Liberalism vs Social-Authoritarian Leftism: Why Liberalism?

 

Today, I'm finally getting back to my series "Liberalism vs Social-Authoritarian Leftism".  Today, I explain what I think liberalism is and why I think liberalism is important.  The backdrop of this is a left-on-left debate about whether we want a liberal left or a socially-authoritarian left.  In my earlier posts, I defined social authoritarianism as the use of social violence and abuse as a may to manipulate politics to leftist ends and how I oppose that approach.  I'm arguing that a liberal left is better than a social-authoritarian left.

 

There's more than one way to be on the left.

 

What is Liberalism and Why is It Important?

 

Simply put, there is one and only one alternative to authoritarianism and that's liberalism.  In America, we think of the word liberalism as meaning social liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).  Liberalism, broadly speaking, simply means the political philosophy that we are all free individuals and that we all have inalienable rights.  America was founded by liberals (classic liberalism).  Human rights are liberal.  Liberalism spans everything from traditional American progressivism in the left-center, to anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism on the far left, to right-wing libertarianism.  Obviously, I'm a left liberal, so I tend to disagree with right-wing libertarianism, but I still recognize that we have a lot in common, even if we disagree on a lot of issues.  The freedoms that all forms of liberalism offer stand in contrast to authoritarianism, which is much worse, in my opinion, than right-wing liberalism.  Right-wing liberals are the loyal opposition.  I want my team to win, but I respect theirs and can play with them under the terms of good sportsmanship.  Authoritarians, right, left, or center, are the traitorous opposition and the enemies to freedom.  Another way to think about it is that liberalism is an alternative to civil war.  Let me explain...

 

The Religious Wars

 

For approximately 150 years, the Religious Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion) waged across Europe and Britain during the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries.  Catholics fought against Protestants.  Protestants fought against other types of Protestants.  Countless innocent people were put to death merely for being the "wrong" kind of Christian.  John Calvin, founder of Calvinism, lured Michael Servetus, founder of Unitarianism, to Amsterdam and had him burnt at the stake for "heresy".  The Puritans assassinated the King of Great Britain and abolished Christmas.  Such were the times.  Why?  Because everyone thought they were absolutely right and everyone else was absolutely wrong.  All sides thought they had a right to violence and to force everyone else to conform to their beliefs.  In other words, they were authoritarian. 

 

The Enlightenment

 

The heroes who stepped forward and righted these wrongs were the philosophers of the Enlightenment.  Did they lay evil low?  Better!  They created a new way of thinking about politics, religion, society, and humanity called liberalism.  It held that everyone is equal, that we're all free individuals, and that we all have inalienable rights like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to justice, etc.  Slowly, the old monarchies began to give way to republics like America and France, which were later to become even more democratic.  The UK experienced a series of reforms that lead in the same direction.  Self-governance and personal freedom were the hallmarks of the Enlightenment. 

 

Why is it so important?  It keeps us from killing each other.  It's a better way.  Instead of every side thinking, "we're right and they're wrong, so they must die," it enabled various groups with diverse philosophies to talk to each other.  They might still think they're right and the other group is wrong, but they couldn't just kill the other group.  They had to learn to live with very important type of diversity: philosophical diversity.  This new way enabled people of different religions, creeds, and political persuasions to coexist in peace and maybe even learn from each other for the overall betterment of humanity.  Peace and Liberty to the rescue!

 

Today, liberalism has championed women's rights, gay and Lesbian rights, trans rights, queer rights, religious rights, class rights, disabled rights, and many other rights as inalienable human liberties.  So, let's be liberal.

 

Human Rights

 

Among human rights are all the rights we're used to in America, like freedom of expression, of religion, of due process in by our justice system, etc.  Many Americans also count the right to bear arms among these (though in other free countries, like the UK, they may not).  In addition, we also ALL have the right to be treated with basic respect and dignity as human beings, we ALL have a right to justice, etc.  These rights are too numerous to name, but the idea is that we are all essentially equal individuals.  All human rights apply equally to all people everywhere regardless of race, genealogy, religion, creed, philosophy, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, eye color, hair color, etc., etc.

 

VERY IMPORTANT POINT

Human rights are distinct from legal rights.  Legal rights are simply those that the state gives you.  The idea of human rights is that EVERY HUMAN BEING has them.  If the state won't honor those rights, their rights are being oppressed.  States that do grant those same rights as legal rights are liberal states that support human rights, like America with its Bill of Rights.

 

Authoritarian Leftism

I see a major problem on the left, today, which is that there's a new type of leftism that I'd consider to be socially authoritarian.  I don't mean that this movement wants to put anyone on forced marches to Siberia or into "reeducation" camps or anything, but, as I've discussed in earlier blogs, this movement is willing to use social violence and emotional abuse to get its way.  Althrough I am a left-liberal, I stand against this movement.  I consider it to be illiberal and anit-freedom.