Submitted by American Man on
Derivative Images
A Liberal View -
John Rawls famously claimed that liberalism is a philosophy of politics, not a theory of metaphysics. This very much placed him within the liberal tradition extending back to early modern Europe. In contrast to ancient and medieval political thought, the first liberals sought to conceive of politics without reference to metaphysics or the soul. The old, exalted appeals might have sounded inspiring -- politics, according to Aristotle, leads us toward "the good life" of moral and intellectual virtue -- but in a world (like post-Reformation Europe) riven by deep disagreement about the content of the good life, such ambitions encouraged, or at least perpetuated, violent conflict. For the early liberals, it would be enough of an achievement for politics to secure what Aristotle described as "mere life" (the material preconditions of the good life, such as peace at home and abroad, economic prosperity for the greatest possible number of citizens, etc.).
Put in American terms, liberal politics protects the individual right to pursue happiness but leaves it up to each individual to determine the content of his or her own happiness in the the expansive private lives opened up by limited government. Liberal citizens can be devout Protestants or atheists, orthodox Catholics or Unitarians, secular Jews or committed Mormons. They can choose to live in a racially homogeneous gated community or to march with Martin Luther King, Jr. They can march for civil rights -- or oppose those who march for civil rights -- because they believe it is God's will that they do so, or they can make their decision based on purely secular considerations. They can live lives devoted to making money. Or they can join the peace corps. They can believe the United States is providentially blessed by Jesus Christ. Or that it is an abomination in the eyes of God. Or that it has unique humanitarian responsibilities in the world because of its power and ideals. Or that it has no special responsibilities at all beyond policing its own borders. And so on, through nearly every alternative open to the roughly 300 million citizens of our metaphysically centerless society.
That is the liberal ideal: Politics without metaphysics. Not politics against metaphysics, as some illiberal atheists would apparently prefer. But politics conducted, as much as possible, in an idiom of metaphysical neutrality, taking no position for or against God -- or for or against any particular views about God and what He might or might not want from human beings. Individuals are free to believe just about anything about metaphysics, provided that they give up the ambition to political rule in the name of those beliefs -- that is, the ambition to use political power to bring the (highly differentiated) whole of social life into conformity with one particular metaphysical viewpoint.
It sounds great. But is it true? Does it describe the lived reality of contemporary American life? Or is it an illusion -- a liberal pipe dream -- covering over liberalism's barely concealed metaphysical commitments, which it actively seeks to impose, using government power, on American citizens with differing beliefs? The most intellectually formidable members of the religious right have been making precisely this claim for several decades now, and liberals (at least outside the academy) have done little to respond to the challenge.
I admit that this seems like a strange time for a liberal to raise the topic for discussion, considering the inauguration of a liberal president who won the largest non-incumbent victory in a presidential contest since the war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower triumphed in 1952. Yet it is no time for liberal complacency. Fifty-three percent of the vote feels very nice, especially since our winner-take-all electoral system grants the victor 100 percent of the political power at stake in the contest. But this can of course lead to an illusion of its own -- the illusion that the United States has undergone a fundamental shift in the direction of liberalism. A past fact is that although Obama won nearly 70 million votes, John McCain won nearly 60 million. That's a lot of Americans preferring the other, much less liberal guy (and gal). If liberals truly want to consolidate and expand on their recent victory, they should take every opportunity to respond to a serious challenge from the right. This is especially the case when the challenge amounts to the assertion that a core liberal ideal -- the ideal of metaphysical neutrality -- is a sham.
Damon Linker
https://newrepublic.com/article/46979/liberalism-political-andor-metaphysical
Trump Metaphysics -
It is simply futile to chastise Trump from the standpoint of stale metaphysical values, because he embodies a system, which has a long time ago outgrown and abandoned these same values. What does it mean to decry a candidate for the office of president as a “fake” in a country where a Hollywood actor was president (more precisely, enacted the role of president), for two consecutive terms? Does it make sense to bemoan this candidate’s ignorance less than eight years after the end of George W. Bush’s terms in office? Where is the logic of accusing him of vulgarity when the official pick of the Republican establishment for the presidential race hints at differences in penis sizes as momentous for the outcome of the contest?
Rather, what Trump does most deftly, and what in my view accounts for much of his current success, is that he fully assumes the bankruptcy of the metaphysical ideals such as authenticity, essentiality, or firm principles, and acts accordingly. His rivals, in turn, are aware of the collapse of metaphysics but pretend that it has not happened. Curtly put, the bygone values are supplanted by nothing — by the nothing, to which everything has been reduced. Trump represents its self-consciousness, and this gives him an unmistakable edge over his rivals. He knows how to use the pure nothing that he represents, even as the other presidential contenders pretend that there is something behind their nothing. And so, Trump comes across as much more authentic in his inauthenticity than the others, who are busy drawing, in Plato’s words, the “shadow paintings of virtue” all around themselves.
Perhaps, then, a deeper cause for the GOP establishment’s concern and dissatisfaction with Trump is that he puts a mirror before it, forcing it to face up to its disavowed reality and exacerbating its tendencies in the process. In order to dissimulate the unpleasant truth, the party has no other choice but to distance itself from the rogue candidate, who uses even this lack of official support for his bid to his advantage, as proof of his outsider status, his non-belonging in the world of “Beltway politics.” Any attack can be turned around to serve Trump’s purposes, especially if he is censured based on the precepts of metaphysics, which have long become those of “common sense.” Trump trumps metaphysics: herein lies the recipe to his success so far in the campaign. To oppose him better, more effectively, we would need not to recycle bygone metaphysical slogans but to chart other paths towards what lies beyond metaphysics. Towards a multiplicity free of totalization, a proliferation of differences, and a sense of sharing that has dispensed with the very idea of property.
Michael Marder
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/trump-metaphysics/
A Conservative View -
But many see the traditional conservative tripod starting to wobble in the era of Trump. And while there has been from the start a vocal cadre of “Never Trumpers” who continue to disavow the president and see him as a danger to long-held post-war principles, others see Mr. Trump’s disruptions as a good thing, overall – they see his election as a much-needed intellectual jolt.
“Arguably, Trump has been very good for the world of conservative ideas, because he’s loosened up lots of preexisting orthodoxies – he’s loosened up lots of people’s senses of where they belong and what kind of things they can say,” says Steven Teles, professor of political science at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “Since Trump, a sense of the class nature of the Republican Party has gotten shaken up, and that’s very intellectually generative.”
Many have long used the image of a “tripod” to describe three basic principles undergirding the post-war conservative consensus. First articulated in many ways by William F. Buckley Jr. – who also helped build the intellectual and institutional infrastructure of the modern movement – these principles include wide-ranging commitments to free markets and limited government, Judeo-Christian social values, and a robust national defense.
But many see this traditional conservative tripod starting to wobble in the era of Trump. And while there has been from the start a vocal cadre of “Never Trumpers” who continue to disavow the president and see him as a danger to long-held post-war principles, others see Mr. Trump’s disruptions as a good thing, overall – they see his election as a much-needed intellectual jolt.
Harry Bruinius
Do progressives and conservatives hold opposing values? Look at the data here:
- 446 reads