In certain circles the triumph of Donald Trump is being viewed as either a sign that liberalism is dying out or the sign that it is dying and the forces opposed to it are finally on the ascendant.
I hope you're right that progressivism is finally dead. I have my doubts, though. They may be discredited and temporarily demoralized, but one thing I've noticed is that they never give up. They're always looking for new ways to punish us with their craziness.
I fear something will rise like a malignant phoenix from the ashes, just as traditional Marxism metamorphosed into Wokeness. I shudder to think what madness that will be.
I think it's all about Marxism and Critical Theory being invented to provide a justification for the envy of the royalty (ruling class) and literati towards the early capitalists of the Industrial Revolution. For generations, capital was limited to picks and shovels and horse-drawn plows that any peasant could own and understand. But when factories came along and the peasants and the royalty starting seeing nobodies become filthy rich just because they saved their money and owned large factories that greatly improved the efficiency of labor, then people like Marx came along to stir up class hatred and envy towards the new capitalist class. Everything since then can be viewed in Marxist terms. And now that Marxism has been largely discredited, it has either taken on new nomenclature or simply become an article of faith. The leftists of today maybe cannot explain why, but they are certain that economic activity is a zero sum game that must be controlled in order that they get their "fair share."
I think it's definitely in retreat, but like all faiths it has true believers that will try to resurrect its tenets where they have the opportunity to. Right now the Democratic Party seems split between people who think they simply have a branding/messaging problem but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their politics and those that correctly recognize that the general public is not with them on their biggest issues. Who wins out on that obviously will drive left wing politics and culture in the future.
Once again, although I appreciate the general tone and tenor of your post, you betray a sad lack of understanding of Christianity. There is no "debate" between faith and reason in Christianity, nor has there ever been; to the contrary, Christianity is the most rational of religions (and I will leave aside the issue of whether it is even a "religion" as popularly defined). And if there were such a "debate," I would gladly side with Christianity rather than "reason," given "reason's" bloody history. Or have you overlooked the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, Communists and others who have slaughtered in the name of "reason"? There is not a single word of encouragement to violence in the entire New Testament, the founding document of Christianity, contra the entire literature of the proponents of "reason" like Robespierre, Marat, Marx, Lenin, et al. I urge you to actually conduct a personal investigation into Christianity and its foundational literature, from Matthew to Revelation and leave aside all the canards that have been published by those who have opposed and sought to destroy it. If you do, I believe that, as an eminently reasonable man yourself, you will soon come to accept the correctness of my position. How could it be otherwise, since Christianity is merely the recognition of the Truth as revealed by God Himself? May God bless and guide you in this endeavor.
It's not dead. This beast is far too deeply entrenched. The emancipation of women from nature would have to be reverse engineered for anything fundamental to really change. No more voting rights, no more employment in cubicles or as teachers other than after undergoing very rigorous tests, and then only of girls, and no more birth control.
Liberalism is one of the hardest ideas to define or dissect because we are immersed in it. It is the paradigm we inherited and live through. Most people can't even identify it as a functioning ideology. It's just "what is."
Burnham's Suicide of the West helped me understand it better. He lists some 20-30 statements. If you largely agree with them, you believe in or adhere to liberal principles. If you have some strong disagreements, those are illiberal.
That is liberalism in practice or as the prevailing institutional ideology. How it's used in rhetoric or the US Left/Right spectrum is of course different.
I always appreciate commentators taking the time to define the word or its history, helps anchor exactly what they're talking about.
I hope you're right that progressivism is finally dead. I have my doubts, though. They may be discredited and temporarily demoralized, but one thing I've noticed is that they never give up. They're always looking for new ways to punish us with their craziness.
I fear something will rise like a malignant phoenix from the ashes, just as traditional Marxism metamorphosed into Wokeness. I shudder to think what madness that will be.
I think it's all about Marxism and Critical Theory being invented to provide a justification for the envy of the royalty (ruling class) and literati towards the early capitalists of the Industrial Revolution. For generations, capital was limited to picks and shovels and horse-drawn plows that any peasant could own and understand. But when factories came along and the peasants and the royalty starting seeing nobodies become filthy rich just because they saved their money and owned large factories that greatly improved the efficiency of labor, then people like Marx came along to stir up class hatred and envy towards the new capitalist class. Everything since then can be viewed in Marxist terms. And now that Marxism has been largely discredited, it has either taken on new nomenclature or simply become an article of faith. The leftists of today maybe cannot explain why, but they are certain that economic activity is a zero sum game that must be controlled in order that they get their "fair share."
I think it's definitely in retreat, but like all faiths it has true believers that will try to resurrect its tenets where they have the opportunity to. Right now the Democratic Party seems split between people who think they simply have a branding/messaging problem but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with their politics and those that correctly recognize that the general public is not with them on their biggest issues. Who wins out on that obviously will drive left wing politics and culture in the future.
Once again, although I appreciate the general tone and tenor of your post, you betray a sad lack of understanding of Christianity. There is no "debate" between faith and reason in Christianity, nor has there ever been; to the contrary, Christianity is the most rational of religions (and I will leave aside the issue of whether it is even a "religion" as popularly defined). And if there were such a "debate," I would gladly side with Christianity rather than "reason," given "reason's" bloody history. Or have you overlooked the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, Communists and others who have slaughtered in the name of "reason"? There is not a single word of encouragement to violence in the entire New Testament, the founding document of Christianity, contra the entire literature of the proponents of "reason" like Robespierre, Marat, Marx, Lenin, et al. I urge you to actually conduct a personal investigation into Christianity and its foundational literature, from Matthew to Revelation and leave aside all the canards that have been published by those who have opposed and sought to destroy it. If you do, I believe that, as an eminently reasonable man yourself, you will soon come to accept the correctness of my position. How could it be otherwise, since Christianity is merely the recognition of the Truth as revealed by God Himself? May God bless and guide you in this endeavor.
It's not dead. This beast is far too deeply entrenched. The emancipation of women from nature would have to be reverse engineered for anything fundamental to really change. No more voting rights, no more employment in cubicles or as teachers other than after undergoing very rigorous tests, and then only of girls, and no more birth control.
Liberalism is one of the hardest ideas to define or dissect because we are immersed in it. It is the paradigm we inherited and live through. Most people can't even identify it as a functioning ideology. It's just "what is."
Burnham's Suicide of the West helped me understand it better. He lists some 20-30 statements. If you largely agree with them, you believe in or adhere to liberal principles. If you have some strong disagreements, those are illiberal.
That is liberalism in practice or as the prevailing institutional ideology. How it's used in rhetoric or the US Left/Right spectrum is of course different.
I always appreciate commentators taking the time to define the word or its history, helps anchor exactly what they're talking about.