to be continued...
liberals fought against conservatives as embodiments of entrenched interests and the view that things could not change as they were God-ordained; aligned with the emerging sciences and seen to be from the same stable; Newton's Principia Mathematica and Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (took him 17 years to write it so very much a product of the 17th C) - Ed mentioned another book? Glorious Revolution 1688; Christian charity never very far away - social reformers; as Science and Commerce combined to unleash the forces of the Industrial Revolution, the Liberal Care foundation was more and more aroused to action, first through charitable works and increasingly through social reform; helping the poor has a long-standing position within Christian civilisation as the good thing to do; where Care is lacking Harm is perceived; liberalism always retained a pluralistic consensus view of the social world. it was socialism and especially Marxism that introduced the conflict perspective; Marx attempted to show that this conflict was an inescapable feature of capitalist societies and would through the dynamics of dialectical materialism lead to the overthrow of liberal capitalist societies. Thomas Day is an interesting example of an early progressive and one who exemplifies a lot of what is good about progressivism - its clear intolerance of slavery in various forms. What modern progressivism is now guilty of is a failure to face the reality of a vastly greater manifestation of slavery. Islam reduces its followers to slavish automatons willing to kill people for non-obedience; it condones slavery and has never renounced the acceptance of slavery in its doctrines; how could it, for Muhammad himself kept slaves, took slaves in war and used women slaves for sex; if he did it how can any Muslim object to it? This has to be one of the best ways of getting liberals to oppose Islam - its relationship to slavery.If they fail to do this they are Betraying their movement. Thomas Day was an abolitionist. The Left likes to see itself as on the side of the abolitionists in contrast to the conservatives who owned slaves in some cases. Note his intervention on the American Declaration of Independence; the abolitionist theme is founded on Care. Thomas Day is very good example of what's best and most ridiculous in progressives: not afraid to point our hypocrisy; kindness to all sentient beings; kindness especially to children; died after being thrown from a horse which he was trying to train with kindness;
the cult of sensibility in 18th C is an important social current; it pushes the Care foundation into its dominant position that we see in liberals today; feeling above reason; weeping at the sight of a poor beggar became a mark of moral respectability and higher moral development; whereas early liberal society had been acutely aware of the dangers of strong passions, as exemplified in the 16th and 17th century wars of religion and civil disorder and the measures necessary to prevent anarchic passions getting out of hand, the cult of sensibility and the romantics; the romantic view of the poor begins and extends into the romanticism of the proletariat (at least for some); the poor are without sin and if they wrong things it's because of their terrible circumstances; the movement for penal reform to reflect this view; the glorification of revolt against ones origins; also seen in the middle class hippies of the 1960s; the purity of love theme in Jane Austen and other novelists; marrying for love not family requirements; marrying above or below one's social class in accordance with the dictates of the heart; (is this a Sanctity foundation?) ; Romanticism dominated the culture of the 19th C.
Liberalism was given a loose-knit theoretical foundation in the work of John Locke. His approach was pragmatic rather than dogmatic; he did not attempt to provide a coherent rational system but rather a new temper of thought which sought to reform society on the principles of personal liberty, the enjoyment of private property, freedom of conscience, rationality, a system of checks and balances in government to forestall the creation of tyrannies, and an empirical approach to knowledge which would seek progress through science, based on observation, and its application to human affairs. Its recipe for social change was not wholesale revolution but incremental changes that would be broadly agreed upon at each step. Its byword was tolerance and its most powerful weapon was freedom of speech, most famously expressed by Voltaire when he said, “I disapprove of what you say but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” In fact, Voltaire was responsible for taking Locke's ideas to France where he championed them.
In the first half of the 18th C. liberal society consolidated the gains of the Glorious Revolution and held back any resurgence of Catholicism in the form of the Jacobites (those still loyal to the catholic James II), culminating in the decisive defeat of the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. Notable during this period was a group known as the Kit-Cat Club. This was a group of influential Whigs who were determined to see the fruits of the Glorious Revolution realised. The Hanoverian Protestant kings (George I, II, III, IV) were also key agents in seeing the Protestant hold on power maintained.
