How liberals sustain their liberalism; and Shrewsbury on liberalism

A commenter at Jihad Watch writes:

When I suggested to a co-worker that she should read the Koran before jumping to the conclusion that terrorists are “misinterpreting” Islam, she said “I don’t think I should read the Koran, because there are probably things in it that will upset me.”

Many years ago (pre-Giuliani, actually) I was describing to a liberal female friend, a lawyer who worked in New York, the decadence and depravity that were common in the streets of the city. She replied that she never looked at people in the streets. I thought, though I didn’t say, that that was a good way to keep one’s liberalism intact.

* * *

Shrewsbury writes:

Liberalism is a species of nihilism, the denial of meaning in anything outside the self. This explains why the liberal becomes so furious at any religious or patriotic claims upon him, or even any data or event (or rather, at being presented with any data or event) which makes it difficult for him to maintain his (anti-)philosophy. The cases you give are interesting examples of how the liberal simply sectors off vast areas of reality in order to maintain his cozy psychological stability, to make of his mind a kind of intellectual greenhouse.

Worse yet, from the same necessities of nihilism, the liberal instinctively sides with all destructive forces, whether they be atheism, sexual license, or revolutionary movements. But not mere dictators, who tend to retain at least the trappings of patriotism and traditional authority. The political force must have that destructive zing or it don’t mean a thing. The liberal is however instinctively attracted even to totalitarian regimes, whether Communist or Mahometan, which would mean the death of liberalism. So long as the political force promises the destruction of elements in his own society which he finds constricting precisely because they have profound meanings, he will find himself almost subconsciously but powerfully drawn to it. He can never do otherwise than almost tropistically side with the enemies of the West.

LA writes:

That is one of the strongest and most concise explications of liberalism and its destructiveness that I’ve ever seen. It reminds me of Romans Chapter I, where Paul shows the entire etiology and development of sinful rebellion from its beginnings to its end in a couple of hundred words.

Carl Simpson writes:

Please archive this comment of Shrewsbury. This has to rank as one of the best descriptions of liberalism ever. I make this claim in light of the many excellent explanations of the liberal mindset over the years at VFR, too. Shrewsbury’s explanation is a gem. We need to be able to refer to this—to remind and refresh ourselves as to the true nature of liberalism.

Shrewsbury, what can I say—except “You da Man!” It was a real tour de force. Outstanding analysis!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 14, 2006 01:28 PM | Send