Can Democracy Survive The Tantrum from the Illiberal Right?

[Milchshake]

A really brilliant essay about the decline of some prominent Never Trumpers. They would throw democracy under the bus to hold onto the Forever Culture War. The people most willing to abandon the idea of liberal democracy are the ones least likely to face direct consequences for it.


The Illiberal Right Throws a Tantrum
Ahmari’s demands here outline the United States that illiberals would like to see: one that resembles Orbán’s Hungary, where rigged electoral systems ensure that political competition is minimal, the press is tightly controlled by an alliance between corporations and the state on behalf of the ruling party, national identity is defined in religious and ethnic terms, and cultural expressions are closely policed by the state to ensure compliance with that identity. It is no surprise that the vast majority of black and Latino Christians see a secular but pluralist left as more trustworthy allies than conservatives who rail against “poisonous and censorious multiculturalism,” and darkly warn of a plot to “displace American citizens.”

[…]

The question of whether the Republican Party would abandon liberal democracy for sectarian ethno-nationalism was decided in the 2016 primary, and all French and Ahmari are doing is arguing about it after the fact. The commercial and social incentives for conservative writers to succumb to Trumpism are vast. Some, like French, have had the integrity to stick to their stated principles. Others, like Ahmari, have already fallen. Today’s skirmishes among conservatives resemble the irregulars in 1865 shooting at one another because they had not yet heard of Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. And the support Ahmari has drawn suggests that the conservative intelligentsia will offer less resistance to authoritarianism than it did in 2015 and 2016.

If you can read this paragraph and not shiver, you’re made of sterner stuff than me.

• Black Americans did not abandon liberal democracy because of slavery, Jim Crow, and the systematic destruction of whatever wealth they managed to accumulate; instead they took up arms in two world wars to defend it.
• Japanese Americans did not reject liberal democracy because of internment or the racist humiliation of Asian exclusion; they risked life and limb to preserve it.
• Latinos did not abandon liberal democracy because of “Operation Wetback,” or Proposition 187, or because of a man who won a presidential election on the strength of his hostility toward Latino immigrants.
• Gay, lesbian, and trans Americans did not abandon liberal democracy over decades of discrimination and abandonment in the face of an epidemic. This is, in part, because doing so would be tantamount to giving the state permission to destroy them, a thought so foreign to these defenders of the supposedly endangered religious right that the possibility has not even occurred to them.

But it is also because of a peculiar irony of American history: The American creed has no more devoted adherents than those who have been historically denied its promises, and no more fair-weather friends than those who have taken them for granted.


Declaring war on liberalism because…drag queens were doing readings at a public library could drive discussion on the right that would last for weeks.

Serwer's fianl paragraph:

Undetectable in the dispute on the right is any acknowledgment of the criticisms of liberal democracy by those who have been fighting for their fundamental rights in battles that are measured in decades and even centuries; that the social contract implicitly excluded them from the very rights white Christian men have been able to assert from the beginning. Perhaps to do so would be to acknowledge the fundamental immaturity underlying the American Orbánists’ critique: that what they describe as a crisis of liberal democracy is really just them not getting exactly what they want when they want it.

[Saucexorzski]

So the left is a human with a stick and the right is a bear in a cage, the left pokes the right gets piss, and justifies that the bear is dangrous, evil and needs to stay locked away. Then they laugh at the silly angry bear in the cage.

[NED funded]

Liberalism needs to go away.

Why do you hate individual liberty?

[Milchshake]

Liberalism needs to go away.

How does one explain to a Stalinist that;

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

[Grimbold21]

Is this another pointless label just for the sake of generating more online hit-pieces?

If those are the criteria by which the group is defined, then call them what they are: authoritarians or fascists.

People have seemingly grown an affection to come up with needless buzzwords.

[Dsonsion]

How does one explain to a Stalinist that;

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Which has been adapted into status quo center-right politics which defends the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the few.
There are many definitions for the word, but the one used the most nowadays is for people like Obama or Hillary Clinton.

[Endus]

Which has been adapted into status quo center-right politics which defends the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the few.
There are many definitions for the word, but the one used the most nowadays is for people like Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Basically, there are two "classes" of liberalist thinking.

The first is modern liberalism, where the focus is on individual, social liberties and freedoms. Civil rights and freedoms, equity between social groups, etc.

The second is classical liberalism, more similar to its origins in the late 18th/early 19th Century, where the focus is stripped away from those social measures to focus almost exclusively on economic freedoms. "Companies should be able to rape and pillage whatever they want as long as they make a profit".

The problem is that the two viewpoints are almost directly antithetical, but both share the label of "liberalism". The former is broadly left-wing, the latter is sharply and narrowly right-wing libertarian.

Which is the default consideration for "liberal" is regional; in the EU, it's generally the latter, in North America, the former.

