site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One of the observable mechanisms of social decay.

Long ago, I promised to write an effort post about this, but then I kinda lost the ability to write effort-posts. Here's the short version:

People want a thing. People clamor for the thing they want. Lots of different would-be leaders step forward offering to help organize the getting of the thing. These would-be leaders each have a different plan for how they'll get the thing. The plans tend to differ a lot their projections of how much effort and extremity will be required to get the thing.

As a rule, people don't want effort or extremity, so they tend to go with the plans that promise the easiest solutions first. When those don't work, they grudgingly accept the plans involving a little more pain and effort, and so on. Ideally, they reach a plan that gets them at least an approximation of what they want without too much pain and hardship. The people get what they want, the successful leaders are lauded for their excellent work, and everyone goes home happy.

But suppose people decide they want something that can't actually be gotten? The process above is carried out, starting with the easy plans, then the moderate plans, then the serious, hard-nosed plans. One by one, these plans are attempted, fail, and are discarded, but the people are still unsatisfied. Failed plans might be tweaked, but after a number of attempts grow discredited, and people stop backing them. If the thing people want isn't achievable by the means available, and people won't stop wanting it, you get policy starvation: people gravitate to to solutions and the leaders proposing them that under better circumstances would never be given the time of day, but now amass credibility as the only people offering solutions that haven't already obviously failed, if only because they haven't been tried yet. In the same way that physical starvation drives people to the extremity of eating spoiled food, and ultimately grass, shoe-leather or human flesh in an attempt to satiate their physical need for sustenance, starvation of policy drives people to extreme political acts: insurrection, revolution, civil war, democide.

Look around you, and you'll see it everywhere, on both sides. In this case, troll or no, Liberalism's promise was that once we adopted its norms, everyone would just sorta chill out, everything would work out, reason would carry the day, mumble mumble you get the Federation from Star Trek. It hasn't worked out like that. His generation did not, in fact, get it right, and they were, in fact, making promises, promises they were powerless to fulfill. And so they gifted us a world where people have lost confidence in the moderate Skokie solutions, and turn to Zunger's extremist zealotry instead.

What did liberalism promise that it hasn’t fulfilled though? You say people haven’t chilled out but then again we haven’t had a major war or civil unrest for decades.

Also we have done a decently good job of living together in a diverse society. It’s not perfect, but I doubt it ever was. Dissidents were just silenced in the past or didn’t make it into the history books. Now we’re letting that frustration out, which is on balance a good thing if we can figure out how to address it.

we haven’t had a major war or civil unrest for decades

Who exactly is "we"? There's a shooting war almost a year old in the middle of Europe. There's several billions of damage from riots just recently, and some cities are more dangerous than war zones. Kids are graduated from schools being illiterate and unable to do basic math. War on poverty is going so well people are living on the streets permanently in virtually every major city and seeing people shitting on sidewalks became a routine occurrence. Oh yes, and we also are doing so great that record numbers of people kill themselves with hard drugs in prime of their life. I'm not sure it's as spectacular record as we'd like it to be.

Don't mistake eloquence and verbosity for truth and just roll over and abandon your point because people posted 15 links to their extensive post histories from the last three years. There's a steelman to be had for things aren't as bad as the terminally online make them out to be, that liberalism has been remarkably successful and is worth fighting for, and that this is still the best time and place to be alive bar none.

It's easy to paint a grim picture of liberalism and the West when it's failures are trumpeted to the heavens while it's successes are the water we swim in.

Good point! I suppose I don’t see it as rolling over because my views genuinely have changed on this point recently. I agree though that the amount of doomsaying on this forum is unwarranted!

It's easy to paint a grim picture of liberalism and the West when it's failures are trumpeted to the heavens while it's successes are the water we swim in.

You have a very warped view of what "trumpeted from the heavens" means if you believe this.

Last night, I turned on NPR in the car and listened to some guy expound about how the last 20 years of Ukrainian history are entirely the West's fault as we supported neo-nazis and genocide in the Donbas. Depending on the political party in power, half the country and media ecosystem is in hysterics about FEMA death camps/alt-right neonazis/excessive taxation/insufficient taxation/so on and so forth.

This morning, I open up globaltimes.cn and read about how Actually, China's COVID response has been entirely rational, orderly and planned this way from the beginning by our hyper-competent, divinely ordained leadership.

Criticism is good, criticism and awareness of our failures is important to (try and) hold politicians accountable and identify problems to be solved. We've blown way past that to screaming from the rooftops and rending our clothes about Trump lowering the corporate tax rate/Obamacare/children in cages/whatever outrage you want to pick that we promptly forgot as the news cycle churned over. Nobody bothers to defend the West anymore; it's imperialistic, misogynistic, anti-white, anti-black, antipathic to the middle and lower classes, exploitative of labor, sclerotic, bureaucratic, autocratic, whatever you want it to be man. Someone's gotta pick up the standard - we may not be improving lives as much as we were a half-century ago, but as far as I can tell, nobody else is doing better and this is still the system to emulate for innovation and human progress.

To your other post:

Sure! As long you're upholding their principles, rather than deconstructing them in hopes of delivering something even better. But it seems we're way past that point.

Someday, I'm sure humanity will come up with something better. I'm not going to buy into the hubris of the End of History and claim that we've solved the problem guys, it's liberal democracies all the way down and all we need to care about is execution. But like I said, I don't see anything better in the marketplace of ideas at the moment.

