Quantum Non-Linearity: Liberalism Obsolete?

Thursday, July 04, 2019

Liberalism Obsolete?

Putin: The cult of personality and godfather government.

Picture from: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/09/vladimir-putin-action-man/100147/

According to Vladimir Putin it is! I would say no, I don't think so, but it's probably under a bit of pressure right now: If liberal democracy is to strengthen and survive and if its political and academic establishments are not to become ivory towers a challenge from the ogre of nationalistic totalitarianism may be no bad thing. Putin (and other subliminal autocrats) obviously have a vested interest in talking up what is in fact a marginal situation as if the West is undergoing a fundamental anti-liberal sea-change. The claim that liberalism is obsolete is an over-hyped half truth.

In any case liberalism is a rather cloudy eclectic concept which embraces ideas right the way from free market libetarianism, through ideals of racial and sexual equality and freedom to a woolly democratic socialism. So just what is it? I don't know and neither, it seems, does this BBC article, although it's a useful analysis. If we are to encapsulate liberalism in a one-liner then I would say that it is the constitutionally controlled row and ferment that is all part of the free market in goods and ideas with a factious accountable parliament reflecting that row. The nearest ancient historical precedent may be the Hellenistic world of the Aegean in the mid first millennium BC. The bickering islands of the Aegean were places where the concept of money driven markets really took shape. Ideas thrived and a kind of democracy existed (Provided you weren't a slave or a woman); government was there for the people rather than the people there for the government.

It may be easier to define liberalism apophatically; that is, in terms of what it isn't and it certainly isn't what Vladimir Putin stands for. It's not what the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia stands for. It's not what Kim Jung Un stands for. It's not what the Islamic fundamentalists stand for. And most alarming of all, there are hints that it's not what Donald Trump with his Christian fundamentalist and alt-right supporters stand for; that are very suspicious of the organs of established government and also of the free press. (They are a "swamp that needs draining" of its new-world-order anti-christian conspiracy along with those purveyors of "fake news"). Like everyone else I don't think Putin himself really knows or understands what liberalism means; all he knows is that it's not like the way he wants to govern and neither does it encapsulate his values. Therefore he doesn't like it. *

What is a little worrying is that we are seeing a small revival of the politics of the tribal-like personality cult: i.e. identifying one's self with an over-lord who is running a kind of quasi-protection racket. You notice how with Trump.and Putin the "pizzazz and star dust" they bring into politics is all important. All very human I know, but human's are highly corruptible; therein lies the rub. It's even happening in a mild way in the UK where Johnson and Farage thrive on their personal magic; the personality cult is coming to the UK.

It's a return to an ancient way of governing and it's very instinct driven: Viz: Authority resides in the personality with whom you make a connection rather than with the abstractions of constitution and law. If people identify government too strongly with their chosen "champion/protector" these leaders can often get away with murder. Cf Trump saying that even if he shot someone his supporters would forgive him! For Trump's avid fans it's all about his personal charisma versus the impersonal government "swamp" he is going to drain! But his behaviour hints at a-would-be dictator who feels insecure about democratic institutions beyond his control and so he does his best to demonise them not realising that they are all part of the untidy ferment of democracy in action. Trump does his damnedest to throw doubt on the intuitions of democracy and if that involves spreading half truths then so be it. Given the strong hold personality can have over people the notion that authority actually resides in some "governmental abstraction" finds difficulty competing. Fortunately for us in UK we have the Crown which personifies and symbolises the governmental abstraction; that's an irony in itself: At one time the Crown represented just the same kind of bully boy totalitarian government of those who were strong and brutal enough to barge their way to the top. But today the Crown reminds would-be dictators that they are merely care-takers under a higher authority. In the UK the Crown, ironically, is symbolic of who government is really for; its for the people. In many ways the British royal family, with their trials and tribulations, convey a much more human and compassionate side to government than many ambitious go-getting stop-at-nothing politicians. God save the Queen.

Autocratic cronies? But what happens
when they fall out?

Interestingly the BBC report on the G20 summit remarked that Trump seems to have a better rapport with dictators like Putin, Xi, the Saudi Crown prince and Kim Jung Un than the democratic leaders of Europe who hold liberal values much hated by the right wing in America, particularly the Christian fundamentalists who appear to port the idea of the absolute rule of a saviour figure to a very fallible human figure. Let me finish with the words of right-wing Christian fundamentalist "Patsy Storedump" whom I quoted here:

Patsy Storedump: Sounds like (what) the deceived are doing in America. Why come here. To be free. To worship as one chooses. Now we are finally fighting back. People first Citizens first Politicians out. Get a man like TRUMP and get rid of all your professional politicians. He is not done with America yet. We can only pray and fill our alters with repentant hearts. Let God lead and take back your country from the enemy. We will Pray for you as you pray for us. Allies in the Lord.

"To be free"? Really? Notice how she demonises the opposition "Let God lead and take back your country from the enemy". Implying that one's government is in the hands of Satan is the pretext for the next move. And what is that move? It's this: "get rid of all your professional politicians" She's basically calling for the end of the parliamentary cacophony of voices of various flawed politicians and instead wants to hear just one very, very flawed voice and, swamp drained, wants to impose that voice on the rest of us.

