Indeed, these are the questions I have for you today: Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? Are we sure that our societies can do well without models?

Thank you for your replies to this discussion. — Eros1982

It's a bit hard to follow what your point is. Liberals come in many varieties, just as conservatives do. Liberals have 'heroes' and role models - James Baldwin, Nelson Mandela, FDR, Gore Vidal, Gloria Steinem, JK Galbraith, Robert Reich, Susan Sontag. I know a number of liberals who quite like the royal family, Charles being a bit of a poster boy for liberal causes such as sustainability and other environmental matters. The point about liberal heroes is that they are generally valued for the contribution they make, not their heritage.

This was funny.

I live in the US and telling from political communication and aesthetics as well (especially movies and literature), the first thing a liberal should do is: to not judge.

So, it is hard to find in a US-like society models like good mother, good father, good family, beautiful woman, sexy woman and so on.

I may be wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws.

I repeat that I may be wrong, but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate).

Is this so or have I misunderstood US liberals?

Is this so or have I misunderstood US liberals? — Eros1982

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, which may be my fault. I'm not an American so the idea of 'liberals' is not something that comes up here much.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws. — Eros1982

I don't know what this means. What does it mean to be politically correct towards liberal morals?
What has aesthetics got to do with any of this?

but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate). — Eros1982

I have no idea what this means either. Sorry. Can you try to explain it with examples or cite something?

By the way, the monarchy doesn't function as a role model as such; it functions largely as a bastion of tradition and stability, a symbol of nationhood and continuity. The fact that the Royals need to be seen to behave responsibly largely comes down to a hostile Murdoch media, which seeks to capitalize and magnify any potential indiscretion and the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes them. They can't afford image problems.

You are correct about monarchy, its function is not to provide a model. But it is okay for my neighbor to declare that she conceived her first child through using a sperm donation bank and that she is not sure on who is the father of her second child. I can't imagine this happening in a royal family (without raising all kinds of opposition). In this case, I presume that my neighbor is exposing her free/liberal mores, whereas a queen or a king consort is serving as a model of old school wife (in order for the inheritance and privileges of her children to be protected).

With regard to aesthetics, there has been the practice in the past (and it is still the practice in South Europe and South America) that white, young, skinny, big-eyed and blondie-haired women to be chosen as tv-presenters.

In North Europe and USA it is hard for a tv-boss to stick on that practice without being labeled a racist. So, to be politically correct in a liberal & diverse society, the tv-owner should better chose women of different height, weight, muscles and color without asking all of us what we take for a beautiful presenter and an "ugly" one.

It seems to me that the tv boss is intruding in the way I used to consider a woman beautiful and he is even changing the way that my son will approach "beauty", since my son had not the chance to get his eyes used to those skinny, big-eyed, blondie women I used to see on tv for more than 30 years.

I can see that one does not need to be strict in defining beauty, especially in a country like the US. But I do see also that "correct politics" can have an impact on aesthetics and the way we teach our children to see "beauty".

I may be wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws.

I repeat that I may be wrong, but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate). — Eros1982

That's an interesting assessment of American liberalism. But you haven't stated what comes next under that rubric: condemn those who do not follow this prescription.

I fear something worse than that: a new culture or religion that brings new models and declares crap and ignorance everything that existed before its arrival.

Though I love my freedom and the freedom of everyone around me, I fail to see how long societies can go on without role models.

I guess that was the reason why Plato turned against democracy in his Republic... though his own solution was really terrible. But he must have been right (history vindicated him within 50 years) that democracies are not made to last.

I fail to see how long societies can go on without role models. — Eros1982

Not sure you have yet made a case that there are no role models in Liberal culture. Where are you finding this notion?

Then I must be wrong.

What I had mostly in my mind are family roles and responsibilities. Even the numbers show it that western societies are aging and will not be sustained for long without immigration (from other cultures where family roles are better discerned and individuality is not turned into a cult).

Anyway, the notion you are looking for can be found (probably) on the many rights of the individual. A liberal culture makes the individual, you and me, the last court of appeal, the subject of all rights and constitutions... so it is hard to see how such a culture may divide roles and models.

