Thread by @Saintonge235

"Liberalism," a term whose meaning has fluctuated over the years, has both an intellectual and an emotional "foundation." (So do all other political philosophies, btw.)

Which is more important? The emotional. (Again, this is true of all other political philosophies.)

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1398644124719398916

Human beings are emotional creatures, and all motivation is emotional.

The emotional foundation of liberalism is a desire to change society "for the better," better in the liberal's eyes that is. The society that exists must be improved, or reformed, or destroyed and replaced.

Concealed behind the desire to improve society is the desire to rule society, a constant of human nature. "What we are doing to you, you would do to us, if you had the power." Thus spaketh the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue.

From these emotions, a recurring pattern emerges.

People strive to improve society, which requires acquiring power. This power can be coercive legal power, the leadership of a movement, influence with the public, leadership in a party, whatever.

If the reform movement fails, the people who founded and led it are frustrated.

If the reform movement succeeds, the leaders gain power. They frequently find the taste of power sweet, and seek more power. A new evil is needed, so that more reforming can be done.

But the success of the movement generates followers, and rivals for power within the movement.

Thus, demands for more reforms and more radical reforms come about.

Meanwhile, outside the movement, people experience being the subject of power, and don't like it. A resistance movement arises. This movement angers the reformist leaders.

Three things now happen.

Within society, successful reformist movements become part of the system.

Within the reformist movements, extremists arise who wish to get rid of the society and the reformist movement, since that is the only way to gain the power they wish.

But within the reformist leadership,

the antipathy for the resistance movements leads to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" delusions. Thus FDR progressives come to see the communists as "liberals in a hurry," when the commies are actually their deadly enemies. Thus did FDR come to like and trust Stalin.

Occasionally, the reformist leaders grasp the real situation. Thus Harry Truman, that great man, forged a bipartisan anti-Soviet policy. But this view is hard to sustain. To remain in power, the reformers must find new things to reform, so society must be seen as bad no matter

how much reforming gets done. Why then should the society be defended?

And the radicals who wish to destroy the system infiltrate the reform movements, as a way to get power.

Thus the reform movement inevitably creates its own deadliest enemies.

Andrew Sullivan is right that the Critical Race Theorists reject the foundations of the "liberalism" as it is currently conceived. But most of their strength comes from the decades of liberal critiques of American society, which was never good enough in the eyes of the liberals.

A century and a half of reformist attacks on the existing society have destroyed most of its potential defenders.

@threadreaderapp unroll please