Liberals in this early phase were acutely aware of the perils of religious fanaticism and unreason, as played out during the previous century, and therefore strove to build a social order based on rationality and tolerance.
The Industrial Revolution and The Romantic Reaction
The advent of the Industrial Revolution saw a new phase of liberal society. The empirical methods of science were beginning to bear fruit in the form of new techniques of production, the extraction of new materials, the development of new products, and above all the use of mechanical power. Factories, mines, and commercial towns grew and brought both wealth and hardship. People could be subjected to extremely long hours in harsh conditions with absolutely no protection for their immediate or long-term welfare. Those born with wealth to invest or with entrepreneurship and luck could become extremely wealthy and powerful. A new class of wealthy entrepreneurs was born. There were plenty of stories about rags to riches and many of these were certainly true but for the most part, if you were poor you stayed poor and your vulnerability to the vicissitudes of life was very high.
The Romantic movement was a corrective to the rationality and the harshness of liberal industrial society. Certainly society was freer but it was a lot freer for some than for others. Those at the bottom of the social order had little freedom to speak of and were more or less forced to endure whatever conditions the owners of businesses saw fit to offer.
But romanticism went a lot deeper than compassion for the poor and compassion was arguably not its primary motive. Rousseau's famous dictum, "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains." sounds like a cry from the heart for the plight of the oppressed masses and it certainly became a mark of elevated moral sentiment to weep openly at the sight of a vagabond. But romanticism was aiming deeper still. It was not at ease in the rational order of liberal society; it sought to release the "hearts affections". Sensibility became a counterpoint to sense. It was a counter-culture. It wanted feeling to replace reason as the principle of order. Romanticism was also not keen on scientific empiricism. Science not only had a tendency to lead to the development of ugly industries that scarred the landscape and transformed idyllic peasants into oppressed proletarians, it also broke many comforting illusions and myths. It seemed to unveil an increasingly desolate view of reality. One that was entirely indifferent to the fate of the individual. We will see this again in the counter-culture of the 1960s.
Societies built on scientifically rational principles were also portrayed in novels like Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". These were rationally ordered and conflict-free societies in which all were happy with their lot. But, they are morally repulsive because they lack freedom and the ability, or even the desire, to question.
Romanticism in one form or another continued to be a dominant cultural force throughout the 19th C. and into the 20th.
Liberalism and Socialism
During the 19th C. liberalism, true to its word so to speak, continued to offer reform as the best way of mitigating the harshest effects of industrialisation. The Reform Acts of the period are testament to a determination to improve the lives not just of the winners but of those bearing the negative aspects of industrial development. The Abolition of Slavery stands as one of liberalism's great triumphs. In this it signalled a refusal to allow an institution that stood in direct contradiction to the principle of equality of all men - though it hadn't got as far as extending this women. What liberals stand guilty of today is a refusal to confront a vastly more complex system of slavery in the religio-political totalitarian system of Islam. Islam reduces its followers to slavish automatons willing to kill people for non-belief; it condones slavery and has never renounced the acceptance of slavery in its doctrines. How could it? Muhammad himself kept slaves, took slaves in war and used captive women as sex slaves; if he did it how can any Muslim object to it? This could be one of the best avenues for getting liberals to realise the real nature of Islam and how it stands in opposition to all that they claim to espouse. If they fail to stand up to the slavery inherent in Islam they are Betraying their principles.