I may have phrased my posts poorly, because funnily enough I think the first part of your comment addresses my second post better than the latter.

On messages being shouted from the rooftops:

We've blown way past that to screaming from the rooftops and rending our clothes about Trump lowering the corporate tax rate/Obamacare/children in cages/whatever outrage you want to pick that we promptly forgot as the news cycle churned over.

I disagree. You'll know a message is shouted from the rooftops when you can get in trouble for disagreeing with it. If you get fired, blacklisted in an industry, debanked, or arrested, or if alphabet agencies have taskforces dedicated to scrubbing or throttling your disagreement from the internet. If you are looking at spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to put your daughter into a private religious school for a religion you don't believe in, in the hopes of turning down the volume of the message, it's probably being shouted from the rooftops. But the things you pointed at are just background noise.

On upholding liberal principles:

Someday, I'm sure humanity will come up with something better.

Yes, yes, I'm sure of that too, but that's not what I meant. The point is that when we do come up with something new, it will be, well, new. Something different from the current liberal system. It will fly or fall on it's own, and thus have no claim to the successes of liberalism, even if it does turn out to surpass it. Likewise people who are arguing for violating liberal principles now in order improve society, even as they call themselves liberals from the other side of their mouth, shouldn't get to claim the successes of liberalism. To be clear, I don't think you're doing it, though I may have been poking you to find out if you will.

By the way, has your worldview changed somewhat recently? I might be misremembering your comments from the old place, but I've been doing some double takes reading you lately. I seem to be getting the vibe of just a bit more sympathy for the dissidents? Not that you agree with us, just that we're not insane for complaining.

Last night, I turned on NPR in the car and listened to some guy expound about how the last 20 years of Ukrainian history are entirely the West's fault as we supported neo-nazis and genocide in the Donbas.


This morning, I open up globaltimes.cn and read about how Actually, China's COVID response has been entirely rational, orderly and planned this way from the beginning by our hyper-competent, divinely ordained leadership.

That's a classic. "We're not perfect, but over here you're free to criticize the government" has been the staple of American propaganda since at least the end of WWII. I'll grant you that we're a little bit more subtle about it than authoritarian states, but as the past few years are showing, it's not that our rulers are allowing criticism as a matter of principle, they're not even allowing it pragmatically on the off chance that us plebs might have a good point every once in a while, and it would be unwise to shut us up. It's a calculated play, it's better to let crazy doomsday preachers rant on street corners, and have people completely ignore them as they walk by on their way to work, than to make a show of silencing them. Of course the moment the crazy preacher gains a following and so much as influences an election in an unsanctioned direction, the knives come out, and the show is over.

we may not be improving lives as much as we were a half-century ago, but as far as I can tell, nobody else is doing better

That's another classic. The issue here is that when you start on top, and have a long way to fall, you might be able to use "nobody else is doing better" as an excuse for a very long time, even as things are getting obviously worse. Hell, if the whole world is becoming more authoritarian, you might be able to claim you're "liberal" even after installing a dictator, simply because the other dictators are worse.

You'll know a message is shouted from the rooftops when you can get in trouble for disagreeing with it. If you get fired, blacklisted in an industry, debanked, or arrested, or if alphabet agencies have taskforces dedicated to scrubbing or throttling your disagreement from the internet. If you are looking at spending tens of thousands of dollars a year to put your daughter into a private religious school for a religion you don't believe in, in the hopes of turning down the volume of the message, it's probably being shouted from the rooftops. But the things you pointed at are just background noise.

I'd agree that institutional power has swung fairly far in one direction in the past decade and can sympathize, but 1) my point is much broader than the superficial culture war topics du jour and 2) there's plenty of places in this country where the messaging is very different.

It will fly or fall on it's own, and thus have no claim to the successes of liberalism, even if it does turn out to surpass it. Likewise people who are arguing for violating liberal principles now in order improve society, even as they call themselves liberals from the other side of their mouth, shouldn't get to claim the successes of liberalism. To be clear, I don't think you're doing it, though I may have been poking you to find out if you will.

Or, it may very well build on the successes of liberalism and improve on them in a linear fashion. People may, in your view, violate liberal principles in some instances while still adhering to them more broadly - does a liberal who supports a free press, open markets and some restrictions on hate speech get to lay claim to the benefits of the liberal tradition? How about a MAGA-conservative who's a hardline free speecher, adamant supporter of freedom of religion in every instance, but agitates for tariffs and protectionism?

Dogmatic adherence to liberal principles in every instance is both impossible and likely undesirable. I recognize this facilitates an easy slide into...well, many Bad Places, but regardless, at the end of the day, we're going to have to hash it out and work together to compromise rather than dusting off the sacred texts of liberalism to answer every question. Dogmatic pursuit of Free Trade may not be optimal when some other countries are mashing defect. Unlimited free speech may not be the way to go in burning theaters.

I'll grant you that we're a little bit more subtle about it than authoritarian states, but as the past few years are showing, it's not that our rulers are allowing criticism as a matter of principle, they're not even allowing it pragmatically on the off chance that us plebs might have a good point every once in a while, and it would be unwise to shut us up.

Can you be more specific what you mean by 'us plebs might have a good point every once in a while?' Does this mean you want us to elect plebs to congress, that you want your elites to be more responsive to what you want, that elites are by and large correct but now and then the plebs know better and should be listened to? Although in the latter case, I'd also ask how you expect us to know when the plebs have the right of it.

