Ten Consequences of Liberalism

Liberals, that is folks who support social welfare, justice, and rights have existed in all cultures and through all ages. But liberalism as a political philosophy was first discovered in the West during what some Europeans call ‘The Age of Enlightenment’, somewhere between the seventeenth and nineteenth century. One could say it was where the ideology was born, but this is quite debatable. However, in Enlightenment we can begin to see the various divergencies that have led to some of the greatest and most terrible outputs of liberalism. But let’s not talk about how genocide and treatment of the Other as inferior where justified. Let us just lists the confusion and consequences liberalism has generated nowadays.

1. The Buzz-wordification

Liberalism or simply ‘liberal’ has become both a buzzword and a boogieman. Like communists or cannibals in history, liberals are perceived by some as vicious entities lurking in dark corners, ready to corrupt and destroy. Liberal can be used as a buzzword for someone who stands up for social justice, supports LGBTQ+ issues, or is a proponent of critical race theory. In making liberal a buzzword, it not only diminishes the complex variety behind liberals, but also reduces the issues associated to the buzzword to simple black or white, for or against, us and them. To make a word into a buzzword is gravely unjust and can escalate quickly. In Muslim circles, to be liberal can also be associated with being unIslamic, anti-family, or one who is fast and loose with their morality or wishy washy with their principles. In reality, political identity is far more complicated and complex. And us all being flawed human beings, it is good that our opinions and views change over time, as we learn new things. So, instead of giving into the stereotyping incumbent with buzzwordification, we should be more considerate in the words we use and not allow ignorance to hijack what can otherwise be a learned discussion, the likes of which we desperately need more and more of in our world threatened by post-truth and fake news. Reductive thought has also led to diametric opposition of liberal and conservative or left and right. While it was intended to create balance, buying into these ideas as dichotomy has instead created unsatiable monsters.

2. Accommodation of Conservatism

As liberalism came into its own, a political nemesis needed to rise to oppose it. When liberalism developed into its various offshoots, so too did the concept of conservatism. This did not necessarily constitute a ‘bad’ consequence. But when being liberal or conservative ceases to be just opinions and positions of individuals or communities, competition or, more precisely, mortal combat erupts. Our modern notions of democracy, with its parliaments and other institutions, demand that there must be opposing forces, like two fuming bulls in a boxing ring. So, as liberalism become all the rage, someone or something had to stand up for the ‘old ways’. Ironically, the Enlightenment was all about balancing God, man, and the universe amongst each other. Balancing as equals, not ranking or diminishing one or the other. The result was not so nice. While many of the early thinkers in liberalism were god-fearing men, history has consigned them to the dustbin of atheism. This was quite unfair, but necessary for conservatism to take on a distinguishable identity. As it proceeded, first conservatives become the side of the political spectrum that fought for God, religion, and tradition and liberals were stereotyped as a disruptive force trying to destroy all that was sacred. All this because those not born into the privilege of class simply asked for equal pay and consideration under the rule of law. As the fight proceeded, both sides receded to extreme: liberals had to be more liberal and conservatives had to be more conservative. So now conservativism or liberalism, as we once knew them, do not really exist. On one side, we have libertarians, and the other far-right or altright in order to keep up with the demands of the insanity of contemporary politics.

3. Libertarian Insanity

Following the second world war, the stakes were not only on the rise between liberals and conservatives, but also within the liberal camp itself. As the world fought to preserve what systems worked and develop new systems to deal with the devastation modernity had ushered, a question arose for the liberals: while we all agree there are fundamental human rights (though we disagree on what those are and who gets them) we need a way in which to guarantee them after witnessing the war crimes committed in the twentieth century. On one side, more institutions and a stronger, larger government was necessary to guarantee these rights, even if but only for a few! This was the common idea behind most contemporary democrats. On the other side, there was a distrust in governments and world leaders and the points put forward by anarchists, at least those written down before they blew themselves up or went on an assassin’s rampage. For this faction, the government only needed to uphold very, very basic human rights. For all the rest, including death and taxes, they could bugger off! This was the birth of the libertarian movement and, due to their belief in small and limited government, they often aligned more with conservative or, in the US Republican sentiments. Right from their inception, libertarians always resided close to the brink of contradiction, wanting a government strong enough to protect one’s rights but not strong enough to take away any one’s rights. But their affair with absurdity did not stop there, they also believed in other rights, at least the commonly agreed upon ones in the US constitution, such as the right to carry guns and arms, to shoot first and ask questions later, or to assemble mini armouries in one’s basement or backyard. One not only had freedom of religion but the right to dismantle educational systems that contradicted, even slightly challenged, dogmatic beliefs. In its contemporary conception, the libertarians, particularly of the US and UK variety remain one of the most contradictory collection of characters and opinions on the planet with rather destructive views that have abandoned reason and what might be considered common sense.

