessive corporate thrust as somehow complicit in the liberal project. And he shows explicitly just how willing he is to make mischief when he says, "Second, remember that liberalism is not natural. The brutal state of nature is a philosopher’s myth..." Of course liberalism isn't normal; you know what's normal in human affairs? Israel and Hamas; North Korea, Venezuelan corruption, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So much for a philosopher's "myth." He has it exactly wrong.
The genius of the liberal project is taking human nature and giving it incentives to do the opposite, to build instead of destroy. Liberalism eliminated the right of Kings as well as the aristocracy and then challenged us to govern ourselves. Individually. If life is becoming more unsettled, if there is greater unhappiness around us, don't blame the liberal project, blame the crappy incentives delivered by the academy and the illiberal left. What they dislike is what they envy: the simple pleasures of bourgeois life.
For whatever reason, a number of Canadians like Sohrab Ahmari. I detect in him the zeal of the convert, and a deep hunger for celebrity. In any event, combining a conservative social ideology with a big government political agenda is merely shuffling the deck. He has yet to say anything important.
Lastly, please re-examine the premise of so many opinions about liberalism, namely that it's an ideology. It isn't, it's a philosophy. As the late great Northrop Frye said, ideologies are just applied myths; like stories, they have a beginning, a middle and an end. Philosophies are contingent, sprawling, and inexhaustible. And so we keep talking, and that's a good thing.
"The genius of the liberal project is taking human nature and giving it incentives to do the opposite, to build instead of destroy."
I don't know what sort of liberalism does that. The one we have now profits from war and so we have endless war. That's neo liberalism. Sure it's not pure libertarianism cause there is a very close relation between gov't and corporations. So better to call it what Mussolini called his fascism... corporatism. And this is what Margaret and Ronnie promoted unabashedly. It precludes democracy when so few hold so much power. But that was always the point I suppose.
to add to the comment [....Of course liberalism isn't normal; you know what's normal in human affairs? Israel and Hamas; North Korea, Venezuelan corruption, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. ....] I agree - sadly. According to Wm Manchert's bio, W. Churchill came to veiw war as the norm for humans and periods of peace anomolies. I once read much of a Columbia University compendium of world history (ca 1978?). The authors addressing the eastern Mediterranean region in the time of Christ noted the archaelogical records found countless wars of annnihalation making it difficult to discuss the period. While the authors may have been side stepping the obvious challenges to briefly cover the subject, my big take-away was the incessant "wars of annnihalaton" for millenia. Sadly, it seems the current chaos in Gaza & mideast is merely a continuance of a timeless practice. Certalinly it seems many cultures of the area continue the mindset of annihalting their enemies whenever they get a chance.
It's fascinating to listen to Tara and Harrison Lowman kinda sorta talk themselves into what can only be called an undefined political space, a space referred to most often as post-liberal, but is otherwise ill defined. At the same time the sentiments I'm picking up are impatience and stylistism, as if liberalism, properly understood, suffers from mold, hideous Pantone shades and really wide lapels.
In a far more sinister turn, Sohrab Ahmari conflates every human foible and excessive corporate thrust as somehow complicit in the liberal project. And he shows explicitly just how willing he is to make mischief when he says, "Second, remember that liberalism is not natural. The brutal state of nature is a philosopher’s myth..." Of course liberalism isn't normal; you know what's normal in human affairs? Israel and Hamas; North Korea, Venezuelan corruption, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So much for a philosopher's "myth." He has it exactly wrong.
The genius of the liberal project is taking human nature and giving it incentives to do the opposite, to build instead of destroy. Liberalism eliminated the right of Kings as well as the aristocracy and then challenged us to govern ourselves. Individually. If life is becoming more unsettled, if there is greater unhappiness around us, don't blame the liberal project, blame the crappy incentives delivered by the academy and the illiberal left. What they dislike is what they envy: the simple pleasures of bourgeois life.
For whatever reason, a number of Canadians like Sohrab Ahmari. I detect in him the zeal of the convert, and a deep hunger for celebrity. In any event, combining a conservative social ideology with a big government political agenda is merely shuffling the deck. He has yet to say anything important.
Lastly, please re-examine the premise of so many opinions about liberalism, namely that it's an ideology. It isn't, it's a philosophy. As the late great Northrop Frye said, ideologies are just applied myths; like stories, they have a beginning, a middle and an end. Philosophies are contingent, sprawling, and inexhaustible. And so we keep talking, and that's a good thing.
"The genius of the liberal project is taking human nature and giving it incentives to do the opposite, to build instead of destroy."
I don't know what sort of liberalism does that. The one we have now profits from war and so we have endless war. That's neo liberalism. Sure it's not pure libertarianism cause there is a very close relation between gov't and corporations. So better to call it what Mussolini called his fascism... corporatism. And this is what Margaret and Ronnie promoted unabashedly. It precludes democracy when so few hold so much power. But that was always the point I suppose.
to add to the comment [....Of course liberalism isn't normal; you know what's normal in human affairs? Israel and Hamas; North Korea, Venezuelan corruption, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. ....] I agree - sadly. According to Wm Manchert's bio, W. Churchill came to veiw war as the norm for humans and periods of peace anomolies. I once read much of a Columbia University compendium of world history (ca 1978?). The authors addressing the eastern Mediterranean region in the time of Christ noted the archaelogical records found countless wars of annnihalation making it difficult to discuss the period. While the authors may have been side stepping the obvious challenges to briefly cover the subject, my big take-away was the incessant "wars of annnihalaton" for millenia. Sadly, it seems the current chaos in Gaza & mideast is merely a continuance of a timeless practice. Certalinly it seems many cultures of the area continue the mindset of annihalting their enemies whenever they get a chance.