Infamous Liberalism

Liberalism – with its two most basic precepts or pillars of individual freedom on one hand and universal rights on the other hand – was the idea or the package of ideas that governed the political and social life of the modern West before it became tainted with crazed and frenzied money worship and brute and vehement global conquest. But what nationalism in the West both in the past and even its manifestation today has taught us is that it is very difficult to reconcile individual freedom with majority rule. In a sense, a vicious cycle emerges out of the rift between liberalism and cosmopolitanism on one hand and majority rule and nationalism on the other hand. As James Traub wrote:

“Liberalism and majoritarianism act as restraints upon one another. They function, or should function, as one another’s conscience. A liberalism that simply defers to the majority will is scarcely worth defending. At the same time, liberalism presupposes a respect for the individual and for her capacity to choose her own path. Liberalism without democratic support dwindles into elitism: liberals are left bemoaning mass ignorance while the ordinary citizen responds with a sense of resentment that cynical leaders know very well how to exploit. That is more or less the quandary in which liberals find themselves today.”

In essence: “Liberalism was far more fragile than it looked; under sufficient pressure, people could abandon what appeared to be settled beliefs.” And while it may be difficult to describe or explain the idea of liberalism or the package of ideas known as liberalism, the idea or the package of ideas emerged from one singular root or source, namely, limited government and the need to place constraints on the authority and power of the state. And from the foundational and underlying concept of liberalism which was limited government and constraints on the power of the state, liberalism evolved into notions of a very personal and individualistic and utilitarian “pursuit of happiness” and so forth. As one scholar wrote: “Happiness was varied and complex. Each of us had to pursue it for ourselves and in our own way. In that search, education and experience were vital, for without them nobody could begin even looking.”

Liberalism also extended into the area of economics and global finance and trade in the form of laissez-faire philosophy and thought. But of course, the question became one of whether liberalism as a package of ideas and thoughts actually resembled reality or if it was all merely a delusion. Were Westerners crazy for espousing such ideas and thoughts as some have put it? Or was there actually a “method to the madness” per se which did not occur to the herd and mass mentality and mind both in the West and outside of the West? As one scholar contended, liberal ontology and thought emerges from a coming together of a group or a set of groups in the world and then catches on and spreads from these groups. It becomes a matter of changing minds and persuasion above all else. Amsterdam is of course the “Mecca” of liberal ontology and thought. If one wants a real taste of freedom and if one seeks to become convinced of the virtues of liberalism once and for all, one must make the pilgrimage to Amsterdam. And what the Dutch found was that what is “lurking” beneath “infamous liberalism” is actually our obsolete and outdated approach to sex. As one of the foremost experts on the city of Amsterdam wrote:

“Something similar – a conservatism lurking beneath the infamous liberalism – applies in the approach to sex. The society that once brandished a prudishness that Aletta Jacobs, Bernard Premsela, and Benno Premsela fought against has not only legalized prostitution but developed one of the frankest of perspectives on all matters sexual. Birth control is presented to teenagers as a matter of course; the famous ‘double Dutch’ method – girls taking birth control pills and boys using condoms – has resulted in one of the world’s lowest rates of teen pregnancy and one of the lowest rates of abortion. The conservatism comes in in this way: sex is viewed as a matter not of secrecy but of health and normalcy. You see the same view reflected at the movies, where films that have R ratings in the United States for sexual content are open for all ages in Amsterdam. The flip side: a PG-13 film in the United States might be rated for adults only in the Netherlands, where movie violence that Americans think unexceptional is considered something to shield children from.”

In short, if one cannot reconcile liberalism and cosmopolitanism with majoritarianism and nationalism, we cannot reconcile American violence with Dutch openness towards sex either.