I don't believe that we're perfect, nor do I take excessive comfort in being better than the authoritarian states. In an America where everybody was extolling the virtues of our Glorious Leaders, I would be shouting from the rooftops about corruption and overseas military adventures. Instead, I believe we live in an America where nobody, ever can suggest that our government might have done something good without turning heads. I have enough humility to recognize that on 99% of the issues put before Congress, I'm truly ignorant, and maybe, just maybe, they might know something after all their briefings and committee meetings that I don't.

But it's a fine line to tread between trusting your reps, and turning a blind eye to corruption, eh?

That's another classic. The issue here is that when you start on top, and have a long way to fall, you might be able to use "nobody else is doing better" as an excuse for a very long time, even as things are getting obviously worse. Hell, if the whole world is becoming more authoritarian, you might be able to claim you're "liberal" even after installing a dictator, simply because the other dictators are worse.

It's less an argument about the current state of affairs in America being peachy, and more that I don't think I've seen a superior successor ideology rapidly outstripping us in terms of outcomes that I would consider endorsing over western-flavored liberal democracy.

By the way, has your worldview changed somewhat recently? I might be misremembering your comments from the old place, but I've been doing some double takes reading you lately. I seem to be getting the vibe of just a bit more sympathy for the dissidents? Not that you agree with us, just that we're not insane for complaining.

I'd be lying (not to mention ashamed) to say that my views haven't changed over the last several years, but I believe my overall shtick has been the same. I've always had sympathy for conservatives angry at the system in the same way I've had sympathy for Blacks. I aim to balance arguing for what I believe in with further alienating left and right. I don't enjoy social media or writing long forum screeds and I lurked in various forums for twenty odd years before finally participating here out of a sense of civic duty (although I admit sometimes I make myself laugh), which undoubtedly is part of why many find me insufferable.

So no, I don't think and have never thought that you're insane. I think we have common ground in disapproving of small children hanging out with strippers and many other areas, and believe that we can have mutually respectful dialogue where we disagree.

I'd agree that institutional power has swung fairly far in one direction in the past decade and can sympathize,

It might be a sign of how bad things got, or of me going off the deep end, but I don't know if I even believe in these "directions" and things swinging in them anymore.

Just a heads up you might be talking to a certified loony, I guess.

1) my point is much broader than the superficial culture war topics du jour

So is mine! It might not be obvious because I think I'm something of a through-the-looking-glass version of yourself. If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that all this culture war is a distraction from all the important stuff like tax policy, healthcare, foreign policy, some aspects of education, etc. - things that determine how a country is actually run. I say, to hell with all that! If it's that important to you, you can have it! I want the cultural madness to stop, and by that I'm not talking about topics du jour and fights between the woke and the unwoke, these are just aesthetics. One day we'll talk about the importance of deconstructing whiteness in math, and how important it is to promote other ways of knowing, another day we'll be strapping electrodes to your brain because that's what The Science says. With all the talk of AI, I'm half expecting the latter aesthetic to make a comeback, what a glorious show that would be! All the true believer wokies suddenly getting the TERF treatment and finding themselves on the margins of society, and half of the dissidents suddenly deciding that maybe the regime isn't so bad after all, now that it's whispering sweet nothings into their ears.

I don't know if I have a way to distill what I'm frantically gesturing at into a single principle, but if I had to, I'd call it something like preventing the 1984-ification and drowification of our society. Rat-racing, backstabbing, and maybe even memory-holing have always existed to some extent, but it got way out of hand in the past decade.

Or, it may very well build on the successes of liberalism and improve on them in a linear fashion.

Well then, we're right back to the End of History, aren't we? It's just Liberalism with a tweak or two.

People may, in your view, violate liberal principles in some instances while still adhering to them more broadly - does a liberal who supports a free press, open markets and some restrictions on hate speech get to lay claim to the benefits of the liberal tradition?

Sure. I recognize that anything outside the world of pure mathematics will have fuzzy borders, and will bring you a world of pain in categorizing it, if you want to be too strict and literal. But this is where we come back to the point of promises being made. If you openly promise free press, open markets and some restriction on hate speech, and people support that, that's well and good. If after that a newspaper publishes an article you don't like, and you start dicking around with their ability to reach an audience, you don't get to use the fuzziness of the concept to pretend you're still upholding your promise.

Can you be more specific what you mean by 'us plebs might have a good point every once in a while?' Does this mean you want us to elect plebs to congress, that you want your elites to be more responsive to what you want, that elites are by and large correct but now and then the plebs know better and should be listened to? Although in the latter case, I'd also ask how you expect us to know when the plebs have the right of it.

It's mostly the latter, but I'm approaching it a bit differently. Electing the plebs, and having the elites be more responsive falls into the "principled support for free speech". That's how our democracy is supposed to work ideally - we can elect someone from among ourselves, and put pressure on the government to carry out the will of the people, to that end we need free speech so we can organize, tell the rulers what we want, etc.

"Us plebs might have a good point every once in a while", is a more cynical take, where the will of the people doesn't really enter the picture. The elites do mostly what they want, not what the people who they represent want. Even then there's a pragmatic case for keeping free speech, as a sort of 4-chanesque idea generator. You'll mostly get garbage, but every once in a while it'll spit out a mathematical proof for a previously unsolved problem, the coordinates of an ISIS training camp, or figure out there's something fishy going on in Wuhan, when all the epidemiologists are swearing everything is fine. Now how you tell the good bits from the garbage is another story, but that's not the point. The point is that they let the free speech machine run and churn out content, and the ideas are there for the elites to take or leave.