[NED funded]

Basically, there are two "classes" of liberalist thinking.

The first is modern liberalism, where the focus is on individual, social liberties and freedoms. Civil rights and freedoms, equity between social groups, etc.

The second is classical liberalism, more similar to its origins in the late 18th/early 19th Century, where the focus is stripped away from those social measures to focus almost exclusively on economic freedoms. "Companies should be able to rape and pillage whatever they want as long as they make a profit".

The problem is that the two viewpoints are almost directly antithetical, but both share the label of "liberalism".

Where are you getting that classical liberal definition from the late 18th century early 19th century? Like who said that? Like you would at least stick to the script and say the early 1930s and gaining prominence in the 80s with Reagan and Thatcher.

- - - Updated - - -

Which has been adapted into status quo center-right politics which defends the accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the few.
There are many definitions for the word, but the one used the most nowadays is for people like Obama or Hillary Clinton.

IDK dude, I like having civil rights and not have an angry mob protesting that their kids are being indoctrinated by the gay agenda just because they are going to learn other sexualities exist.

cough cough con mis hijos no the metas cough cough

[Endus]

Where are you getting that classical liberal definition from the late 18th century early 19th century? Like who said that? Like you would at least stick to the script and say the early 1930s and gaining prominence in the 80s with Reagan and Thatcher.

Pretty much any source of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

It's rooted in the works of Hobbes and Locke and Smith, and was the core political philosophy in the UK and the USA throughout the 19th Century.

I really couldn't care what "script" you think I'm operating from, I'm going by the actual facts.

[NED funded]

Pretty much any source of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

It's rooted in the works of Hobbes and Locke and Smith, and was the core political philosophy in the UK and the USA throughout the 19th Century.

I really couldn't care what "script" you think I'm operating from, I'm going by the actual facts.

John Locke literally defended the idea that workers owned the things they produced and put heavy emphasis on the consent of individuals. Like, what actual facts dude?

[Endus]

John Locke literally defended the idea that workers owned the things they produced and put heavy emphasis on the consent of individuals. Like, what actual facts dude?

Did you even bother reading the link?

[Dreknar20]

illiberal right......is this the new buzzword?

[Saucexorzski]

illiberal right......is this the new buzzword?

it's a typo, they meant Nazis.

[Zaydin]

Liberals are all about sucking companies and rich peoples dicks and fucking us over. Not implementing policies that are good for the people.

That's conservatives.

[Stormspellz]

Liberals are all about sucking companies and rich peoples dicks and fucking us over. Not implementing policies that are good for the people.

that would be republicans

[Kallisto]

That's conservatives.

They're right. But not how you think. In Europe Liberal =/= USA way of saying Liberal. Liberal in Europe pretty much is Conservatives without the "Fuck women, LGBT and their like."

As Avskildhet is Swedish they'll have the European view of the term.

The push for rights comes from Social Democracy movements which would be closer to US Liberalism.

[Gestopft]

From David Frum: "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

So the left is a human with a stick and the right is a bear in a cage, the left pokes the right gets piss, and justifies that the bear is dangrous, evil and needs to stay locked away. Then they laugh at the silly angry bear in the cage.

The victim complex is strong with this one.

[Independent voter]

Let's use Alabama and their abortion issue which is currently in the news.

If Alabama voters want to ban abortions, should we force them to allow abortions?

What good is democracy if the voters in a large state like Alabama can't use the power of the ballot box to shape the laws in the way they see fit?

And they don't even want to ban abortion 100%, they just want to restrict it. Keep in mind that nearly every state in the union restricts abortion in some way.

Let Alabama democracy do what the voters want to do.

And don't bring up "what if they want to allow slavery?" On the scale of things the national government should get involved in, slavery is a 10, abortion isn't even a 1. 10 being something the fed should definitely get involved in.

[Gestopft]

Let's use Alabama and their abortion issue which is currently in the news.

If Alabama voters want to ban abortions, should we force them to allow abortions?

What good is democracy if the voters in a large state like Alabama can't use the power of the ballot box to shape the laws in the way they see fit?

And they don't even want to ban abortion 100%, they just want to restrict it. Keep in mind that nearly every state in the union restricts abortion in some way.

Let Alabama democracy do what the voters want to do.

And don't bring up "what if they want to allow slavery?" On the scale of things the national government should get involved in, slavery is a 10, abortion isn't even a 1. 10 being something the fed should definitely get involved in.

I think activists on either side of the issue would completely disagree with you on that.

And why do you get to decide that it "isn't even a 1?"

[Has lost its way]

It is a interesting thought... there seems to be more effort to censor political opponents then find common ground. Both sides believe in destructive extremes it certainly seems like we have a powder keg on our hands.

That said I can't see the concept of democracy dying. Being maimed perhaps but not dying.