The uselessness of liberalism revealed

On February 14, 2006, Victor Hanson approvingly predicted that the Europeans are going to start making it much harder for Muslims to get into Europe. But in April 2004, as I reported in a blog article called “Victor Hanson: liberal universalist with a gun,” Hanson exulted that America is fighting for a “free and tolerant mankind.” When he made the 2006 comment in favor of exclusion, did he renounce the 2004 comment in favor of tolerance? I know, I know, it’s a ridiculous question. But still, if it remains the case that Hanson believes in a free and tolerant mankind, how can he support such an intolerant policy as the exclusion of Muslims?

In reply to this question, Hanson would doubtless reply that of course he believes in the goal of a free and tolerant mankind, but that Muslim immigrants must nevertheless be kept out of Europe because Muslims are intolerant; therefore he’s not contradicting himself at all. But if that’s Hanson’s position, what he’s really saying is that he believes in tolerance toward people who share our values, and who are not alien, difficult, or dangerous to us, and that he believes in intolerance toward people who do not share our values, and who are alien, difficult, or dangerous to us. But hasn’t that been the attitude of all human beings throughout all of human history, including the ten thousand years of history preceding modern liberalism with its cult of universal tolerance? What the heck did we need liberalism for?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 19, 2006 02:45 PM | Send