I'm a liberal!

on Feb 02, 2011

The following is a 2008 article written on Liberals and Liberalism by Dr. Jeff Mirus from Catholic Culture.

I thought it would add fuel and insight to this discussion.

The word liberalism is used in many different senses, at least one of which has been condemned by the Church (Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864). At its philosophical core, liberalism seeks emancipation from the supernatural, moral and Divine order, with a rejection of all authority that does not originate in the self. It is precisely this form of liberalism that lies at the heart of the contemporary culture wars, both within the United States and between various countries in the European Union.

A member Poland’s presidential cabinet, Ryszard Legutko, has given us a trenchant and fascinating analysis of this sort of liberalism at work in the world. Legutko’s analysis, taken from a speech he made in 2006, has been adapted as an article in the Winter 2008 issue of Modern Age. It is so good that I wish to summarize it here:

To begin, Legutko suggests the following formula for identifying a liberal:

A liberal is someone who takes a rather thin view of man, society, morality, religion, history, and philosophy, believing this to be the safest approach to organizing human cooperation. He does not deny that thicker, non-procedural principles and norms are possible, but believes these to be particular preferences which possess validity only within particular groups and communities. For this reason he refuses to attribute to such principles and norms any universal value and he protests whenever someone attempts to impose his profound beliefs, however true they may seem to him, on the entire social body. Liberals might have divergent opinions on economic freedoms and the role of government, but they are united in their conviction that thinness of anthropological, moral, and metaphysical assumptions is the prerequisite for freedom and peace.

Legutko then goes on to present five arguments against the assumptions at the heart of liberalism, five important points which reveal the bankruptcy of liberalism:

First, liberalism has an extremely modest position in the entire history of human experience: “To put it simply: liberalism as a theory is not interesting.” Legutko notes that it is extremely difficult to think of any outstanding thinker or writer who can be characterized solely as a liberal. Great minds have always attempted to achieve wisdom by taking strong positions on ultimate questions, but “the liberal ignores those questions because he considers them either irrelevant or…dangerous.”

Second, “liberals always place themselves in a higher position than their interlocutors, and from that position they have an irresistible urge to dominate.” While claiming to want a society in which people are free to make their own decisions, “they always usurp for themselves…the role of the architectonic organizer of society; thus they always want to dominate by performing the roles of the guardians of the whole of the social system and the judges of the procedural rules within the system.”

Third, liberals confuse two distinct claims about freedom: the claim that freedom of action should not be impeded by arbitrary will, and the claim that what free people want is a liberal order. “By identifying these two beliefs [as one and the same] liberals assume that whoever wants freedom must necessarily want liberalism, and whoever wants liberalism must necessarily want freedom. Armed with this assumption liberals assess the progress of freedom by the yardstick of acceptance of their own system.”

Fourth, while preaching the superiority of pluralism, liberals actually propagate an intensely dualistic vision of the world, dividing all persons into two camps: pluralists and monists. Pluralists are liberals. Monists are “ayatollahs, Adolf Hitlers, Christian fundamentalists, Catholic integrists, Islamists, conservatives and many more.” The result is not only ideologically convenient; it also degrades thought and leads to “sweeping judgments, positive or negative, about everything in the past, present, and future.”

Fifth, fearful of potential enslavement lurking everywhere, liberals embrace all “modern ideological mystifications, which are often created in bad faith and from evidently erroneous assumptions.” Ideologies such as Communism are a good example but liberals are routinely co-opted by all who adopt their “rhetoric of liberation”. In a liberal order, every group learns “to make a convincing case that it is a victim of a particularly sinister form of discrimination.” Liberals can only encourage more of this, leading to ever greater social chaos.

Legutko concludes that, practically speaking, liberalism breeds “ideological commissars who have acquired remarkable abilities to silence their critics. For whoever disagrees with them is a potential candidate to become a new Adolf Hitler.” Indeed, if you emancipate man from God, he inevitably becomes his own worst enemy. What’s wrong with liberalism? Riszard Legutko has it exactly right.

17

Tova7

on Feb 03, 2011

Some of my liberal views Lula?

Well, since you asked.

