Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The idea of strict abstinence from alcohol goes against the modernist, liberal inclination towards "rational control" - where one uses one's judgment to drink "moderately"

Ritual abstinence diminishes the scope for "rational control" which liberals happen to adore

https://twitter.com/sankrant/status/1144937567810273281

The Liberal premise is to champion reason and individual discretion

The room for discretion arises when you have "choice" and you use that choice judiciously

That extends to "holding your drink" - a sign of the triumph of reason over base passions

The conservative premise on the other hand, takes a dimmer view of human nature

Individuals however wise, however brilliant, are not very good at discriminating right and wrong

So we defer to time tested prejudices. Time tested habits

If these time-tested prejudices suggest that it is better to abstain than attempt "moderate" drinking "once in a while", so be it

If these prejudices emphasize teetotalling particularly for women, that is also accepted as the distilled wisdom of the ages

Inductive wisdom

Liberalism in its essence is about privileging deductive brilliance over inductive wisdom.

About privileging human free will and discrimination over tradition and historical experience

The twain shall never meet

Liberalism never makes allowances for human frailty

Because reason is supreme

But human capacity for reason is small

Liberalism also views individuals as atomized entities.

But individuals have other identities. One is gender

It is not inconsequential. It makes a difference.
Women have babies. Men don't.

It makes a difference, whether we like it or not

SImilarly individuals have "cultures", "histories"

Some have the capacity for austerity and self-restraint. Others have less of it

Much of it may be cultural baggage, which may be neutered in the long run

But the long run can be v v long

Some societies may respond v v well to simple rules

Other societies may feel stifled by the same rules, and may seek greater freedom

Some societies can handle that freedom well. Some can't.

For e.g. Let's examine the impact of the Sexual revolution

Which came about in the early 60s, and lasted for some 2 full decades till the early 80s

It was a revolution that "normalized" divorce, pre-marital sex, among many other things

But not all communities responded to this revolution in the same way

In a country like the US, upper-class whites continued to have somewhat stable marriages, and relatively low out-of-wedlock births

But among many other demographic groups, the metrics got much worse. There was a near collapse of family. Near collapse of sexual mores

So while the revolution was based on this premise of individual freedom and discretion, the impact on the ground was not uniform.

But v varied. Depending on the initial starting point - the social and cultural background of each group

Some numbers from Charles Murray's study of White America -

1963 Blue collared US whites : 84% married
1963 White-collared whites : 94% married

2010 Blue collared whites : 48% married
2010 White collared whites : 84% married!

So the sexual revolution happened between 1963 and 2010 ofcourse...

But notice its impact. Very disparate.

Some handled it well.
Some didn't.

Family survives in some sections of society. Almost as strong as in 1963.

Very very weak in other sections

A qualifier on Murray's numbers...

He restricts himself to non Latino Whites to make his point race-neutral

Also the age group he is considering is 30 to 49 - an age during which you'd expect most people to be married

The point one is making is

Cultural Freedom is NOT uniform in its consequences

Be it the freedom to drink, or the freedom to have relationships without marriage

People react to these freedoms in diverse ways, and with v v diverse outcomes, ranging from v v adverse to neutral