Still, the procedure was clear enough: we'll continue to improve the lives of everyone by gradually reforming the system whilst not trampling on the rights of those already enjoying the fruits of the system to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Not good enough" replied the socialists. Whereas liberalism maintained a pluralistic model of society that could be gradually improved for the benefit of everyone, socialism introduced the idea that the system would never work to the benefit of everyone because it was inherently conflictual. As long as there were owners of businesses who could hire and fire as they pleased and those who had only their labour to sell would have to accept on the terms offered, the system was rigged heavily in the interests of one side. The liberal capitalist order was therefore seen as inherently exploitative, as being predicated on exploitation. How was such a system ever going to produce a just society? It wasn't, concluded the socialists.
In one form or another, liberal capitalist society now had to contend with an increasingly organised force of opposition within it. Trade unions, Chartists, agitators, political parties, as well as artists, writers, and philosophers were all working to radically alter or overthrow the liberal order. Marx tried to show that liberal capitalist societies were destined to be torn apart through increasing polarisation. Liberal society generally remained tolerant of these developments, seeing them as aspects of the broad movement for reform, as voices that could be accommodated to varying degrees within the great liberal tent, which was after all in favour of free speech and differences of opinion. Liberal reforms continue to provide hope that lives will improve bit by bit and if not for me then for my children.
An aspect of liberal reform is the tendency of the state to take on greater responsibility for the care and protection of those rendered more vulnerable: the sick, the young, the elderly, the poor. The provision of universal education begins at the end of the 19th C. and at the beginning of the 20th C. the Liberal government of Lloyd George institutes the first national pension scheme for men over 70 years of age. (This was not a huge financial commitment at the time)
The threat of revolutionary forces gaining ground becomes an important spur for further reforms.
The World Wars and The Welfare State
World War I did a great deal to undermine confidence in the inevitability of scientific and social progress. Mechanised warfare showed the horrific scale of destruction that was possible on the battlefield. The war provided the perfect model of senseless destruction as millions of men fought and died in the mud in order to gain a few yards of mud from the enemy. The whole tragedy sent the message that we are irrational rather than rational and that the fruits of reason, in the form of advanced weapons, can turn against us in the most barbaric manner.
It seemed as if the prophets of sensibility had been right. This whole enterprise of scientific progress was an illusion. We would have been better off creating an idyllic pastoral society rather than an industrial nightmare.
The carnage of the First World War lingers in our memories to this day, as it should. But hot on the heels of the First World War came the Second. Throughout the 1930s pacifists and appeasers were keen to refer to the horrors of the earlier war and the wisdom of avoiding any involvement in another. We had plenty of scars, both physical and psychological, to back this assertion. Liberals were at the forefront of the campaign to deny the threat existed. Churchill was vilified as a war-monger. This label was designed to trigger the Harm aspect of Care/Harm and thus to bring about his condemnation. We have seen liberals engaging in this tactic with respect to George W. Bush (successfully as it turned out). It was hoped that Hitler would turn his attention on the Russians and thereby deal with another threat that we would rather not have to deal with ourselves.
Nevertheless, wars are not chosen by us, they are often foisted on us. It was fight Nazism or live under its jackboot and wave goodbye to liberal society. Fortunately for the generations since, Churchill rallied the country to mount a defence and with America joining the effort in 1941 liberal society with its plucky ability to create surprises eventually prevailed.
After the war, the nation's masses were full of expectation for a greater role of government in ameliorating their lives and thus was born the Welfare State. The National Health Service, the National Insurance Scheme, and various changes to education were principal among these changes. The idea sprung up of a "cradle to grave society" in which the protective role of the state would ensure all were fairly treated and none would suffer too greatly. The five evils of Squalor, Ignorance,Want, Disease, and Idleness would be fought on our behalf.
Once the austere post-war era was over in 1950, we began to see a general uplift in the living conditions of the masses. We approached full employment, so much so that business leaders started to look abroad for immigrant labour. The conservative government of Harold Macmillan was the first to propose and execute this strategy.
The Cold War
There was of course a shadow cast across this welfare paradise by the threat of nuclear war. This concern would grow during the 1960s and continue until the 1980s.
