On "flabby liberalism"
Tony Blair featured in a really interesting article on the BBC yesterday, looking critically at liberalism. I think he had a good many points. I will list some of them here:
...he warns that too often the West can "be made to feel guilty about itself" and fails to make its case.
"We're in a situation where we have to fight back," said Mr Blair.
"The centre has become flabby and unwilling to take people on. We concede far too much. There's this idea that you're part of an elite if you think in terms of respectful tolerance towards other people. It's ridiculous," Mr Blair told the BBC...."One of the problems with the West is that it constantly can be made to feel guilty about itself - and I'm not saying there aren't things we should feel guilty about. "But you know, we shouldn't let people intimidate us into thinking there are certain values we shouldn't be standing up for," said Mr Blair, who was attending the Global Education and Skills Forum in Dubai last week. "I'm a supporter of multiculturalism. But there's been a long period of time when we've allowed the concept of multiculturalism to be abused." As an example, he said that if people were asserting the equality and fair treatment of women that they should not be made to feel "somehow we're being culturally insensitive". "We have to be clear no one has the right to abrogate those basic human rights."... "You have to give a real solution and not one which is populist but false. If you don't give a solution, and you leave people with a choice between what I would call a bit of flabby liberalism and the hardline, they'll take the hardline I'm afraid." He called for a more assertive policy of "muscular centrism".... "The truth is this extremism is being incubated in school systems, formal and informal, which are teaching children a narrow minded and often hateful view of those who are different," says Mr Blair. "What people need to understand is that this culture of hate is taught. "They are taught a culture of hate and they can be untaught it." "This extremist thinking is what you have to attack, if you don't attack the ideology you'll never defeat the violence." Mr Blair says that when people are taught to hate people in other religions "it's not surprising that a proportion of them go into violent extremism".... "What is happening in all the turmoil, particularly since the Arab Spring, is that there is a much clearer understanding in this region of the need to fight back, and a realisation that you can't fight back unless you're putting a better idea in place than the extremists."
That hodge-podge of quotes I think contain some serious nuggets that cut to the heart of debates raging across the internet pertaining to liberalism, feminism, tolerance, Islamaphobia/criticism of Islam, and so on.
I used to talk with my friend about the idea that if liberalism was to prevail, then it needed an edge. We called it liberalism with teeth. Because failing that, it would be taken advantage of and come out on the wrong side of the fight for prominence in the marketplace of ideas.
Liberalism gets taken advantage of by aggressive worldviews like religious extremism and religious intolerance if it cannot stand up for itself. The challenge is how something which is open and accepting as liberalism is (in having a larger in-group than conservatism - see the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt for more on this) dealing with robustness with something that threatens it.
It gets back to the old adage of whether we tolerate intolerance - it's not about tolerating for the sake of tolerating. Where do we draw the line?
I am proud to call myself a liberal - and yes, we need to look closely at how we define that term - and I have moved more into this domain the longer I have been philosophically minded. Dictionary.com defines it as follows:
In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.
It is interesting to stress the role of government there, as there are many styles of liberalism. As wiki explains in more depth:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism and European liberalism prioritise liberty, American liberalism and social liberalism stress equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, andinternational cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophersand economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.
Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[13]In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.[14][15] Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world.
The point being that liberals are fighting amongst themselves as how best to deal with the threats to liberalism, as such reactions might challenge the very definition as to what liberalism entails.