My point is that even this cynical version of our democracy, where the plebs' ability to steer the government is mostly a sham, is not what we're doing anymore. According to our elites the free speech machine is dangerous, and has to be shackled like ChatGPT to only spit out goodthink.

I believe we live in an America where nobody, ever can suggest that our government might have done something good without turning heads.

You're right that America doesn't openly get a lot of praise, but there's a bizarre dynamic about it. All the right-thinking Euros agree "America bad", but anyone suggesting that we don't have to copy-paste all their crazy ideas to Europe will be met with massive amount of derision.

Also beyond America there's the "international liberal rules-based order" all the important people seem to agree exists, and deserves open praise.

It's less an argument about the current state of affairs in America being peachy, and more that I don't think I've seen a superior successor ideology rapidly outstripping us in terms of outcomes that I would consider endorsing over western-flavored liberal democracy.

Sure, I don't even want to change anyone's ideology (again, I sort of think they're mostly aesthetics). I just want an acknowledgement that there are promises that are not being kept, and that something should be done about it. It doesn't even have to be solved now, or anytime soon. I'll settle for "You have a point, we might need to get around to that some day", and "don't worry, I won't call you a Nazi".

It might be a sign of how bad things got, or of me going off the deep end, but I don't know if I even believe in these "directions" and things swinging in them anymore.

MIT just published a free speech manifesto that would have gotten people crucified a few years ago. The FBI is claiming that demand for white supremacy outstrips supply. I don't think the pendulum is going to swing back to some evangelical Christian theocracy, but I think the worst ideas of the last decade will be curbed and the pressure will relax. Trump 2024 being the wild card...

If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that all this culture war is a distraction from all the important stuff like tax policy, healthcare, foreign policy, some aspects of education, etc. - things that determine how a country is actually run. I say, to hell with all that!

I'm not sure I'd be so dismissive as to call it a distraction, but I see the culture war as a block (or more cynically, a lever) used to pit us against each other. I believe there are clear, positive-sum, winning policies we could adopt on many of those issues if we could react to proposals from the other side with something less than rabid, all-consuming hatred and default opposition. And failing that, at least work out compromises.

I don't know if I have a way to distill what I'm frantically gesturing at into a single principle, but if I had to, I'd call it something like preventing the 1984-ification and drowification of our society. Rat-racing, backstabbing, and maybe even memory-holing have always existed to some extent, but it got way out of hand in the past decade.

What do you think needs to happen to promote cooperation rather than backstabbing/defecting on society?

Well then, we're right back to the End of History, aren't we? It's just Liberalism with a tweak or two.

Maybe, maybe not. We have the means at hand for much more participation in the political process than the Founders did; virtually every citizen carries around a device that could instantaneously be used to vote in referenda. Our citizens are more literate, more educated and more knowledgeable than they've ever been in history. Or, despite this, you may want to restrict participation in specific referenda to citizens sufficiently knowledgeable about a specific subject matter...but then the issue becomes preventing people from gaming the system (i.e. if you're a neo-Republican/Democrat, here are the answers to the quiz they will ask you before you can vote, recruiting people to a cause, activists trying to insert questions primed to only let the right type of person vote, etc). The system described in Too Like the Lightning has always struck me as interesting as well - a small number of nation-states unbound by geographical location that you opt-into, forcing them to compete aesthetically and materially for members.

The development of ever-more-impressive models makes me wonder if at some point, a centrally planned economy run by an oracular AI would start to be able to outperform the free market.

Would these just be minor tweaks to Liberalism, or a sea change in society? I can see any of these being transformative and potentially outperforming groups that stick with the old formula.

If you openly promise free press, open markets and some restriction on hate speech, and people support that, that's well and good. If after that a newspaper publishes an article you don't like, and you start dicking around with their ability to reach an audience, you don't get to use the fuzziness of the concept to pretend you're still upholding your promise.

Fair enough. I assume you're referring to something like google deprioritizing conservative media in search functions rather than some media organization encouraging true believers to slaughter the infidels.

"Us plebs might have a good point every once in a while", is a more cynical take, where the will of the people doesn't really enter the picture. The elites do mostly what they want, not what the people who they represent want.

I think there's a number of distinctions to be made here. There's a beneficent paternalism, where the plebs want something really fucking stupid or two clearly contradictory things, and the elites ignore it to take (what they think is) the better option. There's a parasitic antisocial option, where the elites actively pass legislation that will help them extract wealth and resources from the plebs, ossify their own power, or just harm the populace because sadism. And you could imagine a situation where we elect representatives, and they simply vote directly as their constituents would want based on how popular any given issue is in their state (but then why have representatives in the first place?).

I assume all of these are simultaneously happening, although I also expect that #2 is significantly less common than people seem to think - I just don't believe conflict theory is widespread in American politics, particularly at the higher levels of government.

I largely agree with the rest of your points. Where I mostly disagree with you is seeing intentionality or conspiracies on the left formed with the aim of punishing you or yours. I can sometimes see how it could come across that way to you (rhetoric from the LGBT community about coming for your kids, etc etc), but other times I've been closer to ground zero and have largely only met people with good intentions. Whether that generalizes to other fields or I'm just being naive.../shrug.