Again, the threat of advanced weapons undermines faith in liberal society and scientific progress. What could be done to realise the benefits of science whilst removing the threat of war?
Liberals in this early phase were acutely aware of the perils of religious fanaticism and unreason, as played out during the previous century, and therefore strove to build a social order based on rationality and tolerance.
The Industrial Revolution and The Romantic Reaction
The advent of the Industrial Revolution saw a new phase of liberal society. The empirical methods of science were beginning to bear fruit in the form of new techniques of production, the extraction of new materials, the development of new products, and above all the use of mechanical power. Factories, mines, and commercial towns grew and brought both wealth and hardship. People could be subjected to extremely long hours in harsh conditions with absolutely no protection for their immediate or long-term welfare. Those born with wealth to invest or with entrepreneurship and luck could become extremely wealthy and powerful. A new class of wealthy entrepreneurs was born. There were plenty of stories about rags to riches and many of these were certainly true but for the most part, if you were poor you stayed poor and your vulnerability to the vicissitudes of life was very high.
The Romantic movement was a corrective to the rationality and the harshness of liberal industrial society. Certainly society was freer but it was a lot freer for some than for others. Those at the bottom of the social order had little freedom to speak of and were more or less forced to endure whatever conditions the owners of businesses saw fit to offer.
But romanticism went a lot deeper than compassion for the poor and compassion was arguably not its primary motive. Rousseau's famous dictum, "Man is born free but is everywhere in chains." sounds like a cry from the heart for the plight of the oppressed masses and it certainly became a mark of elevated moral sentiment to weep openly at the sight of a vagabond. But romanticism was aiming deeper still. It was not at ease in the rational order of liberal society; it sought to release the "hearts affections". Sensibility became a counterpoint to sense. It was a counter-culture. It wanted feeling to replace reason as the principle of order. Romanticism was also not keen on scientific empiricism. Science not only had a tendency to lead to the development of ugly industries that scarred the landscape and transformed idyllic peasants into oppressed proletarians, it also broke many comforting illusions and myths. It seemed to unveil an increasingly desolate view of reality. One that was entirely indifferent to the fate of the individual. We will see this again in the counter-culture of the 1960s.
Societies built on scientifically rational principles were also portrayed in novels like Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". These were rationally ordered and conflict-free societies in which all were happy with their lot. But, they are morally repulsive because they lack freedom and the ability, or even the desire, to question.
Romanticism in one form or another continued to be a dominant cultural force throughout the 19th C. and into the 20th.
Liberalism and Socialism
During the 19th C. liberalism, true to its word so to speak, continued to offer reform as the best way of mitigating the harshest effects of industrialisation. The Reform Acts of the period are testament to a determination to improve the lives not just of the winners but of those bearing the negative aspects of industrial development. The Abolition of Slavery stands as one of liberalism's great triumphs. In this it signalled a refusal to allow an institution that stood in direct contradiction to the principle of equality of all men - though it hadn't got as far as extending this women. What liberals stand guilty of today is a refusal to confront a vastly more complex system of slavery in the religio-political totalitarian system of Islam. Islam reduces its followers to slavish automatons willing to kill people for non-belief; it condones slavery and has never renounced the acceptance of slavery in its doctrines. How could it? Muhammad himself kept slaves, took slaves in war and used captive women as sex slaves; if he did it how can any Muslim object to it? This could be one of the best avenues for getting liberals to realise the real nature of Islam and how it stands in opposition to all that they claim to espouse. If they fail to stand up to the slavery inherent in Islam they are Betraying their principles.
Still, the procedure was clear enough: we'll continue to improve the lives of everyone by gradually reforming the system whilst not trampling on the rights of those already enjoying the fruits of the system to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Not good enough" replied the socialists. Whereas liberalism maintained a pluralistic model of society that could be gradually improved for the benefit of everyone, socialism introduced the idea that the system would never work to the benefit of everyone because it was inherently conflictual. As long as there were owners of businesses who could hire and fire as they pleased and those who had only their labour to sell would have to accept on the terms offered, the system was rigged heavily in the interests of one side. The liberal capitalist order was therefore seen as inherently exploitative, as being predicated on exploitation. How was such a system ever going to produce a just society? It wasn't, concluded the socialists.
