Illiberalism

In its predominant sense democracy is the rule of the majority, but here liberalism must enter. (It did not and does not always.) Majority rule must be tempered by legal assurances of the rule of minorities, and of individual men and women. And when this temperance is weak, or unenforced, or unpopular, then democracy is nothing more than populism.

-- John Lukacs, from "Democracy and Populism" (excerpted in Harper's)

In November, schoolchildren trace their hands to draw turkeys while learning about how the pilgrims came to the New World seeking the freedom to worship as they saw fit.

This is an important piece of America's history and an even more important piece of America's mythology. But this textbook phrase -- "the freedom to worship as they saw fit" -- is imprecise. It's an umbrella description that covers some radically different impulses.

Many of those who came to America did so, at least in part, to be free of religious intolerance or oppression. It wasn't only the pious Puritan pilgrims who sought a haven for freedom of conscience. The New World was a magnet for Quakers, Baptists, Anabaptists, nonconformists and freethinkers of every sort.

But from the founding of the early colonies right on up through the present, this desire for freedom -- the freedom to worship as they saw fit -- has manifested itself in two competing impulses. The first impulse is liberal, in the very best sense. The second is decidedly illiberal.

The liberal impulse won the day, at least officially, and was enshrined as the law of the land. It is written into, and shapes, that great liberal document, the U.S. Constitution. It holds that no one -- no king, or governor, or government -- has the right to compel others to worship in a particular way.

By embracing this liberal principle, the early Americans sought to protect themselves from ever again experiencing the religious intolerance they had fled in the Old World.

But the second impulse also promises such protection. The other way to avoid experiencing such intolerance is to establish your own majority and to ensure that the ruling powers enforce your own particular variety of religious practice. This is the illiberal approach and it does not care a whit for the rights of minorities or dissenters. It recognizes freedom of conscience -- for me and not for thee.

It is true, as the children learn at Thanksgiving, that the Plymouth colony was founded so that the pilgrims could have the FtWaTSF. But that was also the reason for the founding of the colony of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island was founded by religious dissenters fleeing intolerance not in Olde England, but in New England, where the pilgrims had established their own form of intolerant majority rule.

As I said, the liberals won the official argument. The Penns and Paines, Jeffersons and Madisons succeeded in making America an officially liberal nation with a Bill of Rights protecting minorities and individuals from the unrestrained tyranny of the majority.

But the competing, illiberal impulse never went away. It may be against the law -- against even the idea of the law -- but it has lived on, and thrived, in America.

The liberal rule of law that defends individuals against the tyranny of the majority is today "weak, unenforced and unpopular." The story in the previous post is but one example of this. Combine that popular disdain for liberalism with the current wave of antipathy towards the judiciary -- the last nonviolent line of defense for the rule of law -- and the signs don't point to anything pleasant.

Somebody tell me that I worry too much.

Comments

[LisaJulie Peoples]

Well said!

And, no I don't think you worry too much.

[Ol Cranky]

No, you don't worry too much (I wish I could say otherwise). I'm not sure I agree that The liberal rule of law that defends individuals against the tyranny of the majority is today "weak, unenforced and unpopular." It is weak and unenforced, but I don't think it's because it is an unpopular ideal. I think it's probably quite popular but those on the side of it are not well organized or in harmony with each other. Unlike the iron fisted tyrants which compel those who dissent to tow the line, the democrats do not use these tactics and the front falls apart as some sell out on wedge issues and republicans who claimed to be anti-right wing either voted for them anyway or abstained to "make a statement."

[Kirala]

Excellent points. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Our national psychology is a schizophrenic array of ideas on how to best follow the wishes of our Founding Fathers; it's nice to be reminded that we cannot emulate all of our founders at once, and that not all should be honored.

I'm tempted to throw in something snarky about how we should follow the Pilgrims, but the issue is too sad to joke about. I wonder if our leaders realize the low opinion our Religious Puritans would have had of Baptists, Episcopals, and Methodists? Let's not get started on Catholics.

On the other hand, I wish the Left would start paying more attention to true liberalism, and spend less time tilting with the Right on its own ground.

[Jim]

The left is having its own examination of conscience. You can watch the soul searching on sites such as harry' Place. The core problem is that they have a tradition of totalitarianis too, and for a simple reason - Marxism grew out of the same class background and cultural setting as Puritanism. they are both revolutionary ideologies and thus naturally are adversarial and intolernat of internal dissent or external criticism. The populism you speak of in this and the next post come out of the democratic urge of the merchant class. Liberalism is an opposing influence of the aristocracy moderating its excesses. That tension is obvious when you look at the origins of the various Founders.

[darms]

My version is that the Pilgrims came here fleeing religious persecution so that they could be free to persecute other religions as they saw fit.
I'm a "freedom from religion" type myself but have been known to respect other's freedom of religion, or at least this was true in the past. OTOH, I'm growing more and more hostile to loud-mouth evangelicals these days...

[Irony]

Well said, and you're not too pessimistic. True liberalism reminds me of something my mother likes to say out of the pulpit, in true Celtic tradition: "No human being can stand between you and God." I'm glad the mechanism for such defense exists in our Constitution, but frightened at the populist onslaught against it. I'm reminded of it every time I speak with my Aunt, the organist at a church my ancestors have attended for over 100 years, now held somewhat captive by one of a growing number of anti-"gay agenda" ministers. Same denomination; radically different agendas. The difference being, I'm not trying to tell his congregation what to do.

[Marshall]

You don't worry enough

[Beth]

This dovetails nicely with last week's LB post. "If you don't worship our God in our way, you're going to Hell," provides a perfect justification for this sort of illiberalism. Letting other people believe as they will and worship in their own way would be the spiritual equivalent of letting children play with fire. That means we have not only a moral right, but a moral duty to surpress other religions.

What happens to a democracy when a majority of its citizens no longer support democratic principles?

[Thinkmarble]

Germany, 1933

[Scott]

"If you don't worship our God in our way, you're going to Hell,"

And these guys are heavily armed enough to send you there.....

http://www.forceministries.com/