Although Locke did possess a somewhat rosy picture of human tendency, he seemed to me to lean more towards the modern day Libertarian mindset. Hayek the same. Neither of these classical liberals appeared to me to hold Progressive beliefs (especially Hayek).
I don't see how the original Classical Liberals can be seen as Progressive unless you take their initial revolt (vector) against royalty and religious conformity dictates. The freedom/individualism of classical liberalism goes against everything considered progressive that we've seen. Progressive is perfectation is Utopian is teleological is melioristic. Nothing about Progressivism, that I can see anyway, allows for the freedom and especially the individualism seen in classical liberalism.
I think the distinction needs to be made at that deeper (meliorism) level. I tend to think a person will present with a Utopian belief set or they'll present with a individualism/freedom and/or reactionary (modern day conservative) mindset. The former will seek for perfection in our world and the latter two will desperately hold on to individual freedom and/or the customs and traditions known to have succeeded in years past. I believe in recent times these latter two have begun joining forces both in the minds of individuals as well as in the political spectrum as a whole.
NOTE: There are times, I believe, where reactionaries will possess Utopian believes (e.g. blue laws of the 60's and 70's, sodomy laws, prohibition, etc.). The same goes for hard line Libertarians; as true Libertarianism is just as impossible as the Progressive wishes.
I'd add, I believe all Utopian endeavors always and every time result in some form of authoritarian totalitarianism simply because Utopianism itself is impossible; thus the "desired results" must be enforced.
Point: Classical Liberalism is in direct conflict with current Social Liberalism and current "Leftism" on at their core/intention as well as results/fruits.
2. As for the output of the news media, are they perpetually criticizing the status quo, seeking progression; or are they simply fishing for clicks?
I do believe most of the people in the media are progressives, but I think that is a result of their falling into line with the media status quo itself. Go along to get along, when in Rome, etc.
To me, the question is, is the progressive nature of news output a downstream result or an input of intention/scheme? I think it's a result of the fact they are pursuing whatever gets them clicks/money/fame/etc. Does that result in some scheming? Absolutely. But I think, just as in the case of the Covid response of the FDA, NIA, and NIH, human nature kicks in (the stem cell so to speak) leading to the resultant scheming.
Point: Newspaper output is a downstream result of human nature (in this case Utopianism).
When humans are not being guided by a governing force (e.g. Royalty, Church, "faith," etc), they will succumb to the seductions of Utopianism. That's where I think the distinction we see today in the Leftists exists.
"Liberalism" tends to be a rather broad term, and can even encompass certain facets of progressivism. Today's "conservatives" are at least notionally connected to what would be called "classical liberalism", which is largely used to describe the politics of men such as Edmund Burke.
Where the modern debate gets muddled--and where Critical Theory breaks down, is that more and more there is a shift from a left-right, progressive-conservative orientation to political discourse to a more authoritarian-libertarian paradigm. We have on both left and right various apologetics for authoritariansm and for libertarianism.
Critical Theory, while "real" as a mode of political discourse, is therefore at risk of becoming irrelevant, as it increasingly describes a fading left-right construct.
What frightens me is any talk or doctrine that uses terms like "the masses", "mass psychosis", "upper class", "lower class", "middle class", "bourgeousie", "boogie", "proletariat", in fact any thinking or writing that purports to characterize other human beings as a uniform herd. Discussions of mass-anything miss the mark. The infinite complexity of individual man is a domain that zealots thinking in terms of mass-anything may not realize exists. They can't even explain why my German Shepherd cares where I go and my Malamute mix thought only of his next treat, let alone why any man does what he does.
Interesting - but it is liberalism that seeks to deliver and increase individual identity. As far as can be told from English literature (I recall having read in a Dish comment thread long ago), individual self-awareness and identity don't even exist before 1853 / Villette.
Individual identity arises from having an understanding that you are determining yourself, there's more options than just "I will do what is expected or rebel." This is what Lukács describes as "transcendental homelessness" in 1916 - no one in fiction can anymore just reflexively exist, either in the sense of pure epic will of the Homerian universe (just doing, without doing being defined in terms of anything) or the closeted state of pre-modern societies (always knowing what doing is defined in terms of). Now the reader must know why the character chose to do whatever in terms of individual "identity." So having identity is a fallen state inflicted by modernity, or I would say liberalism. It is what drives Andrei and Pierre to depression in War and Peace and both realize they must shun it for "go be a rooted landowner and father."