More comments

Don't mistake eloquence and verbosity for truth and just roll over and abandon your point because people posted 15 links to their extensive post histories from the last three years.

This is extremely good advice, and I entirely endorse it.

On the other hand, would you agree that Liberalism has in fact made promises? If so, what specific promises do you recognize being made, and how do you think they've turned out? Is education a reasonable area to start with?

On the other hand, would you agree that Liberalism has in fact made promises?

Sure, although it's probably changed some over the centuries and depending who you ask.

If so, what specific promises do you recognize being made, and how do you think they've turned out? Is education a reasonable area to start with?

If you let me take credit for everything since the enlightenment and French/American revolutions, it seems like an easy answer; look at literacy rates, STEM knowledge in the populace (what fraction of 19th century mill workers could tell you the Pythagorean theorem or that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, I wonder?), and, at the risk of Goodharting myself, High school/college/doctoral diplomas. If you're slightly more stringent, you could control for general 'progress' by comparing these metrics with 'illiberal' countries, and I expect we'd outperform them over the last several hundred years. If you insist on controlling for disparities in wealth, well, aren't you conceding to some degree that liberalism has some comparative advantage?

At the risk of sounding high-school-essay-level trite, liberalism promises self-determination; the right to choose one's spouse, one's religion, one's vocation. It promises political self-determination, free speech, so on and so forth.

Much of the criticism put forth below is less about the ideals and goals of liberalism, and rather instances of failed execution. Freedom of X is important, but people didn't really believe in it. You could be handed stone tablets laying out God's flawless ideology for humanity, and if Jimbo down the street decides to covet his neighbor's wife, we're still out of luck. If you'd argue that theory is all well and good but we're consequentialists damnit, much like Winston Churchill on democracy, it still seems like western liberal democracies are getting better results.

I think this is probably about the best steel-man one could reasonably expect.

Are liberalism/the Enlightenment the same thing, in your view? Connected things? Entirely separate things?

Is the US a liberal democracy? Was it one prior to the civil rights act? Prior to suffrage? Prior to the abolition of slavery? If we reversed some or all of these policies tomorrow, would we still be a "liberal democracy"? Is "liberal democracy" applied based on objective criteria, or do we judge a nation relative to its contemporaries?

More to the point, do we label based on the ideological approach to policy, or do we judge based on the policies chosen and their outcomes?

I'm certainly willing to let you take credit for everything since the enlightenment and French/American revolutions, but shouldn't that credit be for the bad things that sprang from the ideology, not merely the good? And shouldn't we be rigorous in questioning whether any thing, good or bad, is actually attributable to the ideology, not merely coincident? Take Literacy, for example.

In early U.S. colonial history, teaching children to read was the responsibility of the parents for the purpose of reading the Bible. The Massachusetts law of 1642 and the Connecticut law of 1650 required that not only children but also servants and apprentices were required to learn to read.

...And of course that was only the continuation of previous policies among protestants, going back to the Reformation itself, if I'm not mistaken. Is Christianity part of the Enlightenment/Liberal Vangaurd? Does its centuries-old drive for universal literacy, valuing of education, philosophy and science get some credit for the water we swim in as well?

At the risk of sounding high-school-essay-level trite, liberalism promises self-determination; the right to choose one's spouse, one's religion, one's vocation. It promises political self-determination, free speech, so on and so forth.

The Soviets promised most of the things on that list, claimed to be motivated by Enlightenment principles while doing it, and insisted strenuously that they were delivering. Of course, we know they were "illiberal" thanks to hindsight, despite the fact that most of their unimpeachably liberal contemporaries completely failed to recognize that fact for a generation or two. Do you see the problem?

...I fear this is not cohering into a legible argument, only a series of disconnected gripes.

I think the term "liberal", by itself, doesn't actually mean much. I think the way people typically use it is as a synonym for Enlightenment ideology. The problem with this is that Enlightenment ideology has repeatedly resulted in wildly illiberal outcomes, and the most successful "liberal" societies have not actually hued very closely to Enlightenment ideology in a number of very important ways, among them a deep and abiding connection to the Christian faith. I note that societies that lacked or removed this connection in favor of pure Enlightenment ideology did very, very badly indeed, and I note that as Christian faith has passed the tipping point into serious decline, even anglosphere countries have found themselves in a protracted crisis of rising illiberalism.

I think the general argument you're sketching the outlines of papers over these realities in ways that are easy to miss if one simply goes with the cultural zeitgeist. Enlightenment ideology takes credit for outcomes it did not solely or sometimes even mainly create, and it ditches all responsibility for harms it very clearly causes. The Enlightenment is certainly one of the sources American Culture has drawn from, but it has drawn even more heavily from others; when it comes time to tally benefits and harms, all the benefits are tallied to the Enlightenment, whether it caused them or not, and all the harms are tallied to the others, whether they were responsible for them or not. Then too, one can simply ignore or define away harms in the present, and likewise for benefits in the past; history is just writing, after all, and statistics are famously malleable.

I think the above is how the liberal triumphalism you're describing is generated, and I think it's a fair start at describing why it is doomed to collapse.

You're rapidly going to outstrip my knowledge of history and philosophy. I was (un)fortunate enough to attend a college that let me avoid anything that wasn't a science class. No liberal arts education where I'm from.

Are liberalism/the Enlightenment the same thing, in your view? Connected things? Entirely separate things?

