Liberalism is essentially a secular, humanist movement. They blasphemously believe, most of them no doubt subconsciously, that we really can build heaven on earth, if only we were all more loving, more tolerant, more accepting, and so on. And this is very well and good and very difficult to argue against, until you realise the root of this argument is built upon a fundamentally incorrect appreciation of Human nature, and therefore it will fail. Not all liberals are atheists or agnostics of course. In fact probably most of them aren't, but its hard to square their utopian vision for Humanity with the clear descriptions of the depraved nature of Man propounded by Christianity (and, in fact, pretty much all the other major world religions too now I think on it).
I agree completely with your post, and in fact the theory you propound in paragraph three puts it very clearly and in a way I had not considered before. So thanks a lot for that.
Thanks. But mankind’s default condition is more than poverty and war. Should have added in tyranny and slavery.
This line of thought got me to thinking about the old saw, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” which is of course true.
And it struck me that in today’s world, this might more accurately be put as, “The perfect is the most deadly enemy of the good.”
The USA and the western societies that have sheltered behind it for the last 60 years have provided, objectively, greater prosperity and simultaneously greater individual freedom than any other in all human history.
However, problems remain, and therefore a majority of the citizens of these societies seem bent on their “fundamental transformation,” with the likely though not perhaps inevitable result that they will lose either their freedom or their prosperity or both.
Since these societies aren’t perfect, they must be destroyed. The perfect is therefore the most deadly enemy of the pretty damn good.
A lovely idea until you realize what is necessary to enforce these ideas on those you don't find adequately cooperative. The catch here is the word "all." No dissent can be tolerated or the whole thing falls apart.
Just look at the increasing demands that those who disagree with enforced "tolerance" towards the "gay agenda" be silenced.
If they are going to have tolerance for all, they must by definition enforce it by being intolerant of those who aren't adequately tolerant. In fact, they will quickly move beyond requiring tolerance, in its true meaning, and enforce acceptance and even celebration. Eventually even silent acquiescence will not be enough, they will try to enforce open and outspoken approval.