I think "we the people" or the government by proxy should provide healthcare for children under the age of 18 if their parents can't afford it. (Same goes for food and shelter. Yes, I know we do this already, ~just sayin)

I also don't have a problem with gays serving in the military, though I don't think there should be any "special" or separate accommodations. (We visited this on another thread.)

That's about all I can think about right off the bat.

18

lulapilgrim

on Feb 03, 2011

Some of my liberal views Lula?

This is so embarrassing! I'm getting loopy in my reading skills. To be honest, I have been posting comments all along thinking that it was you Tova who wrote this article and said you are a liberal.

Tova, that's why I asked you what are some of your liberal views! So sorry about that and thank you for being so good natured about it.

19

Tova7

on Feb 03, 2011

Tova, that's why I asked you what are some of your liberal views! So sorry about that and thank you for being so good natured about it.

No worries....I thought you were just trying to get me involved in the conversation more..

I'm not liberal enough to be called liberal. For the most part I fall pretty conservative. But I do think to be considered a "civilized" society, we should have certain social programs (mostly for children).

20

Anthony R

on Feb 03, 2011

I'm not liberal enough to be called liberal. For the most part I fall pretty conservative.

Never once have I seen you accuse anyone of racism or Nazism, so you are definitely not a liberal.

21

lulapilgrim

on Feb 05, 2011

But I do think to be considered a "civilized" society, we should have certain social programs (mostly for children).

Under God, there are 3 major foundational spheres of delegated authority...the family, religious and civil government...and each one has its rightful purpose in social considerations.

The responsibility to provide for the needs of children falls on the individual, the family and on religious authority.

But in today's culture, there has been a major shift in this responsibility and by in large Liberals created it. Liberals would have the State (civil authority) perform the tasks entrusted to the other two, and we've seen that this infringement usually causes damages that end up hurting people.

The civil government has taken responsibility for taking care of children and of the needy. And is it working? I'd say No it isn't..matter of fact...it's been a disaster.

Trillions of $$$ down the hole only to produce a society that's more needy and economically dependent on civil government.

22

Tova7

on Feb 06, 2011

The responsibility to provide for the needs of children falls on the individual, the family and on religious authority.

In my own personal experience these three things failed me, failed my brother, failed period. Luckily the state stepped in and picked up the slack or there is no telling where I'd be today. Most likely dead.

23

lulapilgrim

on Feb 07, 2011

The responsibility to provide for the needs of children falls on the individual, the family and on religious authority.

In my own personal experience these three things failed me,

I'm sorry to hear that Tova. Not to get personal here, but I thought you had an Aunt Shelby who took care of you.

Anyway, it goes back to Liberals and Liberalism and the point that Liberals would have the State (civil authority) perform the tasks entrusted to the other two.We've seen that this "nanny state" infringement usually causes damages that end up hurting people.

So, Yes, the civil authorities have their distinctive purpose and function and yes, it is good for all when they carry out their duties for the maintainence and promotion of good over evil in societal interaction.

24

Tova7

on Feb 07, 2011

I'm sorry to hear that Tova. Not to get personal here, but I thought you had an Aunt Shelby who took care of you.

I did. But she came and got me from a group home after the state interceded in my behalf and removed me from the home. Most of the girls in the group home stayed there until they were 18 because their families were worthless.

I think the shift in culture came because a lot of "religious" institutions dropped the ball, or just couldn't afford the task. It's not cheap, but in the long run for society I believe it pays off to take care of them.

25

Frogboy

on Feb 07, 2011

I support people being able to do what they want as long as I don't have to pay for their choices.

Liberals tend to believe that there should be no consequences to personal choices and the rest of us should subsidize those choices.

26

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Feb 07, 2011

I think the shift in culture came because a lot of "religious" institutions dropped the ball, or just couldn't afford the task.

I think what happened to be honest T is the religious institutions (made up of tax paying people) couldn't afford the task to the degree that you're talking. The problem tho stems with the government and all it's programs to begin with. We've met many people in our business over the years who admitted they stopped giving to charitable organizations because the government was taking so much of their hard earned tax dollars for these programs you're speaking of.

If the government would give the money back to the people and let them support their own charities then you'd see more money going to these churches who in turn would be able to do more because they have more funds. As a church secretary now, I handle the contributions and our budget is tight. We have a budgeted amount for the food pantry but would love to be able to budget it higher but we need to funds to come in first to be able to do so.