I may be about to reveal my ignorance, but I associate the Enlightenment with a period of history and liberalism with a political/social philosophy. I suppose 'Enlightenment values' may have significant overlap with liberalism, but I imagine the latter has developed significantly in the past few centuries.

Is the US a liberal democracy? Was it one prior to the civil rights act? Prior to suffrage? Prior to the abolition of slavery? If we reversed some or all of these policies tomorrow, would we still be a "liberal democracy"? Is "liberal democracy" applied based on objective criteria, or do we judge a nation relative to its contemporaries?

It's not a binary, thus the need for 'democracy indices' and the like. As well argue whether Jefferson was a racist/abolitionist, JK Rowling a feminist, so on and so forth.

As for absolute versus relative scales, why not both? I'm humble enough to expect that my descendants will think me barbaric in one way or another, which in turn makes me more sympathetic towards my forebears. Nevertheless, chattel slavery seems like an objectively open-and-shut case for us to judge, no?

I'd answer yes to all of those questions, but each step was an improvement in degree rather than a categorical change.

More to the point, do we label based on the ideological approach to policy, or do we judge based on the policies chosen and their outcomes?

Both. Everything in moderation, including consequentialism and deontology.

The Soviets promised most of the things on that list, claimed to be motivated by Enlightenment principles while doing it, and insisted strenuously that they were delivering. Of course, we know they were "illiberal" thanks to hindsight, despite the fact that most of their unimpeachably liberal contemporaries completely failed to recognize that fact for a generation or two. Do you see the problem?

Yes, but your argument cuts both ways. The Crusades, witch trials and inquisitions, antisemitism/islamophobia, all the sectarian conflicts through the centuries. People have done twisted things in the name of ideology...since the development of language, I imagine? Insofar as your goal is to elevate Christianity at the expense of a secular Enlightenment, I'm not buying it. If you're trying to reduce the argument to a relativistic 'Well, everyone does bad things sometimes, ideology isn't all that important after all' I think you have a stronger leg to stand on, but I still disagree.

We're trying to boil massively complex systems down to four axes; Christian/non-Christian and liberal/illiberal. Clearly we'll never explain the variance in every society, but regardless, I still think there's a signal in the noise insofar as liberal democracies are concerned. Perhaps the biodeterminists are correct, and the US is successful due to superior genetic stock. Or Jared Diamond, /r/badhistory darling, has the right of it and the US would have ascended purely by dint of it's natural resources, livestock, etc etc. You'd like to believe Christianity has been a force for good in the world as it flatters your biases, I prefer a secular one as it flatters mine. How could we ever definitively answer that question? The 'winner' of this debate would likely be based on the intellect/knowledge/effort of it's participants rather than any objective underlying truth.

The problem with this is that Enlightenment ideology has repeatedly resulted in wildly illiberal outcomes, and the most successful "liberal" societies have not actually hued very closely to Enlightenment ideology in a number of very important ways, among them a deep and abiding connection to the Christian faith. I note that societies that lacked or removed this connection in favor of pure Enlightenment ideology did very, very badly indeed, and I note that as Christian faith has passed the tipping point into serious decline, even anglosphere countries have found themselves in a protracted crisis of rising illiberalism.

How about those Soviets? Their RETVRN to traditional Christian values hasn't exactly sparked a Golden Age. Not to mention the piles of nominally Christian nations resulting in wildly unchristian outcomes.

You look at a half century of evaporating church membership and associate that with 'decline.' Meanwhile, the generation that came of age in that time witnessed the triumph of the west in the cold war, unprecedented wealth creation and improved outcomes nearly across the board. Are we just coasting on the religiosity of the Greatest generation?

Furthermore, the supposedly more liberal United States of a hundred years ago, while undeniably more Christian, was not particularly well-disposed towards Islamic/Chinese immigrants, Catholics, etc.

The Enlightenment is certainly one of the sources American Culture has drawn from, but it has drawn even more heavily from others; when it comes time to tally benefits and harms, all the benefits are tallied to the Enlightenment, whether it caused them or not, and all the harms are tallied to the others, whether they were responsible for them or not. Then too, one can simply ignore or define away harms in the present, and likewise for benefits in the past; history is just writing, after all, and statistics are famously malleable. I think the above is how the liberal triumphalism you're describing is generated, and I think it's a fair start at describing why it is doomed to collapse.

It's a fair criticism, and the road to stagnation is paved with complacency/triumphalism. Moar liberalism and 'Getting out the vote' is not the cure to every problem in our society, nor am I arrogant enough to think that liberal democracies will be the law of the land until the heat death of the universe.

But if you actually want to change someone's beliefs, you need to offer them an alternative. I believe that much of the good in the West (universal suffrage, literacy, unalienable rights, etc) represents progress in the same way that walking -> chariot -> automobile -> airplane does, regardless of it's provenance. I believe that in the postwar period, a group of great statesmen and bureaucrats had a vision rooted in...enlightenment/Christian values and were really Onto Something. Since then, much of the world has copied our playbook and caught up to varying degrees. I don't believe this represents decline; rather, it's just an opportunity to hit on the next civilizational phase change...which undoubtedly will take progressives of one flavor or another.

If you let me take credit for everything since the enlightenment and French/American revolutions

Sure! As long you're upholding their principles, rather than deconstructing them in hopes of delivering something even better. But it seems we're way past that point.

What did liberalism promise that it hasn’t fulfilled though?