When all this mentality is mixed with everyday politics, things may get worse... because liberal politics tend to call emancipation everything that makes everyone to feel free and it even calls discrimination the dominance of one model over another.

So, it would sound a little strange to support the model of a couple with four kids in my town, when other 200 individuals say that they are being offended by the fact that I propose like a model a worked to the bone woman, who gave birth four or more times.

These other 200 individuals propose some other models as well: a single mother, a lifelong student, foster parents, a person who refuses to give birth, a gay couple, and so on.

If I refuse to promote their models, I'll probably loose 200 votes or see people protesting in front of my office.

What is the solution then? No models at all or mixing everything together.

I hope this helps you to understand how liberalism tends to erase models.

@Tom Storm

By the way, I am not saying that liberal societies cannot produce models. What I am saying is that liberal societies as I see those today in North America and Europe seem to tend to erase models.

So, though I guess that there may be an intrinsic problem with liberalism, I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that I see a trend here.

It is another question whether or not that trend can be avoided by liberalism.

OK. For me there are more pressing concerns that are brought about by the current corporate elites who dominate our rapacious form of capitalism - this and frenzied social media which seems to intensify bigotries and hatreds between people, transforming society into an atomized jumble of inchoate rage, where no one knows or can agree on who should be in charge.

I wish we could discuss on social media too... because they are really debasing human beings --not only politics and society, but people's mental health.

I proposed on my blog that there's only one sound solution to social media and internet: taxation and making stupidity expensive.

Government interventions in order to reduce hatred and bigotry will either fail or make people and far right more angry (so when their turn to govern comes, they may attack liberal media... as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey are doing already).

Tax parents and they will not see any benefits when their kids spend five hours a day on Instagram and TickTock. Right now all the stupidity the internet has to provide is distributed freely... and a mentally disturbed generation is what you get.

Anyway, let's start another discussion on that matter. It really interests me :)

I consider myself left-wing liberal — Eros1982

Why? It’s hard to make out much of anything from your posts in this topic, though you are clearly critical of American liberalism and express no critiques of American conservatism.

I believe in universal healthcare, better elementary education, global warming, big government, infrastructure spending, taxing the rich, social services, some kind of egalitarianism, and so on.

I guess these things make me liberal. Being an
immigrant is one more reason to not like conservatives and far right.

But the way Democrats do things is another story. They seem to declare themselves the robin-hoods who will save all minorities and if you happen to belong to a minority but at the same time to despise Democrats then something must be wrong to your brain (according to a democrat).

Not judging people and not trying to better educate them (so that they will not be offended) is another strange element of US liberalism (as I understand it) that I have come to dislike.

I may be biased against US democrats and US liberal columnists, but that may be the case because I am partially ignorant on what conservatives write and think in this country.

Truth be told, though I live in the US I read UK newspapers mostly (especially the Guardian). US liberals are more interested in not offending their voters, than resolving real issues.

If you think I am biased let me tell you that no western country spends more money for electoral campaigns than US.

If I remember well, in 2016 the political parties in UK spent 50 millions for their campaigns, whereas in the USA each major party spent around 3 billions. So, a country five times bigger than UK, spends 20 times more money for electoral campaigns. So, US politics and US media are firstly interested in money making and voting, then in emancipating people.

I don't know how exactly it works, but if Democrats gather 3 billions for their campaigns, some money must go to columnists and media outlets as well... though they pretend to be free thinkers.

Anyway, I do consider myself a liberal. You will not find a single post in this forum where I may oppose spending in healthcare, education, infrastructure, police reform and climate crisis. I liked Bernie Sanders a lot. Though I did not bother to vote Hillary Clinton, I did vote Biden and I am very happy with that.

But all that liberal propaganda (in communication, movies, literature, and so on) to not judge anyone sounds like Christian preaching to me... and I doubt that these people who preach us are really sincere.

I can't help judging my brother. How may avoid judging all other human beings?

Democrats pretend to be robin-hoods or saints, but truth be told I prefer them from Republicans and all those crazy evangelists.

lack of models & aesthetics — Eros1982

1. Nobody's perfect
2. Truth is ugly

Maybe the absence of good role models is the point! We're all flawed beings and we have to come to terms with this rather disconcerting fact. To expect what is impossible is itself a great folly in my humble opinion. Why not just accept the fact that your mayor is a womanizer but has brought down crime rates to a record low. Remember Finnish PM Sanna Marin.