In one form or another, liberal capitalist society now had to contend with an increasingly organised force of opposition within it. Trade unions, Chartists, agitators, political parties, as well as artists, writers, and philosophers were all working to radically alter or overthrow the liberal order. Marx tried to show that liberal capitalist societies were destined to be torn apart through increasing polarisation. Liberal society generally remained tolerant of these developments, seeing them as aspects of the broad movement for reform, as voices that could be accommodated to varying degrees within the great liberal tent, which was after all in favour of free speech and differences of opinion. Liberal reforms continue to provide hope that lives will improve bit by bit and if not for me then for my children.
An aspect of liberal reform is the tendency of the state to take on greater responsibility for the care and protection of those rendered more vulnerable: the sick, the young, the elderly, the poor. The provision of universal education begins at the end of the 19th C. and at the beginning of the 20th C. the Liberal government of Lloyd George institutes the first national pension scheme for men over 70 years of age. (This was not a huge financial commitment at the time)
The threat of revolutionary forces gaining ground becomes an important spur for further reforms.
The World Wars and The Welfare State
World War I did a great deal to undermine confidence in the inevitability of scientific and social progress. Mechanised warfare showed the horrific scale of destruction that was possible on the battlefield. The war provided the perfect model of senseless destruction as millions of men fought and died in the mud in order to gain a few yards of mud from the enemy. The whole tragedy sent the message that we are irrational rather than rational and that the fruits of reason, in the form of advanced weapons, can turn against us in the most barbaric manner.
It seemed as if the prophets of sensibility had been right. This whole enterprise of scientific progress was an illusion. We would have been better off creating an idyllic pastoral society rather than an industrial nightmare.
The carnage of the First World War lingers in our memories to this day, as it should. But hot on the heels of the First World War came the Second. Throughout the 1930s pacifists and appeasers were keen to refer to the horrors of the earlier war and the wisdom of avoiding any involvement in another. We had plenty of scars, both physical and psychological, to back this assertion. Liberals were at the forefront of the campaign to deny the threat existed. Churchill was vilified as a war-monger. This label was designed to trigger the Harm aspect of Care/Harm and thus to bring about his condemnation. We have seen liberals engaging in this tactic with respect to George W. Bush (successfully as it turned out). It was hoped that Hitler would turn his attention on the Russians and thereby deal with another threat that we would rather not have to deal with ourselves.
Nevertheless, wars are not chosen by us, they are often foisted on us. It was fight Nazism or live under its jackboot and wave goodbye to liberal society. Fortunately for the generations since, Churchill rallied the country to mount a defence and with America joining the effort in 1941 liberal society with its plucky ability to create surprises eventually prevailed.
After the war, the nation's masses were full of expectation for a greater role of government in ameliorating their lives and thus was born the Welfare State. The National Health Service, the National Insurance Scheme, and various changes to education were principal among these changes. The idea sprung up of a "cradle to grave society" in which the protective role of the state would ensure all were fairly treated and none would suffer too greatly. The five evils of Squalor, Ignorance,Want, Disease, and Idleness would be fought on our behalf.
Once the austere post-war era was over in 1950, we began to see a general uplift in the living conditions of the masses. We approached full employment, so much so that business leaders started to look abroad for immigrant labour. The conservative government of Harold Macmillan was the first to propose and execute this strategy.
The Cold War
There was of course a shadow cast across this welfare paradise by the threat of nuclear war. This concern would grow during the 1960s and continue until the 1980s.
Again, the threat of advanced weapons undermines faith in liberal society and scientific progress. What could be done to realise the benefits of science whilst removing the threat of war?
No comments:
Post a Comment