How many non-liberals are there? A litmus test

A reader writes:

You have said that “almost all” modern people are liberals. Who are the exceptions? Can you identify some tiny minority (e.g., an inner circle of like-minded VFR readers, Christian conservatives in rural Virginia who voted for Allen) who are, by your reckoning, certifiably non-liberal?

LA replies:

Good question. Let’s start with my analysis of conservatives. Various types of conservative tend to be conservative or non-liberal on one or two particular issues (and each type of conservative is conservative on different issues), while otherwise accepting liberalism, meaning that equal freedom remains their ultimate political guide. Thus most of the people called conservatives are fundamentally liberals, despite having some conservative views. How many people are certifiably non-liberal? As a short answer, I’d say there are some in America, and virtually none in Europe. To give you a specific answer would require thinking at length about particular people, about their whole set of beliefs, which is too tall an order at the moment

However, to simplify the discussion, a useful litmus test would be how one feels about the Muslim question. Here is a group that is manifestly incompatible with and dangerous to our society. Here is a situation in which the group identity of a group is manifestly more important to us than the rights of the individuals who belong to that group. It is a situation in which a certain group’s Otherness from us is so fundamental that we must act toward the members of that group as a group, not as individuals, i.e, we must stop being liberals. A person who is conservative on various issues, but is still unwilling to say that Muslims don’t belong here, because to say such would violate the liberal belief in equal freedom and non-discriminatory treatment of all people, is showing that on an issue relating to the very survival of our society, he is a liberal. So, how many people are willing to say that Muslims do not belong in the West and should be made to leave, and when they say it, they’re not just letting off steam, but are ready to stand behind it? I would say that those are the candidates for certifiable non-liberal conservatives.

This is obviously not an answer to your question, but the beginning of one.

The reader replies:

I think this is a very good answer.

(Note: this entry is relevant to the previous entry, with its discussion of writers who warn that Islam is a great danger, but who nevertheless do not call for an end to Muslim immigration.)

- end of initial entry -

Oliver B. writes:

You say there are virtually no conservatives in Europe. But there are surely many who think the Moslems don’t belong here. It’s mainly the elites who control the public sphere who are strictly liberal.

LA replies:

You may be right that there is such a conservative view in Europe. But given that this conservative view has literally no public expression, it’s hard to think of it as existing in a political sense.

I think I’ve seen blog discussions where people say that Muslims should leave Europe. I know I’ve seen French web forums that speak plainly of Islam as the enemy. But I don’t remember offhand having seen the cessation of Muslim immigration and the removal of Muslims advocated in a serious way, by a writer with a by-line.

Dana writes:

Are we all liberals now? Or have all people of a certain social, educational, and professional class been browbeaten into spouting certain phrases associated with “liberalism” so as not to be ostracized by those around them, or, if prominent, destroyed by the press? It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is horrified that a newspaper story reports he’s gay, but every time he expresses horror he has to follow it up with, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” No one I know casually knows my real opinions about anything, if they did I’d be ostracized and reviled as a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist, xenophobic, war mongering, jingoist, right wing nut. I’m not a hero or an activist, I keep my mouth shut or basically just avoid people at this point.

I think this is particularly prevalent in people of my generation (I’m 37) and below, who went to college in or after the 90’s. The repressive, Stalinist air of the liberal academy forces you to concede points where you feel you can afford it most just to get along. So we concede that McCarthy was uniquely evil, we concede “everyone is equal” as the evidence from affirmative action to the contrary mounts daily in front of our eyes. These are “trust cues” in modern society, they tell the liberal world you deal with all the time “Oh, I’m a “conservative,” but not THAT kind of conservative.” People don’t want to argue all the time, it’s tiring, and conservative academics, journalists and politicians are under strict scrutiny at all times from the liberal left establishment. I mean, really “macaca”? Why was that even news? Because of the leftist microscope every conservative public figure is under at all times.

LA writes:

Both Oliver and Dana say that there are many more conservatives than I acknowledge, who are simply silenced by the prevailing orthodoxy, whether from fear, or because the liberal environment of the day simply blankets the public sphere with liberal views and allows no others. I don’t know how to respond to this point. As someone who does not work in a mainstream corporation or the academy, I am not under the kinds of immediate pressures that most people are under today, and so maybe I don’t appreciate this problem as much as I should. But let’s say for the sake of argument that there is such an orthodoxy, and it has the ability to silence people of strong convictions who, under more favorable circumstances, would openly take non-liberal positions.

It seems to me that that would not change my basic point. We need to approach this simply: What makes a person a conservative is that he takes a conservative position and stands by it. As an illustration, let’s get away from the problem of PC tyranny and consider your typical weak conservative, someone who may impulsively take a conservative-sounding position from time to time, but then backs away from it, not out of fear, but out of insufficient conviction. He is not a conservative. By the same token, a person who has some conservative views but doesn’t express them because of a socially intididating or intellectually closed environment cannot be considered a conservative. It’s not a question of whether it’s his fault or not. It’s a matter of definition. If he doesn’t take and stand by a conservative position, he’s not conservative.