Briefly? The same utopian outcome all reformers expect will happen: clear away the dead wood, take the heavy hand of the past and outmoded traditions from round the throat of present-day humanity, allow liberty to flourish and expand, and believe that humans are naturally good and it is only the existence of laws that make them criminals. Take away impediments, and we will all naturally be good, just, law-abiding, productive citizens who spend our spare time in being creative and doing works of charity.

Does that sound like modern-day humanity to you, in the mass? Many people are indeed nicer, more charitable, etc. But many more people have taken the liberties and now demand their 'rights' without feeling any corresponding sense of citizenship, duty or responsibility. I think some of the more stringent online types describe this, uncharitably, as gibs. I do think that is tarring everyone with the same brush, but on the other hand I have seen it for myself in a previous job where people looking for social benefits did parrot off a line about being denied what they felt they were entitled to as down to 'racism' (just to clarify, all parties here - the clients and the clerks administering the government schemes - were white). These young persons had clearly been taught this line of baloney in school about how if they didn't get all they wanted, well, racism sexism homophobia discrimination (fill out the rest of the bingo card yourself). That they should play their part in society as citizens and participate for the common good of all? What kind of crazy, bigoted, conservative, right-wing idea is that? Classic Liberalism, but now it's deemed wrongthink.

Other people have offered replies, and @gattsuru in particular brings the receipts as usual, but I wonder if this is something one really needs to see for themselves to appreciate. If you want to see it, you need to go back and really look at the things people were saying decades ago, the pictures they were painting about what the future world was supposed to look like, the promises they were selling to people about the concrete things their ideological proposals would achieve.

You also, probably, need to understand that your own experience doesn't generalize. I'd imagine just on general demographics that you're probably doing pretty okay, and so is most of your social circle. You have far less reason to notice or care that, say, every political speech on education in the last fifty years has effectively been the same speech on repeat, explaining how the things that never ever change are totally going to change this time. For you, I'd imagine, that lack of change isn't too bad. Other people's experience is different.

For a longer if not terribly adequate treatment of the issues, try this multipart comment, especially starting in the last paragraph of the first part. The problem your argument faces is that it doesn't convince the people it needs to convince, because it doesn't actually address their concerns. Hence BLM, hence Trump.

You are correct that dissidents have always been silenced. What you're missing is that a lot of our current society was built on the promise that there was a better way, that silencing dissidents wasn't necessary. That promise is now load-bearing, with the increasingly tenuous peace we enjoy depending on its maintenance: it allowed a great increase in the values-diversity of our society, to the point where it's no longer possible to get a workable agreement on who the dissidents are and how to suppress them. Consequently, censorship no longer functions to maintain social cohesion, but further erodes it.

Yeah, this comment was pretty out of touch, not gonna lie.

I dunno, it's the sort of reply I get pretty frequently on this point, actually. The social consensus slides freely between "change is long overdue, no more waiting, it's time to force the issue" when it's a change the consensus favors, and "what's the problem, everything's fine" when a change opposed to that consensus is proposed. Once you see this tendency once, you see it everywhere. it's completely endemic.

In my defense I was pretty drunk when I made this comment. As much as that's a defense.

I've personally shifted in the last couple of years from the 'everything is fine' camp to the 'change' camp, so perhaps it's just vestigial thought patterns rearing their head.

I will say that I was curious to see what the promises people came up with were, but probably shouldn't have defended liberalism so hard.

Rather famously, we spent and continue to spend a ton of money on the liberal promise of education for everyone, and it turns out that they can't do that; FCFromSSC had a pretty entertaining post on CultureWarRoundup about it when DeBoer finally admitted to the writing on the wall, though given he got modhatted for linking it contemporaneously I'm a little hesitant to link it now.

More broadly, though, there was a short time where people said "live and let live", and even if you couldn't exactly believe they meant it, they at least were willing to put more than a little lip service to the concept. And then theory encountered practice, and it was easier to believe in Santa Claus.

Firing people for their bad speech or associations was so beyond the pale that we built entire structures and train every teenager with stories of how important it is to resist, until it turns out that this was a useful power to have, and then an entire administrative infrastructure was developed to provide corporate liability should sufficiently large businesses not do it fast enough. We've found that protest is the voice of the unheard, until the wrong unheard do it, and then when countries declare martial law and confiscate bank account there's just a bit of a shrug. We've found that political abuses of law enforcement powers were so unacceptable to earn consent decree after consent decree, until it could happen to someone who 'deserved' it. We've found that government pressures to restrict free speech were awful, until they happened in ways people liked and then became a nothingburger. Freedom of religious belief was absolutely vital for two decades, then turned into lacite, and then every so often even the mention of those beliefs becomes its own violation.

And this goes on for even the small stuff, in a thousand different ways, on a thousand different topics. Anything that could be remotely read as celebrating violence was so unacceptable as to result in new reddit rules... and people who should have noticed patterns just keep missing these certain occassions. Taking kids from their own flesh and blood was to be a last-resort, even under violations of some criminal law, the sort of atrocity that left people walked in dazed horror, and also perfectly acceptable as an administratively-designed ad-hoc threat against someone using their constitutional rights. There's been a few places like EFF that at least drop a mention to their principles against their politics every few years, but the fall of the ACLU and other core institutions has been legendary; where they could once at least use a fig leaf and pretend they merely ignored rights that they didn't like because other groups focused on them, they now highlight individual people they don't like.

