While reading your essay on liberality, I couldn't help but to compare what used to be called liberalism with the current version referred to as progressivism. Not much in common, same high standards expressed with words belied by hypocritical behavior. Some example: DNC sues to keep Kennedy off the ballot, then when he removes his name …
While reading your essay on liberality, I couldn't help but to compare what used to be called liberalism with the current version referred to as progressivism. Not much in common, same high standards expressed with words belied by hypocritical behavior. Some example: DNC sues to keep Kennedy off the ballot, then when he removes his name in 10 states sues to put it back because that might help them. Picks a candidate in a bacroom deal who has never won a single primary delegate while claiming to save Democracy.
Rank and file follow along voting their illusions, not realizing how far left from those illusions the party has gone. A candidate who may be historic if that is in fact a valid qualifier, while the running mate signed a bill allowing the state to pursue transgender surgery for minors opposed by that child's parents.
Old liberalism supported equality of opportunity, new liberalism wants equity of outcome, meritocracy be damned.
Sorry to go political on what was a well written theoretical essay.
This post was harder to understand than your norm. I struggled to interpret some sentences e.g. "The problem is not just that issues regarding which liberal norms require tolerance are often in fact not directly relevant to their decisions." The points you raise felt disconnected, with some feeling like they were unjustified. E.g. when I read "we now favor democracy over other forms of governance, for most types of orgs", I didn't know what you meant until I recalled "Yay Parliaments".
While reading your essay on liberality, I couldn't help but to compare what used to be called liberalism with the current version referred to as progressivism. Not much in common, same high standards expressed with words belied by hypocritical behavior. Some example: DNC sues to keep Kennedy off the ballot, then when he removes his name in 10 states sues to put it back because that might help them. Picks a candidate in a bacroom deal who has never won a single primary delegate while claiming to save Democracy.
Rank and file follow along voting their illusions, not realizing how far left from those illusions the party has gone. A candidate who may be historic if that is in fact a valid qualifier, while the running mate signed a bill allowing the state to pursue transgender surgery for minors opposed by that child's parents.
Old liberalism supported equality of opportunity, new liberalism wants equity of outcome, meritocracy be damned.
Sorry to go political on what was a well written theoretical essay.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
I suspect this post was unusually poorly written, seeing as yours is the only comment. I've just confused most others.
This post was harder to understand than your norm. I struggled to interpret some sentences e.g. "The problem is not just that issues regarding which liberal norms require tolerance are often in fact not directly relevant to their decisions." The points you raise felt disconnected, with some feeling like they were unjustified. E.g. when I read "we now favor democracy over other forms of governance, for most types of orgs", I didn't know what you meant until I recalled "Yay Parliaments".
Typo: "conceepts"