4. Individualism to the Extreme

One of the fundamental concerns of liberalism is the discourse around rights. Rights erupted out of a need to counter all the power being in the hands of the Church (or any other religious structure), and Kings. As Christianity in Europe was undergoing a radical, decentralising effort—with no small effort from Martin Luther, a few nails, and likeminded reformists—God’s authority was not only available to his intermediaries (for instance kings or priests) but was available to all believers. The individual was now given power over themselves and their lives. Of course, who had access to rights remained rather exclusivist in the early days (but eventually women, minorities, and non-Christians were given their access after only a few centuries of struggle). The individual was now supreme, given all the time in the sun and would not be caged again. As people started thinking for themselves, the western notion of personal identity was born, to distinguish oneself from the other. As Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister and conservative to boot, once famously declared: ‘who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women’. And ‘thems the rules’, as another British PM has said. Each individual can define himself or herself as desired, be as selfish as possible, focus solely on themselves and their personal gains, and not be too concerned with human empathy. This is where liberalism leads to the territory inhibited largely by benighted imbeciles. Of course, the natural end of extreme individualism is extreme loneliness and existentialism. It is a fate rather common in French film tropes, with plenty of cigarettes, loveless sex, creative selfdestruction, and suicide—in black and white.

5. Reptilian Neoliberal Economics

Another more contemporary spin on liberalism notes that freedoms and rights need not only be for humans, but can be granted to systems, like economics. The old liberal order placed strict laws and regulations on economic activity to enshrine equity, equality, and fairness into that system. The neoliberal idea was to tear down all these checks, to allow the economy and the market to operate without any influence but what capitalists, buyers, and sellers put into it. And despite the name, it is a household favourite of most conservatives today. But the free of neoliberal free market is limited only to a selected few. For example, the US can sell its peanuts to African countries such as Senegal, Ghana, and Tanzania, who have plenty of peanuts of their own, but they can’t sell their peanuts to US. Irony abounds as not only are freedoms and liberties taken from the people in neoliberal economic models, but it gives institutions, such as banks, and the rich all the safety they need to perpetuate their wealth and accumulation. Not only has this radically stratified individual societies with rampant inequality, but increased the gulfs between nations and especially between the Global North and Global South. Moreover, neoliberals are only happy when things are going their way. So when the US and Europe are flowing Chinese markets with goods and services, there are trebles all round. But when China adjusts the balance sheet barriers come down immediately. The neo in neoliberalism stands for not everyone!

6. Limitations of Human Rights

As human rights are a central tenant of liberalism, it is most disheartening that in its multiple centuries of thinking, who is human and what rights are human rights still remains a bit ambiguous. So, for example, food and shelter are not human rights. Its ok for people to starve or be homeless. But absolute freedom of expression is a human right. Somewhere some liberals, who were constructing the post-second world war world, got their priorities a bit twisted. Hungry people want food before they can develop the capability to express their opinions on The Stanic Verses. And then there is the question of who is and who is not human. Well, as Gaza and numerous other genocides and blatant examples of racism and xenophobia have demonstrated, some human beings are not considered human and thus not entitled to these rights. Moreover, what might have once been considered a luxury may now be essential to living and survivial and thus ought to be considered a human right. Take for instance, WIFI or internet access. Fifteen years ago, it was a lovely tool and allowed us to do many news things, but was hardly necessary. Today, it is necessary to function and live one’s life. Especially after the pandemic, with more people working from home and more places going cashless and depending on mobile banking, a human needs this connection. To hold a job, to communicate with others, to resolve most problems, to pay for one’s food, to find their way around, we need internet access. Then again, it seems like even access to water isn’t considered a human right! The discourse on rights not only needs to come to terms with the fact that we do not consider all humans as human beings and it also needs to update it ideas on what are fundamental and should be granted to all people of the planet.

