Liberalism

Yes there are good aspects to liberalism but now that it is largely the undisputed orthodoxy in Europe it has become intoxicated with power and in practice is often intolerant and suspicious of any real diversity. Catholicism too was infected and corrupted by having secular power in the past.

Historically much reform socially and politically was motivated by a liberal desire to spread the benefits of education and health and to end brutal and degrading practices like slavery , extreme poverty colonialism , child labour ,brutality against women , cruelty to animals etc.

Much of what is good in life has been brought about by liberal reform and agitation. Unfortunately modern liberalism has turned its'guns on much that is essential like the family the nation and traditional culture .

To answer the second question you pose I would say no. A traditional version of conservatism values having genuine political choice and diversity. There must always be viable alternative visions otherwise democracy becomes meaningless. Liberalism has become deeply illiberal . It is in crisis but I wouldn't seek to abolish it.

Depends on what you mean by liberalism, or which brand of liberalism.

I wouldn't fancy being under a theocracy, whether ISIS or the Papal States.

I think self-styled Conservatives can often overlook the good aspects of Liberalism, as outlined by Cato.

That's a great essay, kj. Thank you. I had read The Idea of a Christian Society, but somehow I didn't seem to absorb it that well at the time, though it was only a few years ago. I also like this paragraph:

"Out of Liberalism itself come philosophies which deny it. We do not proceed from Liberalism to its apparent end of authoritarian democracy, at a uniform pace in every respect. There are so many centres of it—Britain, France, America and the Dominions—that the development of Western society must proceed more slowly than that of a compact body like Germany, and its tendencies are less apparent. Furthermore, those who are most convinced of the necessity of étatisme as a control of some activities of life, can be the loudest professors of libertarianism in others, and insist upon the preserves of “private life” in which each man may obey his own convictions or follow his own whim: while imperceptibly this domain of “private life” becomes smaller and smaller, and may eventually disappear altogether."

These are two considerations I would like to offer, just giving my own view:

1) It seems to me that liberalism is ninety per cent right. I'm betting that most people on this forum would have a LOT of common ground with classical liberals and libertarians of the old school-- indeed, Classical Republican seems to fit this bill, from what I can tell.

To me, conservatism is about the EXCEPTIONS. Most of the time, adults should be allowed to say and do and think what the heck they want. But I do believe there are situations where this freedom should be curtailed-- for instance, euthanasia, or some less dramatic examples such as Sunday trading laws. And, in a purely social sense, I would include cursing and obscenity. I believe passionately in free speech but I'm entirely supportive of social taboos against cursing and obscenity, and think they should be restored.

You then get into the question of "Who decides?". Well, that's a big debate, and I would generally answer: "Tradition decides." Tradition, or the ideals of the community. (For instance, I have no problem at all with compulsory Irish in schools and teacher training colleges).

2) Liberalism as a safeguard. I like the line from Louis Macneice; "Let not the man who is beast or who thinks he is God come near me". We can add, the person who thinks he speaks for God, or for history, or for the proletariat, or for oppressed minorities...

Basically, I think the fundamental healthy instinct behind liberalism is that brakes should be put upon human power, and that people are GENERALLY the best judge of their own interests. People who are bullishly anti-liberal tend to frighten me, whether they are Marxists, extreme nationalists, Catholic integralists, or Muslim fundamentalists.

Of course, progressivism is a separate issue. I'm talking about liberalism here.

I can agree with this, except that ideologues of various stripes DO use the word "liberalism" derisively to mean what I'm talking about-- not the ideology, but simply taking into account peoples' dignity and desire to make their own decisions. I'm certainly opposed to making liberty the highest good! Perhaps "personalism", John Paul II's term is better...but many right-wing Catholics see JPII as hopelessly liberal!

It was the Marxist scorn towards "liberalism" which was mostly in my mind when I started this thread.

There is a school of thought that the Thatcher Revolution was basically a revival of 19th century British liberal values especially regarding a limited state , free markets and a bigger role for private enterprise. The stress on the individual standing on her own two feet, freedom , strong personal morality and the Nation State are also classic 19th century liberal values.

It is ironic that other than the pursuit of freedom most of these causes are now seen as conservative if not explicitly illiberal

The writer ignores one little teeny weeny fact about the "Islamists" Peter Tatchell denounces. When in power they advocate and carry out the of killing of homosexuals. Many of them want this to happen in the UK. To promote the death of another human being is wicked and illegal.

The use of violence is a core Fascist value. Opposing this should be a no brainer.

Denying women the right to object that a bloke who declares himself female is a real woman is just plain insanity. I am not a Tatchell fan but he is being consistent. Modern liberalism involves regular u turns which Tatchell has the integrity to reject.