16/09/2021

Populists and progressives feed off each other pathologically. It is hard work to be a genuine liberal

«Over the past 250 years classical liberalism has helped bring about unparalleled progress. It will not vanish in a puff of smoke. But it is undergoing a severe test, just as it did a century ago when the cancers of Bolshevism and fascism began to eat away at liberal Europe from within. It is time for liberals to understand what they are up against and to fight back. (...)

Superficially, the illiberal left and classical liberals like The Economist want many of the same things. Both believe that people should be able to flourish whatever their sexuality or race. They share a suspicion of authority and entrenched interests. They believe in the desirability of change.

However, classical liberals and illiberal progressives could hardly disagree more over how to bring these things about. For classical liberals, the precise direction of progress is unknowable. It must be spontaneous and from the bottom up—and it depends on the separation of powers, so that nobody nor any group is able to exert lasting control. By contrast the illiberal left put their own power at the centre of things, because they are sure real progress is possible only after they have first seen to it that racial, sexual and other hierarchies are dismantled.

This difference in method has profound implications. Classical liberals believe in setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competition—by, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers. Progressives see laissez-faire as a pretence which powerful vested interests use to preserve the status quo. Instead, they believe in imposing “equity” (...)

Countries run by the strongmen whom populists admire, such as Hungary under Viktor Orban and Russia under Vladimir Putin, show that unchecked power is a bad foundation for good government. Utopias like Cuba and Venezuela show that ends do not justify means. And nowhere at all do individuals willingly conform to state-imposed racial and economic stereotypes.

When populists put partisanship before truth, they sabotage good government. When progressives divide people into competing castes, they turn the nation against itself. Both diminish institutions that resolve social conflict. Hence they often resort to coercion, however much they like to talk about justice.

If classical liberalism is so much better than the alternatives, why is it struggling around the world? One reason is that populists and progressives feed off each other pathologically. The hatred each camp feels for the other inflames its own supporters—to the benefit of both. Criticising your own tribe’s excesses seems like treachery. Under these conditions, liberal debate is starved of oxygen. Just look at Britain, where politics in the past few years was consumed by the rows between uncompromising Tory Brexiteers and the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.

Aspects of liberalism go against the grain of human nature. It requires you to defend your opponents’ right to speak, even when you know they are wrong. You must be willing to question your deepest beliefs. Businesses must not be sheltered from the gales of creative destruction. Your loved ones must advance on merit alone, even if all your instincts are to bend the rules for them. You must accept the victory of your enemies at the ballot box, even if you think they will bring the country to ruin.

In short, it is hard work to be a genuine liberal. (...)»

The threat from the illiberal left

7 comentários:

  1. John Kenneth Galbraith:
    >>> Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
    >>> In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone.
    >>> In economics, the majority is always wrong.

    Friedrich August von Hayek:
    >>> If Socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be Socialists.

    Tudo bem...

    ResponderEliminar
  2. Do artigo:

    «If classical liberalism is so much better than the alternatives, why is it struggling around the world? One reason is that populists and progressives feed off each other pathologically.»

    Da "Economist" só se podia esperar mesmo isto, uma reles caricatura da oposição.

    Mas eu vou ser caridoso e providenciar a verdadeira resposta: o liberalismo clássico não é aceite pelas pessoas como eu porque não tem resposta para os problemas decorrentes do multiculturalismo, do multirracialismo, da crise da liberdade de expressão e da destruição da cultura e da herança patrimonial do Ocidente. E esses, caro (Im)Pertinente, são os problemas que realmente interessam aos "populistas" como eu. Porque se o mundo se resumisse à economia, eu já teria emigrado para a Alemanha ou para o Reino Unido. Infelizmente para os liberais clássicos, tudo indica que a economia poderá vir a ser o menor dos problemas das gerações europeias futuras. Viver em segurança e em liberdade, usufruindo de tudo o que os nossos antepassados produziram e conquistaram, poderá vir a ser a nossa maior dificuldade.

    Posto de uma forma mais simples: os liberais clássicos não se importariam de viver num país como o Brasil, desde que a economia desse país crescesse 10% ano. Já eu não quereria viver num país como o Brasil nem que a economia crescesse 20% ao ano!

    ResponderEliminar
  3. Não se pode esperar de quem não aprecia as liberdades que aprecie o liberalismo, mas poderia esperar-se que tivesse uma ideia do que o liberalismo é e do que não é.

    ResponderEliminar
  4. Este comentário foi removido pelo autor.

    ResponderEliminar
  5. Não há nada -rigorosamente nada- no meu comentário que indique que eu não aprecio as liberdades. Pela minha experiência, eu sou muito mais liberal do que os autoproclamados liberais "tugas", que se têm congratulado abertamente com a censura e a limitação da liberdade de expressão no nosso país.

    E também não há nada -rigorosamente nada- no meu comentário que indique que eu não sei o que é o liberalismo. Pelo contrário, é o anónimo que, na sua sobranceria atrevida, nem sequer consegue rebater nenhum dos pontos que eu tinha levantado: o liberalismo não tem qualquer solução para os problemas que eu mencionei. E isso torna-o uma ideologia falhada, e completamente inadequada para enfrentar os prolemas do presente.

    ResponderEliminar
  6. " Pelo contrário, é o anónimo que, na sua sobranceria atrevida, nem sequer consegue rebater nenhum dos pontos que eu tinha levantado: o liberalismo não tem qualquer solução para os problemas que eu mencionei. E isso torna-o uma ideologia falhada, e completamente inadequada para enfrentar os problemas do presente."--------------------Completamente certo!

    ResponderEliminar
  7. Gosto em lê-lo novamente, caro Bilder! 🙂

    ResponderEliminar