A worthy article to ponder a bit more, the biggest issue being "define liberalism". Since it is Brtitish, I'm assuming they mean "small government, lots of capitalism", but I'm not sure, they mean "progressiveness" ... but I doubt it.
The following is more true of progressiveness -- and it adds to the confusion of the piece. Traditional liberalism focusing on limiting the government, which DOES "liberate and elevate the individual", however since it is supportive of community, family, and tradition, it doesn't have the same expense for"faith, family, community, etc" ...
Liberalism aims to liberate and elevate the individual. This is very appealing, but it has maximized our freedom at the expense of the ties that bind us to place and people: faith, family, community, class, nation. To repeat, this is not an inherently right-wing critique. For the past three decades, various thinkers — Fred Dallmayr, John Gray, Frank Furedi, Phillip Blond, John Milbank — have warned their fellow progressives that individualism comes at the cost of solidarity, and that solidarity is just as important to the happiness of the individual as autonomy or choice.Again, it is "progressivism" rather than "traditional liberalism" that is predominately failing -- though traditional liberalism also has it's problems. "Why Liberalism Failed" covers this well.
The confusion of aims and policies on both sides of the Atlantic can be explained simply: the goal of post-liberals is to preserve tradition, but being westerners, their pre-eminent tradition is liberalism, so that’s what they find themselves defending.
No comments:
Post a Comment