But the question is more complicated than my treatment of it so far, I’m feeling my way through it and am a long way from a definitive answer.

However, I think the next comment, from Clark Coleman, exemplifies my point.

Mr. Coleman writes:

I think it is encouraging when we come across politicians who are not afraid to tell the truth on matters such as immigration. When I write my representative, who is a member of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, I tend to get a reply such as, “Thanks for your fax concerning this issue. You might want to know that I am the sponsor of the Official English Act. Here is its text, and here are the remarks I made when I introduced it on the House floor.” etc. Compared to the two pages of mush I get every time I email or fax Senator John Warner, it is quite a relief. Sometimes I contrast in my mind the response you would get from your representative up in New York with the responses I get from Virgil Goode.

When I faxed him about the compromise immigration plan offered in early August by Mike Pence, he wrote back a single paragraph, no punches pulled, no wishy-washy politician language: “Thank you for your comments about the Pence proposal. I am opposed to the Pence proposal. Illegals should not be given an expedited process and a road to citizenship. I am opposed to illegal immigration. I am opposed to amnesty in any form. The Senate bill is terrible, and I hope we can stop it. If we took a firm stand against amnesty, many of the illegals would simply go back to Mexico. We should not coddle the Mexicans and appease Vicente Fox. We should stand up for America.”

A small excerpt from his letter to me a month later, concerning the 700 miles of fence bill: “We are being invaded from the South. It is time for us to stand up for the United States and stop catering to Mexico. … I will not waver or back down from my stance on illegal immigration.”

Enclosed were his House floor remarks on the bill. In response to the Democrat who spoke before him and who had stated that (1) the 700 mile fence is not a total solution, and (2) why build a fence on the southern border and not on the northern border, Mr. Goode replied: “I agree that the fence is not the total solution. In fact, I would like to see more than 700 miles of fence along our southern border, but 700 miles of fence is a start. I would also like to see a firm no-amnesty policy ever for those illegally in the country. That is not part of this bill. But this bill is a substantial and correct step in the right direction.

“The invasion into this country is from south of the border primarily. That is why we need the fence along the southern border first, and we will study the situation along the northern border.”

Notice how he speaks the simple, direct truth in response to the nonsensical leftist red herrings. If more public figures will do so, liberalism will collapse like a house of cards.

Paul K. writes:

As for taking Islam seriously and treating it accordingly, it would be hard to beat the Mongols. Kubilai Khan, Genghis Khan’s successor, had an insatiable intellectual curiosity and brought learned men to his court from all his conquered lands, including Persia and Turkey, so that he might learn from them. Harold Lamb’s “March of the Barbarians” (1940) includes the following incident:

Once, listening to a reading from the Koran, [Kubilai] discovered that it laid a command upon Moslems to kill unbelievers. Summoning the chief mullah to him, Kubilai asked if this were so. The teacher of Islam admitted it.

“And you believe that this Koran has been given to you by God?” Kubilai demanded.

The mullah assented.

“Then why do you not obey its command and slay those who do not believe as you do?”

“Because the time has not come, and because we are unable to do it yet.”

“But I am able to do it,” Kubilai assured him, and ordered the execution of the mullah.

I got a chuckle out of that and it occurred to me that Kubilai Khan had managed to stake out a position slightly to the right of VFR.

LA replies:

Nice story, but many of the Mongols or their descendants ultimately became Muslims. The Mongols today are a small powerless nation. Muslims are a fifth of humanity.

Gintas writes:

I read your latest post about how many non-liberals there are. I missed the part about the litmus test in the title. I was thinking how you had generated a good litmus test. The revulsion at the idea of any litmus test surely must be a hallmark of liberalism. Then I reread the title, and went, “hmm…”

LA replies:

Liberals are only repelled by conservative litmus tests. They have plenty of their own, obviously. But those aren’t considered litmus tests because liberalism is simply identical with reality and goodness.

Paul K. writes:

I stand corrected. I shouldn’t have tried to draw a larger point regarding the Mongols and Islam beyond the incident itself. Looking into it quickly on the web, I see that barely 60 years after their initial devastating assault on the Islamic territories Mongols began submitting to the faith. As a Muslim website proudly declares, “Conversion of the Mongols to Islam was indeed one of the few unpredictable events of history.”

A reader writes:

“so, how many people are willing to say that Muslims do not belong in the West and should be made to leave, and when they say it, they’re not just letting off steam, but are ready to stand behind it?”

I believe that, and I say it to people I trust, but not to random acquaintances, because I know it would buy me more trouble than I can afford.

I work for an IT company that provides various computerized high-tech services, much of it offered to customers via a set of web sites. I was hired at this company in part because of my knowledge of Spanish, because this company wanted to launch a fully Spanish version of its services (for use by customers within the continental US).

I have a bit of a problem with this. However: it has been made abundantly clear that the company senior management is very pleased by how diverse the company is. My standing up and trying to convince anyone that we should NOT be offering this service would in actuality simply convince them that I was crazy and should be relieved of my duties ASAP and replaced with someone who would be willing to perform them.