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (the perfect is the enemy of the good). — Voltaire

The bottom line - be realistic! Don't expect oranges from a lemon tree. Sweeter lemons every now and then, now that's what we can hope for. :snicker:

I'm not sure what the thrust of your discussion is. It's a bit incoherent. Liberal schmiberal. There is no rock-solid definition of what a liberal or a conservative is or must be.

There are all sorts of movements in a culture over time and in different locations, Nothing exceptional here. There are, of course, role models ranging from very good to very bad.

One goal in "liberal" societies is to manage conflict. Better that than stoking conflict. A lot of what people call "political correctness" are just blandishments aimed at conflict reduction, and the illusion--if not the fact--that since we are all equal, there is no need for conflict.

That said, it can be very difficult to figure out the latest wrinkles in political usage. Why for example, has the phrase "pregnant women" been replaced by 'pregnant people"? The last time I looked it up, men do not get pregnant.

I'm not sure what the thrust of your discussion is. It's a bit incoherent. — Bitter Crank

This is what I call a text-based Rorschach Test mon ami. It's about what you see in the text and not about what the text's contents are. :smile:

That said, it can be very difficult to figure out the latest wrinkles in political usage. Why for example, has the phrase "pregnant women" been replaced by 'pregnant people"? The last time I looked it up, men do not get pregnant — Bitter Crank

It's only a matter of time.

This is what I call a text-based Rorschach Test mon ami. It's about what you see in the text and not about what the text's contents are. :smile: — Agent Smith

Nice. That's how I view Heidegger...

I believe in universal healthcare, better elementary education, global warming, big government, infrastructure spending, taxing the rich, social services, some kind of egalitarianism, and so on. — Eros1982

Does anyone really want “big government”? Honestly, it doesn’t seem like you have a good grasp of liberalism/conservatism, or you’re at least not showing how your reasoning, values, or moral framework align with these things that you believe in.

Nice. That's how I view Heidegger... — Tom Storm

@Jack Cummins

Ok. To make a larger point, word salads are, in my humble opinion, Rorschach tests too. What pattern do you see in a text of random/loosely-associated words/sentences, that's you, not the text's author. I'm way in over my head.

It seems that I got many things wrong.

But, I believe you cannot claim that you are going to save the world from global warming with small governments.

One other thing I have come to believe is that apart from taxing people, the biggest role a state
should have is educating them. I fail to see how can states justify their existence if they do not educate people or set themselves to a state of mind where role models are seen as a risk of losing voters.

This is what we are talking about nowadays: removing statues and erasing texts so that people (voters) will not get offended.

And what are going to be our models after we erase those we used to have the last 300 years? Can the advocates of vandalism & history rewriting be sure in that they will offer better and long-lasting models to the rest of us?

How can we be educated if there are no models or we are given constantly mixed models, models that contradict each other?

Liberals tend to be open to progress or tinkering with models and conservatives tend to be traditional or to conserve models. There’s a place for both and the apparent differences are not as great as they may seem. Beware anyone, like a politician for example, who polarizes the differences.

It is true that in the US we are doing fine without monarchs, but these Britons have something that many liberal nations lack today, they have role models. — Eros1982

The royal family doesn't make for the best role models.

There is an interesting point in here. I think there is something too the idea of people wanting to do away with ‘role models’ and such.

Is this primarily a ‘liberal’ view. I would say it is likely more extreme ‘leftism’ and that is simply due to a stronger dissatisfaction with ‘tradition’ at large. That said, I do not see this as the primary force of any mainstream leftist agenda.

The whole ‘left versus right’ thing is overall a pull between the status quo versus change. In the US my impression is that the governing bodies are all to the right side of the spectrum (compared to anything in Europe) so maybe this has produced more hard leaning leftist views coming to the fore in the US?

(Note: just speculating as I have never visited the US and only have secondhand sources and commentators who have voiced something along these lines).

