Monday, September 11, 2006
What’s So Scary About Liberalism?
Liberals tend to view themselves as live-and-let-live people. It’s the other side, we believe, that wants to start wars, keep the poor in their place, and make second-class citizens out of gays, non-Christians, non-English-speakers, and anyone else who didn’t come out of their cookie-cutter. We’re the nice guys. We believe in tolerance, diversity, and letting people be what they have to be. It’s hard for us to credit the idea that someone could be afraid of us.
Someone is. And for good reasons. Understanding that uncomfortable fact is the first step towards grasping what has been going on in this country’s politics for the last quarter century.
Our belief in negotiated commitment - that people are not obligated to relationships they did not choose - is like one of those devastating European germs that white settlers spread throughout the world three centuries ago. We are immune; our families are based on negotiated commitments and (though they are far from perfect) work quite well in that environment - as long as we can maintain the social safety net.
But Inherited Obligation families are not doing nearly so well. Blue states consistently lead red states in statistical measures of familial success - low divorce rate, low drop-out rate, low violent crime, low teen pregnancy. Divorce rates in particular seem to vary inversely to liberalism: conservative Baptist marriages fail far more often than those from more liberal Christian denominations.
We have trouble grasping how tolerance can be threatening.
This has nothing to do with your blog -- which looks a little like the Marie Celeste, I have to say...
You initiated the Wiki page on neotribalism. What I would like to know is: is there any literature on neotribalism? The book I am currently writing is right on the topic, but I haven't seen any other systematic, extended studies of the central idea. Have you?
Cheers,
DM
: 6:12 PM Anyway, speaking of reading, for Neo-Tribalism I'd go with any writer that sees the ideal form of human organization in small, tightly-knit groups that are nevertheless larger than the nuclear family that has been the ideal in the West for the past few centuries. I'd go back to Rousseau for all his faults, and also Chesterton (though I'm not religious I like his writing). More modern writers like Ethan Watters are more immediately relevant of course, but not as deep. I personally think Zerzan is a nutcase but he has a following too.
Keep me updated on your book!
: 9:41 PM Just out of curiosity, what Big Fat Scary ones are you reading? Chomsky-type scary?
Do you get access to my email address when I make my comment anonymous? If so, send me yours and I'll send you some quotes relevant to neotribalism.
Cheers,
DM
: 1:41 AM I have not read Chomsky's books yet partly because I've seen so much of him on the Internet in debates etc. that I think I have a pretty good idea of his beliefs.
I have been reading mainly cultural historians such as David Hackett Fischer, Charles Taylor and Kevin Philips though I did make it through some "serious" philosophy recently in the form of Zizek, whom I found intriguing from one angle and quite bonkers from another.
Why do philosophers with "z" in their names always seem to be a little crazy? Nietzsche, Zizek, Zerzan, Szasz... maybe it has something to do with this:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/11k/whats_in_a_name/
: 10:37 AM : 11:49 PM << Home