It’s a matter of leverage. The Spanish-speaking customers have more leverage over this company in terms of potential business than the company has over them, or than English-speaking society has over the company. Or, perhaps, than society CHOOSES to exercise over the company.

I was not hired to express political thought or opinion, I was hired for knowing Spanish, and for my ability to put that to use improving the company’s finances. One could argue I should have turned the job down. At the time, I’d been either unemployed or doing menial labor for two years. I’m not prepared to sacrifice myself or my basic prosperity for a society that isn’t going to value that sacrifice, and there’s no reason to think it would, or that the sacrifice would have accomplished anything whatsoever—they’d have simply moved on to the next acceptable resume and the Spanish version of the service would have happened anyway.

So I took the job, did the work well, and my career is now doing pretty good. I have some savings and some future plans.

When the Paris car-burning riots broke out last year, they were referred to as “protests” by certain coworkers and superiors. I could have corrected them, but what does that gain anyone, when it puts my job at real risk (and if not that, it puts me in a brainwashing session)?

I live in a red state; I could easily imagine making such a choice—turning down the job for political reasons—to help maintain that state’s society—if the state was capable or inclined to exercise any degree of control over the matter. Which leads to a thought I’ve had for a while, that a major part of the problem is that the current governmental system has grown out of the scale in which it functions effectively. It was designed for a nation of 4 milliion or so; it’s now working with 300 million. If we went back to small republics, then government WOULD be accountable to the people and issues like the immigrant and language one would be quickly resolved. Instead we are slipping more and more towards an imperial system where the central authority uses divide and conquer methods to keep all the various subject populations relatively powerless and hostile to each other, dependent on the center.

In the end, I guess I’m not going anywhere in particular with this; just trying to illustrate the kind of situation people deal with in the corporate world, and why it isn’t that easy to speak openly. I’m not sure if the people running these companies genuinely believe that diversity is good and all people really are equal, or if they are playing the divide-and-conquer game too, or if they’re just following the current; my best guess is it’s a bit of all three.

“Snouck Hungronje” writes:

LA: “How many people are certifiably non-liberal? As a short answer, I’d say there are some in America, and virtually none in Europe. To give you a specific answer would require thinking at length about particular people, about their whole set of beliefs, which is too tall an order at the moment”

Groups in Europe that oppose presence of non-Western foreigners are usually called nationalists. Some of these nationalists are quite conservative in their view of society. Look at Vlaams Belang (Belgium), Partij van de Vrijheid (The Netherlands), Fidesz (Hungary). The BNP seems to make a lot of conservative statements as well.

The CSU in Bavaria has also oppossed immigration by non-Westerners even if they are well educated, are social conservative but they are quit mute about presense of Muslims in Bavaria. It seems that they do not want to upset their chances to take part in Government.

Other Nationalists are more socialist in societal orientation, but are strongly opposed to immigration, such as the Danske Folkeparti.

In The Netherlands there are two Christian Parties to the right of the mainstream Christian Democrats. Their supporters are very Conservative with regards to family, religion, free enterprise and immigration but the party leadership of the (Calvinist) Christen Unie does not oppose Islam at all.

The (also Calvinist) SGP has publicly and repeatedly said that Islam is incompatible with Dutch and Western society. These parties are so particular in their culture that they have limited appeal outside their own groups. If they were to make a stronger anti-Islamic campaign they would attract a lot of people who are now voting for the Christian Democrats. Something is holding them back, possibly the campaigns of intimidation by extreme Leftist groups in the 80ies, which were sponsored by the government. Also their constituency mostly

LA replies:

Of course I’m aware of the nationalist, anti-immigration parties in Europe. I don’t remember why, in my initial, brief answer to the question how many non-liberals there are, I minimized their importance. Perhaps a general impression of how complete the acceptance of the all-encompassing Nanny state is in Europe and how marginal the opposition.

James R. writes:

A reader writes: “However: it has been made abundantly clear that the company senior management is very pleased by how diverse the company is.”

I once worked for a company that instituted diversity training classes with required attendance, at which point I packed up my belongings at my desk and without notice, they didn’t deserve it, walked out the door, never to look back. The experience was so liberating that even with a young child, bills to pay and no new job lined up I felt absolute exhilaration as I freed myself from these particular oppressors.

Laura W. writes:

I was fascinated by the discussion regarding “How many liberals are there?” There are many occasions when I bite my lip and hold back. (I am not a coward. I have spoken up often and thus turned friends into enemies. But, one doesn’t always have the energy.) I have noticed a disturbing phenomenon. Once I let the cat out of the bag that I reject liberalism, I lose my credibility not only regarding the issues at hand, but regarding everything. Thus if I say to my mother, an unshakeable liberal, “It may rain tomorrow,” she lends no credibility to the statement whatsoever and assumes the sun will shine. This makes everyday interaction a bit awkward. This makes communication—on all levels—trying.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 16, 2006 06:46 PM | Send