Melancholly Liberalism (Liberal Democracy)? More like Self-Righteous Liberalism…
Writing by abuhatem on Tuesday, 11 of December , 2007 at 3:52 pm
Mark Blitz, a professor of political theory and writer for The Weekly Standard the neoconservative weekly news magazine wrote an article published in yesterday’s issue titled Melancholy Liberalism: The virtues of democracy that knows its limitations.
Blitz’s argument is that unlike communism, fascism, and other ideologies - liberal democracy, or democratic capitalism, does not claim to have solved the political problem. Instead people in a democracy recognize it as an imperfect system, and thus he uses the term melancholy liberalism to praise American humbleness which he states is our strength.
[Anderson’s] greatest praise is for those who support democratic capitalism, but reflect on its limits: “It has been a virtue of the richest currents of liberal democratic thought, from James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville to Irving Kristol and Pierre Manent, to explore bourgeois society’s inherent limitations and failings without losing sight of its basic decency and relative justness.”The modest awareness of imperfection that shapes this “melancholy liberalism” contrasts with “the hubris of the secular religions,” such as communism, that believed “they had solved the ‘political problem.’”
The article is interesting and very well done, and although in a newsmagazine I am strongly opposed to, had many very strong arguments. But I have a number of problems with it. First, Blitz’s listing of democracy’s imperfection are not the standard arguments made against democracy. Instead of egalitarianism, I would state that the lack of egalitarianism is an aspect of democracy many disagree with. Another the overall weakness of the article is that “perfect,” and “imperfect,” are subjective terms when dealing with political systems. Political theory being a normative discipline, that is concerned with how government should be it is subjective by nature. Secondly, the flaws of democracy which Blitz points out are very minor, and hardly strong enough to be called “melancholy.”
Yet I believe there is yet another issue. The overall weakness of this article defines neonconservatism at its core. It is almost oxymornic, and extremely ironic, that Blitz uses the weaknesses of liberal democracy as a case for American humbleness and thus further feeds into the myth of the superiority of the American democratic system. Although many have acknowledged that democracy is not a perfect system, it is still - according to the subjective views of a great majority of people at least - the best rational system constructed.
However, American arrogance is what can get the best of us. It was Athenian pride and self-righteousness of the same nature which eventually led to one of the greatest massacres of the Spartans at Melos. Robert Neihbur also writes of this - stating that the American assumption that it is carrying out God’s will must be checked by a concept of American accountability to God or it will create great injustice. While we may rightfully point out our strengths as a liberal democracy - humbleness is not one of them.
I do not buy this concept of melancholly liberalism. The United States does, just as Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany did, believe that its system is perfect or at least almost perfect, the best system in existence and superior to all others. The United States does believe that we have solved the political problem. One only has to look back to John Burgess, the founder of American political science, and a student of Hegel himself, who believed that no system was more superior to liberalism on the earth, and thus the era of political theory was over - although he did accept the Aristotelian proposition that monarchies and aristocracies which rule on behalf of the people were also good forms of government. We have already evolved to the level of the greatest system, was Hegel and Burgess’ arguments. Since the early American days of pastor John Winthrop have Americans coupled this concept with the belief that they were a people blessed by God and carrying out His mission.
Melancholly liberalism does not exist and is not our strength. Our weakness comes from our arrogance and self-righteousness which can lead to injustice. Yet our strength comes from liberalism itself. One of my main qualms with the neoconservatives is that like the American political theorists who came in the 20th century and attacked liberal democracy, I believe that many of them also hold the belief that democracy is in essence flawed. Irving Kristol once remarked “Do we have nothing higher to offer the world?” The tragedy of it all, to many neoconservatives, is that although liberalism is the best system in the world it has many flaws and thus the best we can do is very melancholly.
However, I do not believe this is the case with the vast majority of people who have enjoyed the blessings of freedom and natural rights which have been granted to us by God. John Locke based his arguments on natural rights from Biblical passages, however I would state that it could also be applied to Islam. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition grants one certain natural rights by God, and the success of the liberal democratic system is the implementation of such rights. Yes, it is not the perfect system, nor is it divinely inspires, nor a theocratic government. This is not what I am trying to imply. Yet, when the State protects the rights that God has granted humanity it will be rooted in strength.
I do believe in the greatness of liberalism, as well as the greatness of other systems which protect natural rights. Neoconservatives such as Blitz lead to our weakness when they ignore the most fundamental flaw of all in liberalism. The flaw which dampens our system the most is our hubris. The same hubris which can be a force for evil in our foreign policy. Our country is the greatest country in the world at the moment, yet our fall from grace may be from imposing our system. Political theory, being based in subjectivity, should not be subjectively imposed in a standard manner on others. Yes, we should support the preservation of God-given natural rights, yet not while violating the natural rights of others ourselves.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Category: Political philosophy
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
