An interesting Chronicle essay from an old European (in all senses of the phrase) conservative, John Lukacs, commenting on something that we have discussed here also - the paradox that while we are (almost) all liberals today, we are (almost) all indignantly in denial, or at least embarrassed, about the fact.
Lukacs makes a particularly important point that neither liberalism nor conservatism is inherently synonymous with democracy - and in fact both are (and ought to be) in conflict with it from time to time.
"When it came to the formation of the democracies of the West, the concepts of liberalism and democracy, while not inseparable, were surely complementary, with the emphasis on the former. Among the founders of the American republic were serious men who were more dubious about democracy than about liberty. They certainly did not believe in -- indeed, they feared -- populism; populism that, unlike a century ago, has now become (and not only in the United States) the political instrument of "conservatives," of so-called men of the "Right." It is significant that in Europe, too, the appeal of the term "liberal" has declined, while "democratic" is the adopted name of a variety of parties, many of them not only antiliberal but also extreme right-wing nationalist.
Yes, democracy is the rule of the majority; but there liberalism must enter. Majority rule must be tempered by the rights of minorities and of individual men and women; but when that temperance is weak, or unenforced, or unpopular, then democracy is nothing else than populism. More precisely: Then it is nationalist populism. It may be that the degeneration of liberal democracy to populism will be the fundamental problem of the future. True, many liberals have contributed to the inflation -- the degeneration -- of the original meaning of "liberal." But the acceptance of the word "liberal" as a connotation of something damnable, unhealthy, and odious is to be deplored."
Posted by Alan Allport at December 7, 2004 12:19 PMPerhaps liberals should declare victory and withdraw. Otherwise aren't we in danger of betraying the triumph of liberalism's values by clinging to it's name?
I liked this from the last paragraph:
Liberalism in its noblest, and also in its most essential, sense has always meant (and, to be fair, here and there it still means) an exaltation, a defense of the fundamental value and category of human dignity.
But how do you explain that to the mob?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at December 7, 2004 06:13 PMGreat article. Out of curiosity, how would you describe Lukacs's politics? I found a reference to an article online (which costs $, damn it), by someone claiming that Lukacs is a reactionary becuase he called Churchill a reactionary. My impression has always been that that's exactly what he was. So now I'm just confused.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at December 8, 2004 09:47 AMI guess I'm confused that he makes a point of saying he's not a liberal and then follows with an outpouring of praise for liberalism. Is that sort of like me grudgingly admitting that Pete Rose was a great ballplayer?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at December 8, 2004 10:06 AMLargesse?
Posted by: Alan Hogue at December 8, 2004 10:21 AMLukacs is an old-fashioned central European (Hungarian) conservative - a type practically unknown in the USA and increasingly rare even in the home country.
I would guess from his article that he believes that liberalism and conservatism (both in his European sense), while contrasting, are not mutually exclusive; and that each benefits from the health of the other.
Posted by: Alan Allport at December 8, 2004 11:15 AM