There's only so much to go around so if the government takes from you, you have less to give.

27

Tova7

on Feb 07, 2011

There's only so much to go around so if the government takes from you, you have less to give.

Right, I agree with this. The way I view this particular topic is this: children really are the future of the country (I know, cliche')...they don't choose to be born to worthless parents. Once they are here, we have an obligation as a moral country to meet some of their basic needs.

Why? From a practical standpoint, the more support they're given (food, medical, safe environment) as children, the less likely they will be to suck off the public when they're older through illness (from poor nutrition as a child), have less medical problems which results in fewer workman's comp claims and SS claims.

The problem with leaving it to churches, or religion in general is twofold. First, because of separation of church and state, how do we ensure children in their care are treated well, fed, etc? Second, giving through religion is voluntary and unreliable.

Breaking down the cost of caring for the country's children (which benefits everyone in the end) is much less when spread out over the multitude of tax payers. People who give at church aren't even close to meeting that number. As a "civilized" country I believe we are obligated to do it whether we like it or not. The gov. is the only institution that can take your money by force. That's a crass way to say it, but it's true.

Living in a free country is a privilege. But it isn't free. No one ever said it would be.

Are there wasteful gov. programs? YES!!! Is the federal gov too big? YES!!!

28

Tova7

on Feb 07, 2011

I support people being able to do what they want as long as I don't have to pay for their choices.

I agree with the sentiment to a point.

People want to drive and we have to pay for roads whether we drive or not. People want safe meat, and we have to pay for FDA inspectors even if we're vegetarians.

There there are "common good" practices and principles that must be supported by the public in a free society whether people want to pay for it or not. It is these practices which help promote a safe environment, and educated people, for businesses to prosper.

The crux though, is defining social programs that are for "public good" which enables our country to prosper both individually and collectively, financially and ethically.

I believe social programs geared toward children meet these requirements and therefore should not be "optional."

I also believe everyone who earns over the poverty level in this country, should pay the same tax rate.

Everyone should be forced to participate in the "common good" not just the highest income earners. One of the reasons people are so quick to take advantage of these "Free" programs is because they are free to them.

I wonder how fast some of the excess would be cut if everyone had to carry some of the load.

29

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Feb 07, 2011

Why? From a practical standpoint, the more support they're given (food, medical, safe environment) as children, the less likely they will be to suck off the public when they're older through illness (from poor nutrition as a child), have less medical problems which results in fewer workman's comp claims and SS claims.

this is a good point. But I still have to say going the government's route isn't the answer either.

First, because of separation of church and state, how do we ensure children in their care are treated well, fed, etc? Second, giving through religion is voluntary and unreliable.

this is a double sided argument. We can say the same about kids being lost, killed, abused in the social government system as well. If I had a choice as a parent and everything being equal, I'd take a chance with a private religious system than a secular government system.

Maybe..just maybe the whole problem has to do with the whole separation of church and state to begin with. There is no separation when it's in their best interest as I've recently learned with what just happened to our church in NH recently. The state sure got very involved there and made a big mess of things including not making any sense at all. In the end all they did was collect big bucks from the church destroying it in the process. Many of us were crying separation of church and state? Really? Whenever the state gets involved messes follow. They very rarely make things better.

If the government gave money to our churches for their food pantries so they could best deliver the food/supplies etc that would go a whole lot further than these wasteful programs that just throw money at the problem. Stewardship is a very big problem when it comes to government spending as you are well aware of.

For instance we have a, very high on crack, couple call us and beg us for money occasionally. They said last week they hadn't eaten in two days. We know them and their history and understand how druggies can be cons. Anything to get their next fix. We will not give them money but will give them food. My Pastor left the office to pick up bread and milk and various items from our food pantry to drop off at their house being very careful not to give them anything they could sell. The churches have a way of getting together to monitor who's legit and who's using the services by sending out a local listing as to who's being helped. The government doesn't have that type of local relationship with the people.

We are very careful how we spend our money. We help as many as 17 families a week but have to tell them only to come once a month because that's all we can afford. You should see them line up outside our very very rural church surrounded by shacks all around us. We bus their children to church and youth group but feed them before youth group to make sure they get fed that night. It'd be nice to have more money to help these people who can't afford to drive to any of these fancy social programs that may be too far away for them to get to.