Footnote
* But let me put a good word in for Putin. He doesn't give me the impression that he's the worst of dictators; he's concerned for his country and his people and has a benevolent side to him (but perhaps I'm being conned by carefully controlled publicity!) Trouble is, unless safeguards are built into the constitution no country should depend on the fortuitousness of just happening to get a benevolent leader. What happens if Ivan the Terrible comes along? There have got to be mechanisms of accountability that factor in the potential for human sin. Nevertheless, he is still a Godfather, as seems likely given the novichock affair.

ADDENDUM post 7/07/19

QUOTE The UK ambassador in Washington says Trump needs "simple, even blunt" arguments UNQUOTE

See here:

Trump administration is 'inept and insecure', says UK ambassador

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48898231
And it gets worse:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/48885319
This is the leader of the Free World!

Russian National Pride at Stake:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48963295

An article on Putin:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/putin-began-by-embracing-the-west-now-he-wants-revenge/ar-AAFFWhI?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=UP97DHP

No comments:

THE IDEAS-EXPERIENCE CONTENTION

“Ideas Versus Experience!" is a slogan expressing the uneasy relation between what we think the world to be and what our actual experience suggests it is. Experience makes or breaks ideas. But the reverse is also true: Well established ideas can influence the recognition, acceptance and even the perception of experience. In short there is a two way dialogue between ideas and experience. Sometimes that dialogue can turn into an argument, even a row.

The success of Science is based on a formalisation of this potentially contentious relationship as it seeks to support or refute theoretical notions by systematically comparing them with experience. In the far less formalized contexts of daily living we probably are using a similar heuristic when we display a tendency to drop ideas that lose the confrontation with experience, and retain those that win. Winning ideas, like the gladiators of the Roman arenas, live to fight another day. This Darwinian slant on the struggle for ideological survival is itself ideology that must, for consistency sake, submit itself to the very process it purports to describe. For example, it should be able to give account of the resilience of traditional theories in the face of contra indicators. And in the extreme, explanation also needs to be given of how conspiracy theorists continue to hold on to a ramifying structure of untested elaborations.

Human theoretical visions are often grand and sweeping, confidently affirming states of affairs that are far beyond immediate sensation. The vast unseen domains covered by our best theories contrasts with the limitations on human perceptual resources, resources that only allow a very sparse experimental sampling of our most ambitious ideas. Even a professional scientist only ever tests a small portion of any theoretical structure. Moreover, our theoretical concepts are ambitious enough to cover unreachable areas like the center of distant stars, sub-atomic dimensions, events long past into history, and very complex inscrutable objects like the human mind and its societies. Thus, science is metaphysical in as much as it has to admit that it covers vast domains inaccessible to testing in practice if not in principle. For the intelligent layman even the keyhole view of the experimental scientist may not be available. So whence comes the authority to affirm ideas that are often so grandiose in their sweep that they make claim to impinge upon the very meaning of life the universe and everything?

The fact is that for most of us the really big ideas diffuse through to us from our societal context, and at most these big ideas are only illuminated here and there, at a very few places, with actual direct experience of the phenomenon they conceptualise. These big ideas float around in the ether-like-media of society in the form of books, lectures, programmes, and the Internet etc, objects that the postmodernist philosophers call "texts".

For someone such as myself the battle to make sense of life was joined as soon as I was aware of mystery. But looking back it is clear to me that I haven't done an honest scientific experiment in the whole of my life. For me the effort to bring sense and integration to the complexity of life boils down to grappling with the many texts of society; These texts carry both big theoretical ideas and raw data from which ideas crystallize. These texts are compared with other texts in the search for coherence and consistency. These texts take the place and role of experiments as one tests theories using texts. These texts are in effect the experience of life. My own modest attempt at grandiose theorising has already been presented to the world. (See this blog "Physics and the Wild Web") and my excuse is that I have simply inherited the theoretical hubris of the human race.

The postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida said, "There is nothing outside the text". I think he was at least right about the primary role texts play in the life of those like myself whose instinct has been to grapple relentlessly with the riddles of life, and to seek out meaning and go where no man has gone before. But one could equally claim, "There is nothing outside the experience". For one might read the "text" of the clouds in the sky as a predictor of impending weather just as one reads socially generated symbolic configurations as the predictor of certain kinds of thought or potential experience. For the text is just as much an experience as more primeval phenomenon like thunder and lightning. Texts are part of our cosmic experience and they imperceptibly grade into the more conventional notion of experience. Where the crossover point is, is difficult to say.

Postmodernism may have got it right about the primary role of the text, but it has made one very serious mistake. Where I would radically differ from the postmodern view is that I believe the mass of social texts, if we allow them, naturally converge upon grand consistent narratives and those narratives are here to stay. And that is because these texts, I submit, are part of a world with an underlying rational integratedness and that integratedness is being revealed to us bit by bit. For revelation it is: Revelation is what we cannot discover unless God chooses that we discover it. My perceptions and reason, limited though they may be, were not self-made, they had to be discovered as gifts. These gifts are given to all of us; one can but trust and use them. Reason is a grace of Revelation. For this reason the hubris of theory making is justified.

Quantum Non-Linearity

Thursday, July 04, 2019

Liberalism Obsolete?

No comments:

My Other Blogs

Papers and Essays etc

About Me

Blog Archive

Labels

THE IDEAS-EXPERIENCE CONTENTION