I would not call the royals (or other equivalents) as being ‘role models’. They are more or less icons of an idea. The idea that there can be someone to look up to and that this is true for everyone at all levels of society. Stephen Fry has commented that there is something intrinsically humbling about the tradition of the Prime Minister having to mean the head of the monarchy every week to state their intentions for the country. The monarch does have power but they never ever use it politically and act as a kind of living icon that the true leader of the country must bow before and humble themselves (something good for any leader imo).

One thing I think has been a large item in my generation is the decline of marriage. I myself from a young age found the whole thing silly and pointless. I viewed it as a sign of insecurity when people wished to find a bride/groom. I still think such a single-minded attitude to life is weird BUT I have no real issue with marriage as it is just a celebration of a loving relationship and for various legal reasons can be practical too. Another major change in my generation is people choosing not to have children. This is apparently a common feature of any civilisation that has wealth. The birthrate goes down as living standards go up. For me personally I find the repugnance some people express at the idea of having children as repugnant as they do at having children … this puzzles me a lot. Even when I didn’t want to have children I never shunned the idea or winced in disgust at the idea. I think there is something inherently wrong with people who find the idea of having children to be repugnant but have I have ill views of those that simply choose not to.

Has anyone else experienced this view on the increase? The visible facial expression of disgust at the thought of being a parent? I wonder how much of this is due to extreme feminism actively seeking to besmirch would-be-mothers and calling them ‘anti-feminist’ because they wish to raise children rather than pursue a career.

I guess this current social complication is not a massive surprise given that women in the workplace is a relatively recent thing and differing societies around the world are muddling through this change as bets they can.

My impression is that in the US ‘liberal’ (in terms of politicians) basically means slightly right of centre to anyone from Europe.

One goal in "liberal" societies is to manage conflict. Better that than stoking conflict. A lot of what people call "political correctness" are just blandishments aimed at conflict reduction, and the illusion--if not the fact--that since we are all equal, there is no need for conflict. — Bitter Crank

That is a true extreme liberal idea planted in there ;P We are most certainly NOT all equal :D

All societies handle conflict. That is probably a damn good definition of what a ‘society’ is … a group of peoples with various opinions and views that actively handle conflicts within their body and at their borders.

Undoubtedly the term ‘liberal’ has gone through various revamping movements and will likely keep shifting around. A libertine is liberal, yet it is a different sort of liberal that many would shun. Just like any label it can be spun one way or another to suit those wishing to twist their point home without having to navigate through a rational argument.

My impression is that in the US ‘liberal’ (in terms of politicians) basically means slightly right of centre to anyone from Europe. — I like sushi

Agree.

All societies handle conflict. That is probably a damn good definition of what a ‘society’ is … a group of peoples with various opinions and views that actively handle conflicts within their body and at their borders. — I like sushi

Yes, when I studied politics that was essentially called pluralism, a central tenant of liberalism - the peaceful coexistence of a plurality of interest groups and persuasions.

My point was that is was not a definition of liberalism at all because ‘liberal’ views are still a loosely defined set of rules. I see it as closer to a definition of any human society (even if they ‘handle’ conflicts via genocide or forcing an exodus).

Liberalism does not own the idea of handling conflict at all. It is just a loose set of ideas that can be applied to address human conflict (which is as inevitable as death itself) and conservatism is another loose set of ideas that can be applied to address human conflict, as is fascism or anarchism.

I personally believe that any system looking to eradicate human conflict will essential cause untold destruction to the point where if it continued human society would effectively disappear (be this via evolutionary adaptation or complete annihilation).

My point was that is was not a definition of liberalism at all because ‘liberal’ views are still a loosely defined set of rules. — I like sushi

Maybe but my point was that pluralism used to be the liberal ideal. And one it might be argued we have lost. But really all I was interested in is trying to work out what the OP is trying to say.

His question was hidden but it is fairly clear.

He proposed the idea that today ‘liberalism’ is about ‘getting rid of role models’.

Ironically ‘pluralism’ means many different things and has bee used in almost stark opposition to itself by various different philosophers :D I think the version I liked was espoused by I. Berlin? Who are you referring to when you say ‘pluralism’? Who was the main man when you were schooled?

Please dro- a few names if you can and maybe I will spot the one I found most intriguing. Thanks :)