Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The default tendency of the liberal elite is to revolt against "mass culture"

In US, it might take the form of veganism - a revolt against the mainstream "steakhouse" culture

In India, it takes the form of "beef parties" - a cultural revolt against the austerity of the H-masses

https://twitter.com/HindolSengupta/status/1073875660677017601

Liberals like Camille Paglia have actually spoken very favorably about Hinduism and Buddhism - because these religions represent a counterpoint to mainstream christianity - or atleast did back in the 60s counter-culture environment.

So if you were favorably disposed towards ISKCON and the Hare Krishna movement back in 70s NYC, you were most likely a political liberal. Not a conservative.

But the same liberals would no doubt rebel against "brahminism" if you were to place them in India

It is the choices of the masses that needs to be despised and critiqued. Thats the modern liberal creed.

This wasnt always the case. At one point liberalism was about standing up for mass culture against the hegemony of high culture in any society

But this has changed remarkably

Modern liberalism is about standing up for the people who don't fit in. Standing up for their identities. Their cultural choices.

That could be a Hare Krishna devotee in US. It might be an evangelical Christian in India

This is not a new fangled tendency. But one with deep roots in the history of liberalism.

Most notably it features in the writings of John Stuart Mill who wrote his great book "On Liberty" in mid 19th century

In that book, he talks often about the "Tyranny of the majority" - a consequence of democratic rule where the individual who does not "fit in" to the majority culture is oppressed by the choices of the majority (who also constitute the electorate)

So for Mill, liberalism in essence was about defending the individuality of people, who should not be stymied by the "society" and its "Reet-Rivaaj"

This is very different from the Liberalism of the "Progressive"leftists for whom liberty mattered less, and equality mattered more

So though the liberalism of Mill dates back to 19th cen, it did not get much political mileage until late 20th cen

In the first half of 20th cen, the brand of liberalism that enjoyed success was the Rooseveltian version - the liberalism that focused on redistribution, equality

Not so much on defending the choices of the odd men out. And the eccentrics.

The liberalism that Mill talked about - his worries about the "tyranny of the majority" and the repression of the individual - was not that prominent

That was in part because the concerns in the first half of 20th century (with the newly expanded franchise) were primarily economic

The Great Depression and the two great wars ensured that culture wars were not on anybody's mind

So the grand liberal project in the 30s-40s was - how to redistribute the pie? How to generate aggregate demand? How to boost employment? How to provide for the elderly?

And this focus contiued after the War. As evidenced by Johnson's Great Society program in the 60s

However things started changing in the late 60s.

FIrst of all, economic prosperity was now not the preserve of few, but had deeply percolated society (atleast in the West). So the liberal attention gradually shifted from the economic to the cultural sphere

It started with sexual revolution and feminism of the 70s. Then moved on to gay rights, minority rights,

The Rooseveltian / Keynesian liberalism was now passe. Liberalism v2.0 was about fighting culture wars, and defending individual cultural choices against those of the masses

So if we hear the talks of the leading liberals today, much of it is NOT about the factory worker in Detroit. Or the black working class in Bronx or other inner cities

Much of it is about "culture wars" - defending the unorthodox. Defending people who buck the trend around them.

To me this is the big story of liberalism in 20th cen

The gradual shift from old fashioned progressive politics (inspired by people like Henry George / Karl Marx in 19th cen) to the more individual-centric liberalism of John Stuart Mill.

A radical shift that has gone unnoticed