Agreeing and Disagreeing on Illiberalism

I agree with a lot of Thomas Main’s piece on the dangers of illiberalism at The Bulwark. I agree that illiberalism whatever its source poses a danger. I agree that it’s a factor on both the left and the right. In general I agree with the approach that he takes. He begins by defining his terms:

I posit that a working definition of illiberalism that applies to both left and right might be summarized as any system of beliefs which run counter to the political philosophy summarized in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration’s main principles are political egalitarianism; human rights; limited government; electoral democracy; the legitimacy of change; the rule of law; and tolerance. You could define illiberalism many ways, but an easy one would be: any explicit rejection of, or attack on, that order. Any ideology of whatever orientation, right or left, that explicitly repudiates these principles is illiberal.

I agree that 4 million Americans expressing some level of support for neo-Nazism is troubling.

As I said, third-party web traffic numbers are not perfectly accurate. But consider a poll conducted in 2017 by Reuters/Ipsos in conjunction with the University of Virginia Center for Politics: It found that “6 percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat supported the alt-right . . . 8 percent expressed support for white nationalism [and] . . . 4 percent expressed support for neo-Nazism.”

Given that America has roughly 250 million adults, if at least 4 percent of them support neo-Nazism, then our nation has at least 10 million proponents of one form of radical right-wing illiberalism. That would be larger than the number of adult Jews in America (of whom there are about 4.2 million). Or, if you prefer: larger than the populations of 43 states.

I agree with his characterization of these sites as “illiberal Right”: Vox Popoli, Daily Stormer, VDARE. I don’t know these sites so can offer no opinion: Occidental Dissent, Return of Kings, Mattforney.com. I think that characterizing Zero Hedge as “illiberal Right” is a bit of a stretch. I think it’s a gold bug site that may post some illiberal things and is generally anarcho-capitalist in bias. If an equivalent standard is applied, a lot of mainstream sites would then be categorized as “illiberal Left”.

I think he gravely underestimates the reach of the illiberal Left.

Consider this statement:

The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination

I think that fits Mr. Main’s definition of illiberalism. And it would place the New York Times solidly in the ranks of “the illiberal Left”.

Is ruling by executive edict illiberal? I think it violates the strictures on limited government, the rule of law, and electoral democracy.

Is support for gerrymandering and states that engage in gerrymandering illiberal? If you reserve your criticism for North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas and ignore Illinois and New York, I think it clearly is. That would include many, many mainstreamm media outlets.

And then there are cases in which two values which I will agree are liberal values conflict with one another, e.g. the rule of law and political egalitarianism. The filibuster violates political egalitarianism but it is the law. Does opposing the filibuster render one illiberal? That’s a judgment call. How about federalizing state election laws? Liberal or illiberal? I think the answer is that it’s a judgment call.

Is support for federal involvement in health care, education, and any number of other issues that go well beyond the limited powers given to the federal government in the Constitution illiberal?

Today’s cause célèbre is the attempted deplatforming of Joe Rogan. Illiberal or not?