You're right that dissidents were silenced in the past, but the liberal movement was built, in no small part, about protecting the rights of those dissidents to speak more publicly! And then it turned out, no matter how much we avowed generalized principles that would protect everyone, the people actually making decisions and a worrying number of hangers-on either (charitably) designed their reference classes in such specific ways as to carefully exclude everyone not on their side or (less charitably) just wanted their dissidents freed.

This may not be especially severe by some historic standards -- and I agree we're pretty far from the KKK-era South, at least -- but if you wanted to do a hard comparison to the McCarthy era it's at least within an order of magnitude, and the McCarthy era is far from what the liberal movement considered a best alternative to negotiated agreement.

Rather famously, we spent and continue to spend a ton of money on the liberal promise of education for everyone, and it turns out that they can't do that; FCFromSSC had a pretty entertaining post on CultureWarRoundup about it when DeBoer finally admitted to the writing on the wall, though given he got modhatted for linking it contemporaneously I'm a little hesitant to link it now.

I'm not. @FCfromSSC's comment was amazing and deserves to be spread. Context.

FCFromSSC had a pretty entertaining post on CultureWarRoundup about it when DeBoer finally admitted to the writing on the wall

Though I disagree with Freddie on a ton of stuff, I do respect him for things like this: he sees and has seen the reality on the ground, and pushes back against the idea that all that is needed for every kid to go to Harvard is moar money. He acknowledges that - gasp! cover your ears from the horrid notion! - there is indeed a range of intellect and intelligence, and not every kid is as bright as the others. That you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

This does not mean ignoring the less academically able kids, but it does mean facing up to the truth: some kids are never going to go to any sort of college at all. That is a truth that can't be accepted, however, because we've constructed society (or are being swept along by the whirlwind of technological progress) where in order to get any kind of decent life you need that degree. Permanent, pensionable jobs have pretty much gone by the wayside as what you expect to do: get a good job, stay with one company for most of your career, retire from there. The world of work is much more fragile, transient, and vulnerable to shocks and upheaval now, and you have to be constantly re-inventing yourself, upskilling, keeping on top of new tech, jumping from company to company to get promotions, and so on. Even the white collar world is not immune to this, and unless you have a good education in the desirable skills that will land you a decent job where you can be fairly sure you can sell your skills for good salaries and have a career, then you are looking at the uncertain world of the gig economy, the temporary contract, the freelancer, and now the threat of being replaced by AI.

So to get on the career ladder, you need a college degree (let's put aside all the Caplan stuff about signalling for the moment). In order to do that, there is the idealistic notion of "everyone can go to college" and the practical realisation that if you admit that not all can or should go, and that merely having a degree is no longer in itself the guarantee of upward mobility and security that once it was, then you are saying "a lot of kids are going to be, for all intents and purposes, on the scrapheap once they are adults, unwanted by society since they can't contribute anything useful to the new knowledge economy".

That last is political suicide and also possibly setting the scene for widespread social upheaval and unrest. So you put pressure on the schools and the education system to pass everybody, to put them all on the college (any kind of college) track and you ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary that yeah, you do need streaming in schools because not everyone is equally able for the subjects and yeah, not everyone is fit for college so how about we tailor their education to what they can do?

That blue-collar work (unless you're a tradesman, and even that is hard work and no guarantee that everyone is going to be an independent small businessman) is diminishing, that we've outsourced it overseas for cheaper labour, and that there aren't the traditional manufacturing industries to soak up labour around anymore means that a lot of people in the lower half of the population are facing a future that is grim; possibly go into service work, which is low-paid, low-status, and biased towards shift work and cutting down hours so that employees don't hit the limits at which legal entitlements kick in. For a section of the upper half of the population, in certain white collar jobs, that future is already there (journalism) or looming with the threat/promise of AI.

Freddie sees this because he's been at the coalface. But there are a lot of people in power in the existing system for whom it is imperative that they turn a blind eye to all that, hence "all kids are equally smart and capable, it's down to grit and growth mindset, and if that doesn't work then it's the fault of systemic racism, and all must have prizes".

What did liberalism promise that it hasn’t fulfilled though?

Freedom of thought, religion, speech, and association? Equality between races and sexes, and lowering of class differences?

Also we have done a decently good job of living together in a diverse society. It’s not perfect, but I doubt it ever was.

Yes, and it only requires a level of surveillance and propaganda, that was the subject of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories a mere two decades ago.

Now we’re letting that frustration out

No. The levels of social , economic, and political pressure preventing letting frustrations out has gone up exponentially even within the last decade. You are trying to use the fact that it's not completely stamped out to claim that it's allowed beyond what it used to be.

What did liberalism promise that it hasn’t fulfilled though?

The part that's being used to drive current policies is "equal outcomes for women and minorities". (It doesn't matter if liberalism didn't actually promise that, many people who believed in liberalism believed it did)

Thanks for the explanation!

What does "Skokie" mean, though?

Presumably it’s a reference to the KKK’s demonstration in Skokie, IL in the 1970s. The ACLU defended the KKK’s right to peacefully march.

This incident, one of the iconic incidents on which 90s liberalism was founded. Shorthand for the dominant social consensus in favor of expansive freedom of expression, which used the case as a common-knowledge touchstone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

A famous court case from the 1970s - neo-Nazis wanted to march through a Jewish neighbourhood, and the ACLU controversially defended the neo-Nazis, on free speech grounds. It's one of the most famous examples of publicly fighting for a "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" position.