That said, I think the Roman plebeian is a necessary element of a liberalist republic. Everyone who is not a stakeholder in the current sort of land and wealth, the state needs to find a way to keep them feeling like they have their fair share. This doesn't necessarily require the franchise (this group must be continuously whipped into voting anyway), in fact as I said I think this group is only given franchise to empower the uber-elite over the average landowner. But somehow the state has to keep this group, which has to exist because you have too many people for everyone to be wealthy and own land, happy to avoid a general strike. Liberalism makes this harder by inflicting identity and self-awareness all throughout society, so now this group expects existential fulfillment etc. and has no social resources to attain it. That's basically my whole story in a nutshell.
Jacques Elul wrote a book in the 60s about propaganda. In it, he says that “progress” is a propaganda tool used by western liberal democracy to justify actions taken by the elites.
We should do a mental translation when we read or hear the word “progress”. Progressive has embedded in it a value judgment of being good. It’s misleading. We should immediately translate it to “change”. Same with “progressive” should be translated to “different”.
So when a politician says:”I support progressive policies” should be translated “I support different policies”. That removes the implicit assumption of “goodness” and even if it doesn’t end in the best assessment at least has a better starting position for the analysis.
Right, but it's an ultimately provincial sort of ambition, echoing Roman and ancient Egyptian materialist short-sighted notions of immortality. Rome, you want to fund a market in your colonial town. Egypt, you want your son to keep paying people to service your tomb. This is the highest "ambition" - to be considered a success by everyone who has a foot on reality at the moment you kick the bucket. And that's what the Anglo-liberalist game of putting some way-things-could-be into the fire so everyone later says "this guy is the one who ameliorated so-and-so thing" (which just becomes a fable reinforcing the value array) is, in terms of ambition. Provincial, short-sighted, powerless. But as I said it also isn't practical for the job of politics when most people just want to work and not pay attention, so the rhetoric and patronage machine find ways to operate in the opposite direction most of the time, favoring Roman stasis.
Two bones of contention:
1. Liberalism or Social Liberalism?
Although Locke did possess a somewhat rosy picture of human tendency, he seemed to me to lean more towards the modern day Libertarian mindset. Hayek the same. Neither of these classical liberals appeared to me to hold Progressive beliefs (especially Hayek).
I don't see how the original Classical Liberals can be seen as Progressive unless you take their initial revolt (vector) against royalty and religious conformity dictates. The freedom/individualism of classical liberalism goes against everything considered progressive that we've seen. Progressive is perfectation is Utopian is teleological is melioristic. Nothing about Progressivism, that I can see anyway, allows for the freedom and especially the individualism seen in classical liberalism.
I think the distinction needs to be made at that deeper (meliorism) level. I tend to think a person will present with a Utopian belief set or they'll present with a individualism/freedom and/or reactionary (modern day conservative) mindset. The former will seek for perfection in our world and the latter two will desperately hold on to individual freedom and/or the customs and traditions known to have succeeded in years past. I believe in recent times these latter two have begun joining forces both in the minds of individuals as well as in the political spectrum as a whole.
NOTE: There are times, I believe, where reactionaries will possess Utopian believes (e.g. blue laws of the 60's and 70's, sodomy laws, prohibition, etc.). The same goes for hard line Libertarians; as true Libertarianism is just as impossible as the Progressive wishes.
I'd add, I believe all Utopian endeavors always and every time result in some form of authoritarian totalitarianism simply because Utopianism itself is impossible; thus the "desired results" must be enforced.
Point: Classical Liberalism is in direct conflict with current Social Liberalism and current "Leftism" on at their core/intention as well as results/fruits.
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. As for the output of the news media, are they perpetually criticizing the status quo, seeking progression; or are they simply fishing for clicks?
I do believe most of the people in the media are progressives, but I think that is a result of their falling into line with the media status quo itself. Go along to get along, when in Rome, etc.
To me, the question is, is the progressive nature of news output a downstream result or an input of intention/scheme? I think it's a result of the fact they are pursuing whatever gets them clicks/money/fame/etc. Does that result in some scheming? Absolutely. But I think, just as in the case of the Covid response of the FDA, NIA, and NIH, human nature kicks in (the stem cell so to speak) leading to the resultant scheming.
Point: Newspaper output is a downstream result of human nature (in this case Utopianism).
___________________________________________________________________________
Final thought:
When humans are not being guided by a governing force (e.g. Royalty, Church, "faith," etc), they will succumb to the seductions of Utopianism. That's where I think the distinction we see today in the Leftists exists.
