4 ms·

> Liberalism has successfully faced down many opponents over the past four centuries. Reactionary monarchism, colonial imperialism, fascism, and communism (or a

by cjs_ac 3y ago

> Liberalism has successfully faced down many opponents over the past four centuries. Reactionary monarchism, colonial imperialism, fascism, and communism (or at least, the 20th century variety) all fell by the wayside, and I’m pretty sure Islamism is in the process of doing so as well. This seems to using the word 'liberalism' to describe all the ideas from the Early Modern Period to the progressive present day that persist in the contemporary West. Is this how Americans perceive liberalism? Context: I'm an Australian who lives in the UK, so my understanding of liberalism is an economic theory that originated in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and became associated with specific social reforms relating to the cultural beliefs of the middle class (in the pre-WWI sense of the term). > Hitler would have certainly liked to do this — he certainly tried to get ethnic Germans on his side when he took over neighboring countries — but he lacked the technology and the global economic reach to bend German Americans to his will, so he didn’t even try. An awful lot of Germans in other parts of the world supported the Nazis without needing special encouragement. > The liberal principle of sovereign national borders is at stake, as is the liberal belief that nationhood and citizenship matter more than race. Again, this doesn't sound like liberalism, but rather the idea of the State that originated with the Treaty of Westphalia. Overall, I agree with the conclusions, but there's a curious America-centred-end-of-history feel to many of the arguments.

jowea 3y ago
"Liberalism" can be imprecise but the author is clearly using the definition that includes any sub-ideology that mostly follows the principles of the Age of Enlightenment and any country with a liberal democracy, not only laissez-faire economics. So the governing ideology in the Western world and a large share of the rest, plus what a large share of the rest pays fig leaf to except for countries like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China which openly declare another ideology. I don't think this is particularly unusual. What would be stereotypically American would be associating "liberalism" with only what the Democratic party preaches. > An awful lot of Germans in other parts of the world supported the Nazis without needing special encouragement. In Europe I think there was quite a bit of cross border organizing. But did the German Americans on the other side of the world ever do that to a significant level. > > The liberal principle of sovereign national borders is at stake, as is the liberal belief that nationhood and citizenship matter more than race. > Again, this doesn't sound like liberalism, but rather the idea of the State that originated with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'm not sure, but the important part here is the second one. Civic nationalism ("the liberal belief that nationhood and citizenship matter more than race") is an aspect of liberalism and it goes against the sort of ethnic based national loyalty across sovereign state borders that China is supporting. It does feel a bit End of History, but what is not true for a different liberal context?
- zrn900 3y ago
  Civic nationalism comes from the French Revolutionary ideas that were put into code by Napoleon. Its a (then) radical egalitarian idea that originated from the French parliamentarians who sat on the left side of the assembly, espousing the predecessors of modern left wing, socialist and communist ideas. The liberals you speak of sat on the right hand side, and they wanted to follow a 'middle road' which would allow both privileged aristocrats and some amount of popular power to coexist. The ones who sat on the left side of the parliament won and that is what the entire world follows as an ideology except the Anglosaxon world (as it was dubbed so in diplomacy then and today in history and political science), where the mixed elitist and aristocratic ideology survived because the French Revolution did not touch those parts. Long story short, yes, as the earlier commenter said, you people seem to be speaking from an exclusively Angloamerican view of the world where you seem to attribute to liberalism things that dont belong to it.

by cjs_ac 3y ago

jowea 3y ago

"Liberalism" can be imprecise but the author is clearly using the definition that includes any sub-ideology that mostly follows the principles of the Age of Enlightenment and any country with a liberal democracy, not only laissez-faire economics. So the governing ideology in the Western world and a large share of the rest, plus what a large share of the rest pays fig leaf to except for countries like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China which openly declare another ideology. I don't think this is particularly unusual. What would be stereotypically American would be associating "liberalism" with only what the Democratic party preaches. > An awful lot of Germans in other parts of the world supported the Nazis without needing special encouragement. In Europe I think there was quite a bit of cross border organizing. But did the German Americans on the other side of the world ever do that to a significant level. > > The liberal principle of sovereign national borders is at stake, as is the liberal belief that nationhood and citizenship matter more than race. > Again, this doesn't sound like liberalism, but rather the idea of the State that originated with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'm not sure, but the important part here is the second one. Civic nationalism ("the liberal belief that nationhood and citizenship matter more than race") is an aspect of liberalism and it goes against the sort of ethnic based national loyalty across sovereign state borders that China is supporting. It does feel a bit End of History, but what is not true for a different liberal context?

zrn900 3y ago
Civic nationalism comes from the French Revolutionary ideas that were put into code by Napoleon. Its a (then) radical egalitarian idea that originated from the French parliamentarians who sat on the left side of the assembly, espousing the predecessors of modern left wing, socialist and communist ideas. The liberals you speak of sat on the right hand side, and they wanted to follow a 'middle road' which would allow both privileged aristocrats and some amount of popular power to coexist. The ones who sat on the left side of the parliament won and that is what the entire world follows as an ideology except the Anglosaxon world (as it was dubbed so in diplomacy then and today in history and political science), where the mixed elitist and aristocratic ideology survived because the French Revolution did not touch those parts. Long story short, yes, as the earlier commenter said, you people seem to be speaking from an exclusively Angloamerican view of the world where you seem to attribute to liberalism things that dont belong to it.