The gov. is the only institution that can take your money by force. That's a crass way to say it, but it's true.

that's socialism you're promoting here. And that is not the answer. It's an answer, but not the best way to go.

30

Tova7

on Feb 07, 2011

that's socialism you're promoting here. And that is not the answer. It's an answer, but not the best way to go.

I don't agree. By your standard then all taxes are socialism. Everything done for the "common good" with those taxes is socialism. Roads, national defense, etc.

The definition of socialism as I understand it is:

"a theory that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."~Dictionary.com

Socialism is about everyone being equal, no one having more than the other guy. I'm promoting the exact opposite. Tax everyone above poverty level the same percentage, and let everyone carry some of the load instead of half carrying the load and the other half sucking up their efforts.

The government doesn't have that type of local relationship with the people

If the government gave money to our churches for their food pantries so they could best deliver the food/supplies etc that would go a whole lot further than these wasteful programs that just throw money at the problem.

Actually since GW, churches CAN in fact apply for grants to help provide services to the poor. It was called Faith Based Initiatives under Bush, but Obama has made some administrative changes, as well as a name change. http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/

There are a few guidelines, mostly about the money being used to help the needy regardless of religious affiliation. And of course accountability paperwork must be filled out, filed, etc.

Lots of churches believe taking grants from the gov. equals letting the gov. in the door to micromanaging the church. I've read a lot about Faith based initiatives, volunteered at a local faith based non-profit providing free dental, medical, food pantry and clothing to the needy, which gets these grants, and the fear is unfounded.

Part of my job as a volunteer was to apply for the grants, and then keep up on paperwork for accountability. And you can rest assured it takes a full time volunteer/employee to keep up with the stewardship records (Which is a big turn off to churches because they can't find people to do it.)

But I still have to say going the government's route isn't the answer either.

The government meaning the states. The fed gov. has mandates, but mostly states are on their own. For instance, Health and Family services are run by each state, and each state has different criteria/payment amounts/stipulations/etc. For example in some states eye glasses are covered for the poor, in other states they aren't. Also welfare rates, qualifications, welfare to work program guidelines, differ from state to state.

But if that's not the answer, then what? Religion didn't work either. And families are not as geographically close now as 50 years ago, which leads to being virtual strangers outside the nuclear.

If I had a choice as a parent and everything being equal, I'd take a chance with a private religious system than a secular government system.

Really? Because that means (this being America and all) that ALL religious groups could potentially be taking care of your child. Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Wiccans, Davidians, Scientologists, etc. If a parent dies, or is unfit, who decides where to place the child? Sure you might say, well I'm a Christian, my kid would be taken care of by other Christians. But if you're unfit, you don't get to choose.

I was in a social work program (as I think you know) and 9 times out of 10 if a family member, church member, family friend stepped up and volunteered to foster a child being removed from a home, the state allowed it.

Why? It's cheaper to pay a social worker to make visits and check on the child, than to pay for the kid's food, clothing, shelter, etc. But you know what? People don't step up all the time, and for older kids, I'd go out on a limb and say "most" of the time.

For instance, would you take one of your Sunday school kids in to raise right now , today, if his parents were considered unfit and he was going to a state run group home or foster care with a family that wasn't Christian? How about more than one teen?

Foster parents are vetted, though in some states not very well (the criteria on that is also unique to each state). Which is why some states only use foster care as a last resort, instead relying on group homes that are age appropriate and run by a team of trained parents/social workers/etc.

Because the gov. can't "promote" religion I know from experience having lived in said group home, we were taken to many different religious institutions and left to decide for ourselves.

I'd much rather my child be placed in a "neutral" house where social workers come and go on a daily basis, than with a family I don't know. Foster families are NOT generally required to be as transparent as group homes. And frankly most of the "Christians" I know, I wouldn't trust to raise my child. (Not that I would get a say...)

Is there room for improvement in social programs dealing with children? HECK YES! The main reason I went into Public Administration is because I believe there are vital, necessary gov. programs essential to the health and prosperity of our country. We need fiscally conservative public administrators running them, tweaking them, looking for better ways to do things, and when appropriate, eliminating them.