Excellent Post, Brian. I particularly like the line "Liberalism cannot offer an escape from leftism; it is a solid lead life-jacket."
Very true.
Thanks!
"It is unacceptable, in Anglo liberalism, for any aspect of life not to be political and politically debated; to be aloof from the Platonic dialogue."
‐-------
I think you would find Legutko's "The Demon in Democracy" an interesting read.
I am instantly happy with this book - thank you
"Liberalism" tends to be a rather broad term, and can even encompass certain facets of progressivism. Today's "conservatives" are at least notionally connected to what would be called "classical liberalism", which is largely used to describe the politics of men such as Edmund Burke.
Where the modern debate gets muddled--and where Critical Theory breaks down, is that more and more there is a shift from a left-right, progressive-conservative orientation to political discourse to a more authoritarian-libertarian paradigm. We have on both left and right various apologetics for authoritariansm and for libertarianism.
Critical Theory, while "real" as a mode of political discourse, is therefore at risk of becoming irrelevant, as it increasingly describes a fading left-right construct.
What frightens me is any talk or doctrine that uses terms like "the masses", "mass psychosis", "upper class", "lower class", "middle class", "bourgeousie", "boogie", "proletariat", in fact any thinking or writing that purports to characterize other human beings as a uniform herd. Discussions of mass-anything miss the mark. The infinite complexity of individual man is a domain that zealots thinking in terms of mass-anything may not realize exists. They can't even explain why my German Shepherd cares where I go and my Malamute mix thought only of his next treat, let alone why any man does what he does.
Interesting - but it is liberalism that seeks to deliver and increase individual identity. As far as can be told from English literature (I recall having read in a Dish comment thread long ago), individual self-awareness and identity don't even exist before 1853 / Villette.
Individual identity arises from having an understanding that you are determining yourself, there's more options than just "I will do what is expected or rebel." This is what Lukács describes as "transcendental homelessness" in 1916 - no one in fiction can anymore just reflexively exist, either in the sense of pure epic will of the Homerian universe (just doing, without doing being defined in terms of anything) or the closeted state of pre-modern societies (always knowing what doing is defined in terms of). Now the reader must know why the character chose to do whatever in terms of individual "identity." So having identity is a fallen state inflicted by modernity, or I would say liberalism. It is what drives Andrei and Pierre to depression in War and Peace and both realize they must shun it for "go be a rooted landowner and father."
That said, I think the Roman plebeian is a necessary element of a liberalist republic. Everyone who is not a stakeholder in the current sort of land and wealth, the state needs to find a way to keep them feeling like they have their fair share. This doesn't necessarily require the franchise (this group must be continuously whipped into voting anyway), in fact as I said I think this group is only given franchise to empower the uber-elite over the average landowner. But somehow the state has to keep this group, which has to exist because you have too many people for everyone to be wealthy and own land, happy to avoid a general strike. Liberalism makes this harder by inflicting identity and self-awareness all throughout society, so now this group expects existential fulfillment etc. and has no social resources to attain it. That's basically my whole story in a nutshell.
Carl Truman's The Rise and Triump of the Modern Self is noteworthy here.
Jacques Elul wrote a book in the 60s about propaganda. In it, he says that “progress” is a propaganda tool used by western liberal democracy to justify actions taken by the elites.
We should do a mental translation when we read or hear the word “progress”. Progressive has embedded in it a value judgment of being good. It’s misleading. We should immediately translate it to “change”. Same with “progressive” should be translated to “different”.
So when a politician says:”I support progressive policies” should be translated “I support different policies”. That removes the implicit assumption of “goodness” and even if it doesn’t end in the best assessment at least has a better starting position for the analysis.
Right, but it's an ultimately provincial sort of ambition, echoing Roman and ancient Egyptian materialist short-sighted notions of immortality. Rome, you want to fund a market in your colonial town. Egypt, you want your son to keep paying people to service your tomb. This is the highest "ambition" - to be considered a success by everyone who has a foot on reality at the moment you kick the bucket. And that's what the Anglo-liberalist game of putting some way-things-could-be into the fire so everyone later says "this guy is the one who ameliorated so-and-so thing" (which just becomes a fable reinforcing the value array) is, in terms of ambition. Provincial, short-sighted, powerless. But as I said it also isn't practical for the job of politics when most people just want to work and not pay attention, so the rhetoric and patronage machine find ways to operate in the opposite direction most of the time, favoring Roman stasis.