7. And Rights for Nothing Else

Beyond human rights, there are many other things on our planet that have certain rights that need to be given their due. Not just the banks or corporations! Flora and fauna, in terms of progress and modernity, are a savage nuisance, but as our planet slumps towards death, we realise we should be preserving their lives too. From our domesticated nonhuman family members to the other creatures we share our land and seas with, animals have certain rights that need to be reaffirmed. Not only should they be free from cruelty and brutality in murder but also free the Anthropocene’s destructive forces. They are a necessary part of the planetary balance and if we do not play a role in maintaining this balance, more planetary and environmental decline is eminent. Likewise, green spaces and bodies of water need protecting, especially as our planet becomes uninhabitable and we continuously tread the line of water scarcity. While there are fun examples, such as whether or not the monkey who took a selfie of itself had right to ownership over the photo, concern for animal, plant, and water rights is becoming existential. Nations in Africa as well as in Oceania, like New Zealand have given legal rights to bodies of water. Perhaps we need to give greater consideration to our rights to clean air as well as clean water and environments free of pollution and devastation. If we do not get a handle on this situation, we only accelerate and intensify our climate catastrophe.

8. The Free Speech Disorder

Libertarians and liberal extremists have turned many of our ‘rights’, ‘liberties’, and ‘freedoms’ into monsters. One of the greatest examples of this phenomenon (outside the gun-obsessed United States) is freedom of speech. For many, freedom of speech is non-negotiable dogma. Yet many liberal democracies outlaw the speech that can cause bodily harm, such as death threats or the yelling of ‘fire!’ in a crowded place. Increasingly more and more thought is being put into hate speech legislation and how to navigate the minefield of opinions that always crops up around this issue. Public decency laws have also been a controversial part of this freedom unbound. But at the end, while one should have the ability to say what they want, they should know that others have the right to disagree, and one is not free from responsibility for what they say. Generation Z had made this abundantly clear with their approach to cancelling and criticism. All rights in a sense exist in a balance. Just as one should have the right to access clean water, too much and they drown. One should have a right to life, but what if to live they have to take the life of another? We hope that we have learned lessons from the Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo affairs, but at the end of the day, we need more spaces for open discussion but also to build and learn so that our discourse and knowledge creation can be respectful and open for all to contribute to.

9. Torture by Rawls

The late American political philosopher John Rawls, the poster child of liberal academia, is considered liberalism’s greatest contemporary philosopher. His A Theory of Justice is forced fed to students in the hope that it will turn them all into mini liberals. Rawls, however, is a pretty appalling writer, spending ten pages saying what can be articulated clearly in one paragraph. When the suffering students finally reached the end of his tortuous text, what do they discover? That the great liberal theory of justice has no place for the poor—the majority of humanity. Unfortunately, most liberal writers are just as verbose and long winded; and, one could say, vacuous. While some can be an enjoyable challenge to read, more often than not, most are a slog and the bane of most university students. If liberalism is to live into the future, fit needs more polished and less egocentric writers to proliferate its ideas.

10. Death by Weber

If it is not John Rowls, then its Max Webber. The German sociologist has to be whipped into every liberal arts or humanities student. Perhaps we are being a bit unfair on one of the central figures of western sociology (basically, the study of how to keep the working classes in their place). But western academia has a Great Man fixation: in almost every discipline, there are always Great White Men who have solved all the problems for all of humanity for all time. So we could easily choose Marx, Freud, Heidegger, Durkheim, or Foucault. The figures young university students encounter and declare that ‘their whole world view has changed’. No need to read further—particularly not non-western thinkers. Often the students convince themselves they have a new radical insight into the Great Man, or rediscovered a lost or forgotten thinker from history, and try to convince others that they know all the secrets to the universe. With the proliferation of education a la Youtube, Tiktok, and other social media reels, Death by Weber has become a common phenomenon.

All of which does not bode well for the future of liberalism—however you define it!