In South Africa’s small “classical” liberal community, there are many differences in temperament. Some get very uncomfortable when it is time to go beyond clinical “data” and insist upon strict adherence to liberal principle. This ambivalence is unnecessary and counterproductive.
A classical liberalism without its “muscular” dimension – irreverence, unequivocal dedication to freedom and harmony, and willingness to confront the enemies of freedom – is precisely the dangerous “liberalism” that national-conservatives have criticised in recent years.
It is the “liberalism” that rightly insists on free immigration but then also allows the minority of dregs among immigrant populations to do unspeakable harm after they have arrived. It is the “liberalism” that rightly insists on the abolition of drug prohibitions but then also disallows property owners and communities from ostracising harmful junkies from their neighbourhoods. It is the “liberalism” that rightly opposes property confiscation but then also insists that owners comply strictly with the enforcers of confiscation because “it’s the law.”
Useless pacifist “liberalism”
These liberals believe that liberalism and pacifism are essentially synonymous. Whenever the potential of violence arises, the liberal must back down and allow the initiator of violence to proceed with whatever was intended.
A fellow liberal in South Africa recently criticised the Free Market Foundation’s Campaign for Home Rule, putting it unequivocally that we ought not to encourage confrontation between well-intended, capacitated subcentral spheres of government, and a potentially tyrannical, incompetent central government. The central government must rather be allowed to do as it pleases so that we may avoid the potential of bloodshed.
This is the kind of liberal who would have advised the American patriots to leave the ships in Boston Harbor undisturbed. It is the kind of liberal who would have told William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln to not rock the boat, as things might get violent. It is the kind of liberal who would have told the Poles and Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to rather just do what the nice steel-helmeted men were demanding.
These are the liberals in today’s geopolitics who insist that any move that might “escalate” an ongoing armed conflict must be avoided, even if it means acceding to the unhinged demands of one of the warring parties that necessarily makes them more dangerous in the future.
Peace and harmony are not free and have many enemies. Winning the peace and establishing harmony takes a rigid backbone that might involve confrontation, and even (necessarily defensive) violence. All of liberalism’s opponents understand this – as do many liberals – but that section of the liberal community that remains obstinate on this question wields significant influence.
Muscular liberalism
Muscular liberalism is liberalism that does not tolerate intolerance.
Intolerance, of course, does not mean “exclusion,” “being bigoted,” or “bad vibes,” as the modern woke would have us believe. Intolerance refers to taking tangible action against the freedom of others. To tolerate others and what they do does not mean endorsing them, but allowing them to live in peace without interference.
So seriously does – and should – liberalism take tolerance, that it would always make a sincere attempt to diplomatically resolve the initiated aggression, but then must unleash all fiery hell on the enemies of freedom.
Muscular liberalism is liberalism that does not endlessly apologise and compromise on its own principles or the (admittedly sometimes harmful) outcomes of those principles:
– The people of Phoenix who defended lives and property in their community were heroes.
– Orania has just as much a right to exist as the Zulu monarchy.
– More than half of South Africa’s pathetic civil service should be fired.
– Prostitutes and drug dealers must be left alone to do their jobs.
– Non-violent immigrants should be granted entry.
– Afrikaners should be allowed to teach culture and religion in their schools.
– Adults should be able to chop and change their genitals as they see fit.
– The market should decide which source of energy is the best.
– Tax evaders should not be judged too harshly.
– Firearm rights are human rights.
– An armed gay prostitute is more difficult to tyranniseover than an unarmed one.
– Property owners should be allowed to unilaterally evict trespassers and non-paying tenants.
Some liberals argue that the principled liberal position (on the Phoenix posters, for instance) has to be toned down in the name of “public relations” and being an “effective advocate.” But I have yet to come across one non-liberal who became a liberal because of meek, uncommitted, mealy-mouthed, and milquetoast advocacy. Perish the notion. People respect commitment.
And, of course, much of this is unacceptable to some conservatives, progressives, and the worshippers of democracy. But no liberty is subject to the approval of the community elders or the woke mob, or to a majority veto. “Tradition,” “progress,” and “democracy” can sit down in the face of freedom. Sorry, not sorry.
But that does not mean the community and mob are without recourse. The only recourse that liberalism makes unavailable to them, is violence – and with good reason.
Unlimited government
Liberalism’s historical insight is that no matter how strongly one feels about some present-day issue, if one gives the state the power to “solve” that issue on one’s behalf, the state will not relinquish that power. To top it off, the state will also eventually use that power against those things one cherishes and values in the future.
The power the state uses today to spitefully punish Afrikaans schools is the same power the Apartheid government used to undermine English missionary schools that sought to give black South Africans a decent education. The power you give the state to confiscate firearms in the name of “safety” today is the same power the state will use tomorrow to oppress an unarmed populace in the name of “conformity.”
This list goes on.
That is why no amount of special pleading – about immigration, about Orania, about drugs, about too many firearms, about churches that are not “inclusive” – will convince a good liberal to “just this once” allow the state more power.
The liberal understands that the power of the state must always be viewed on a long-term spectrum, because there is not and has never been short-term cycles of governments gaining power, then quickly giving it up, then gaining power, then giving it up again.
Even when governments change, and even when constitutions change, the powers governments had before the change tend to be the powers governments keep after the change. There are exceptions, but these happen rarely, hence the long-term view.
Instead, communities and progressive mobs must do the hard work of convincing others of the superiority of their values, and failing that, may ostracise them. So-called “cancel culture” is an effective, non-violent way of dealing with what are deemed to be problematic non-conformists. Violence is unnecessary and unacceptable.
New era
Liberalism won a great victory over the past three hundred years of global history, so much so that even states outside the West at least nominally accept the premise of limited government, and make rhetorical commitments to liberty and constitutionalism. The unprecedented prosperity of the West and Far East comes almost exclusively on the back of liberal free market capitalism since the Industrial Revolution.
But this victory is being undone, not necessarily because the opponents of freedom have become more effective or more organised, but because the unwillingness of the liberal community to defend its hard-won victory has become unavoidably obvious. The days of liberals picking up muskets to chase the imperialists away seem to be long over.
The liberal preoccupation with appearing diplomatic and non-confrontational, and deferring to democratic dictates, is the reason why the people of Taiwan are perhaps at greater danger today than ever before, and why Israel probably has no choice but to blitz Lebanon (and potentially Iran) before the West meekly cuts the purse strings. It is also why it is conceivable for the Economic Freedom Fighters or uMkhonto weSizwe to win an election in South Africa.
Differences in temperament are natural in any movement that is more than an inch deep. But one hopes that the muscular liberals will gain the advantage in this particular movement before it is too late for liberal order to be rescued.
[Image: by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend.