Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Kamala Harris instantly ignited the Democrats. Will a leadership change do the same for the federal Liberals? – Toronto Star

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Postal Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Link:
Kamala Harris instantly ignited the Democrats. Will a leadership change do the same for the federal Liberals? - Toronto Star

Supreme Court Reform is Code for Putting More Liberals on the Bench – Daily Citizen

The names change but the same challenges remain.

A president arrives in office during a time of great tumult and uncertainty, pledging to use the power of the government to solve problems the Founders intended the free market to manage and navigate.

Nevertheless, as promised, with resolve and even congressional cooperation, the chief executive muscles through the proposed legislation.

One problem: A conservative Supreme Court majority balks, blocking many of the major policies and declaring them unconstitutional.

The presidents response?

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself, the president tells the nation. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men.

President Franklin Roosevelt uttered those words from the White House on March 9, 1937 his first Fireside Chat since beginning his second term. Unshackled from reelection worries, FDR ignited a controversy that would continue for months.

In short, President Roosevelt was frustrated by the number of conservative justices on the High Court. Knowing he couldnt fire them from lifetime appointments, he proposed to do the next best thing: dilute their authority and vote by packing the court with more justices.

The proposals name was the Judicial Procedures Reform Act.

Sound familiar?

FDR explained his rationale:

What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the President then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all Federal justice speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries.

Only those werent his reasons at all. In truth, FDR was desperate to continue rolling out his New Deal proposals many of which taxpayers today are still paying for. The nine-member Court assured the president they were well capable of handling the caseload in an efficient matter. And the president wasnt looking to save the Constitution he was trying to expand and reshape it to accommodate his own plans to enlarge the governments role.

In the end, FDRs scheme was rejected, and the American people saw it for what it was a gross overreach of executive power. The Senate Judiciary Committee wrote:

The bill is an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country. It is essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy that the judiciary be completely independent of both the executive and legislative branches of the government.

It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.

We know efforts are underway in liberal circles to likewise reform the High Court but how and to what degree remains to be seen. If history is any guide, though, we know the word reform is just another way of calling for fewer conservative justices and more liberal ones. Lets hope and pray that when it comes to such a campaigns conclusion, that history will once more repeat itself.

Image from Shutterstock

Here is the original post:
Supreme Court Reform is Code for Putting More Liberals on the Bench - Daily Citizen

With Calls To Expand Supreme Court, Liberals Hope To Skirt the Rules | Opinion – Newsweek

The American people expected Franklin D. Roosevelt to bring an end to the Great Depression. But his administration struggled to do so and like most politiciansand FDR was shrewder than mosthe found ways to blame others for his failure.

One particular bogeyman was the United States Supreme Court, which kept finding FDR's recovery measures unconstitutional and was, therefore, easy to blame for the continued economic difficulties.

By 1937, FDR had had enough. He proposed a plan to "pack the Court" with new Justices he would appoint and whom the Senate would confirm to serve alongside those already on the Court.

In the short run, this gambit failed. The public reacted to it adversely and, at election time, gave the Democrats their worst electoral results in nearly a decade. Voters recognized that changing the number of Justices on the Court to change the thrust of their decisions was cheating. The Constitution, as they understood it then and as is still true today, says what it means and means what it says. FDR's attempt to load the Supreme Court with members who would rubber-stamp his legislative program, regardless of its constitutionality, violated the precepts on which the nation was founded.

In the long run though, FDR won. The Justices who stood in the way of New Deal reforms started to retire, and were replaced by men who found the market interventions at the heart of the New Deal more constitutionally consistent than their predecessors had.

History does have a way of repeating itself. The progressives who've now seized control of the Democratic Party see the current Supreme Court as standing in the way of what they want to accomplish. To them, the Court is a bastion of conservatism and originalist thinking that will use its power to defeat all efforts to expand the size and scope of the modern American welfare state.

The only way around that obstacle is to pack the Court with liberals who agree that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretations that must change with the times.

There are two ways progressives can do that. One is to enlarge the Court, as FDR tried and failed to do. The other is to discredit the Court or at least enough of its sitting Justices to force resignations or impeachments.

That's why Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has promised to file articles of impeachment against the Justices who sided with the majority in the Court's limited ruling on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. She and her allies have distorted the impact of that ruling to the extreme so they can argue the Court has abandoned its responsibilities or has become hopelessly corrupt.

If they can do this, Ocasio-Cortez and others likely reason, then they can open up a few seats Joe Biden can fill with new Justices who will vote to overturn Dobbs v. Jackson, District of Columbia v. Heller, Loper Bright v. Raimondo, and all the other decisions they don't like.

We've seen this before, too. Conservatives didn't like Chief Justice Earl Warren and often talked of impeaching him. They even wrote songs about it, but none of that went anywhere. The Court finally changed, adopting a more originalist philosophy, but only after a long and arduous process that took decades.

Liberals can't wait that long. They feel they have a moral imperative that allows the ends to justify the means. Rewriting the rules is okay, just like rewriting the Constitution through judicial decisions rather than using the amendment process is okay. It's quicker and easier, and they do it well, while going through regular channels often doesn't get them where they want to go.

Don't be surprised if you soon hear crowds of leftists calling for Chief Justice John Roberts' resignation. One way or another, count on them to subvert existing democratic norms to try and get their way. They'll either drive public confidence in the Court down to a point where they believe the public will demand the appointment of three or four new Justices, or they'll try to follow through with their threats to remove Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts so they can establish a liberal majority with new Justices of Biden's choosing.

They can try, but most Americans who are not part of the coastal elite still value things like rules and fair play. They'll recognize these efforts to change the Court's composition for what they are. In this country, we don't let people win by cheating.

Newsweek Contributing Editor Peter Roff is a veteran journalist who appears regularly on U.S. and international media platforms.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Link:
With Calls To Expand Supreme Court, Liberals Hope To Skirt the Rules | Opinion - Newsweek

Opinion: What Liberals and Conservatives can learn from the French and British elections – The Globe and Mail

Open this photo in gallery:

People celebrate after the second round of the French legislative elections at Place de la Republic in Paris, on July 7.DMITRY KOSTYUKOV/The New York Times News Service

Canadian politicians watching the elections in France and Britain have seen three strategies of attack and defence on display, and three horses for politicians to ride, or to force their opponents to ride.

They are Incumbency, Fear and Competence.

Incumbency weighs like a millstone around the neck of every government these days, be it left, right or centre. The opposition, in contrast, starts with a lot of helium in its balloon.

But public fear of how the opposition would govern can puncture the balloon.

And competence? An opposition party must overcome voters fears, and persuade them that it offers safe hands. As for a government, it has a more difficult task, namely persuading voters that it has governed successfully, or is at least better than the fearful alternative. The longer in government, the harder the climb.

In Britain, the Conservative Party had been in power for 14 years, with a record of missteps and worse. Fear of Labour was a Tory trump card in past elections, but this time around Labour inoculated itself against that, via a leader who publicly went to war with his own left wing. It was part of the strategy to beat the Conservatives, and Sir Keir Starmer is now Prime Minister.

In France, in contrast, the right-wing National Rally failed to persuade enough voters that it is no longer an extremist entity with the result that Marine Le Pens crew, who a week ago were on the verge of winning a parliamentary majority, now find themselves relegated to third place in the seat count.

Which brings us back to Canada.

Pierre Poilievres Conservatives are running on the unpopularity of the incumbents, along with a claim that the Tories represent common sense and competent administration. If the things eating at you are the carbon tax, housing, crime and the dire state of the budget (which is in fact not so dire, but I digress), then Mr. Poilievres slogan Axe the tax. Build the homes. Fix the budget. Stop the crime. is laser-focused on your concerns.

The U of T occupation was illegal. Why? Because it was an occupation

What is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau running on?

At a press conference last week in Montreal, when repeatedly asked why he wanted to lead the Liberals into the election scheduled for 2025, he kept reaching for one word: continuing. He said it was all about continuing to deliver for people and continuing to be there for Canadians and continuing to deliver for Canadians.

In an era of fury against incumbents not always deserved, but so it goes thats the best the Liberal brain trust has come up with: a pitch based on incumbency.

You can see why some voices within the party are urging the opposite.

The Liberals cant win on incumbency. And while fear is always going to be part of the Liberal arsenal and its perfectly reasonable to ask voters to ponder what a Conservative administration might do or might cut it likely wont be enough this time. Vote for our unpopular government, because the other guys will be even worse is awfully weak tea.

What would be a better pitch? The Liberals could promise competent administration and could spend the next year demonstrating it. Thats much harder than Mr. Poilievres job, but so it goes. Thats the incumbents burden.

However, it can also be the incumbents advantage. Governments have the power to do things. That includes undoing previous doings that they didnt do very well.

The biggest issue for the Liberals, and the country, is the extreme unaffordability of housing. Thats the inflation whammy that socked millions of people, particularly the young, new Canadians and the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The Liberals have put forward a rhetorically aggressive plan that positions itself as addressing that just like Mr. Poilievre, they promise to somehow spark huge levels of new home building. But even under the most optimistic scenarios, such plans will take many years, even decades, to deliver.

That means the Liberals need to steal a page from Mr. Starmers Labour. To have a shot, theyve got to show Canadians that they have changed. Which means running against their own record, at least on this issue.

Housing unaffordability is partly the result of an unprecedented and unplanned jump in non-permanent immigration, far above anything Canada has ever seen, and far above Liberal immigration plans. It was a case of severe government incompetence, and its still unclear to what extent the Trudeau administration is actually addressing the mess, as opposed to crafting a comms strategy to fuzzy it. Statistics Canadas latest estimate of the non-permanent population is 2.8 million, up from less than two million a year ago.

Closing the gap between housing supply and housing demand, by greatly increasing housing supply, will take a long time. It calls for hundreds of thousands more construction workers and hundreds of billions more dollars. It risks bringing other economic distortions. In contrast, closing the gap by reducing population growth can be done quickly.

The Liberals may or may not need a new leader. They wont win on fear. They cant win by pitching more of the same. They definitely need a better record to run on.

More here:
Opinion: What Liberals and Conservatives can learn from the French and British elections - The Globe and Mail

Michael Bonner: Defenders of the liberal faith feel the fire – The Hub

What does it mean to be a conservative or a liberal in the United States of America?

The question is less strange than it may seem. American liberals and conservatives both hark back to the revolutionary founding of their country. Both claim either to fulfill or to renew the principles animating that revolution. Both profess a doctrine of liberty and equality. Either side calls the other tyrannical, and each believes that it alone promotes freedom. So, depending on your perspective, you could argue either that America has no conservatives, because everyone appeals to liberal principles, or that it has no liberals, because all appeal to a tradition.

The American arch-conservative George F. Will addressed this matter in his book The Conservative Sensibility. He admits that America has no school of European-style conservatism founded on aristocracy, hierarchy, and so on. The old Tories fled to Britain or Canada, and there is no counter-revolutionary party left. Instead, Will says, American conservatism aims to preserve the conditions that made the American Revolution possible. If you think through what Will is saying, you arrive at a paradox: American conservatives are liberals. So we may well ask: what are conservatives who do not agree with that characterisation?

Robert Kagan has the answer.

His new book Rebellion: How Anti-Liberalism is Tearing America ApartAgain asserts that all Americans are, or should be, liberal revolutionaries animated by the spirit of 1776. And yet, the principles of that revolution, he says, have always been resisted by an allegedly conservative faction which either wants rights and freedoms only for itself or which rejects liberalism altogether. The conservative, anti-liberal faction was ascendant in the old slave-holding South, was not actually crushed in the Civil War, and has lately made up the Tea Party and MAGA movements.

And if, says Kagan, Trump is re-elected, anti-liberalism will triumph over the Constitution, and that will be the end of the American Republic. Those who watched the recent presidential debate may struggle with the theory that only Joe Biden can or should save American democracy. But that is the force of Kagans book, and we shall know whether he is right soon enough.

In structure and content, Rebellion is clearly supposed to be something like a narrative of a sea voyage from the American Revolution to the present. Kagan fears that the journey may end in disaster should Trump take the helm again, cast aside the sextant and nautical charts of liberalism, and pilot the ship off the edge of the world. But what actually happens in the book is that Kagans ship runs aground within the first few pages. The background narrative continues as a literary equivalent of rear-screen projection, but the ship is not in motion. The impediment is the meaning of liberalism itself.

We can begin with Kagans portrayal of the American Revolution. That revolution was shaped by some grave misunderstandings and exaggerations, which Kagan neglects to mention. Here are two examples.

First, the colonists vision of the monarchs power was influenced by earlier generations experience of royal absolutism. They expected George III to intervene on their behalf against Parliament. But if this had happened, it would have amounted to the same sort of tyrannical abuse of constitutional norms associated with kings Charles I and James II, which notably had not bothered the colonists; but, when the king did not intervene, the colonists called him a tyrant. Second, they also hated the Quebec Act of 1774 because of all its liberal features. It granted tolerance of Roman Catholicism, allowed the use of the French Civil Code, and aimed to prevent the colonists from infringing on Aboriginal territory in what is now Middle America. So one may well ask in what sense the American Revolution was really liberal in spirit.

Kagans attempt to define liberalism is a larger problem. Liberalisms sole function, he says, is to protect certain fundamental rights of all individuals against the state and the wider community. John Lockes life, liberty, and property are what Kagan has in mind, and he is curiously impressed by the truly revolutionary claim that those rights were inherent in the nature of being human.

Many surprises follow. Kagans liberalism has no roots in the Enlightenment, he insists. Nor, despite the invocation of Locke, does it originate in all the liberty enjoyed by Englishmen. As for its purpose, liberalism is not a means of improving human lives, except by providing a historically unique form of freedom.

And yet, liberalism is not about progress, except the progress of ever-expanding rights. It has no destination or teleology. It is not the endpoint of some concept of modernization. AndI was especially shocked by thisit cannot be justified rationally. Kagans liberalism is no more rational or more just than the hierarchical worldview that has guided the vast majority of human beings for almost the entirety of recorded history. Liberalism, says Kagan, is at root a faith.

A man dressed as George Washington kneels and prays near the Washington Monument with a Donald Trump flag, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo.

As I said, Kagans is a surprising definition, and I suspect that many self-avowed liberals would reject it. Kagans definition is a significant climb-down from the more exalted claims that liberalism has made for itself over the past 30 years. And so, I am almost ready to agree with Kagan. His idea that liberalism is a faith is very nearly right, though perhaps not in the way that he intends. Lockean liberalism is a quasi-Protestant political theology, as many scholars have called it. And the idea of rights inherent to all persons, which Kagan finds so impressive and revolutionary, is actually a very old Western Christian anthropological claim that Locke did not originate.

One can argue in fact that Lockean liberty makes no sense outside its Christian context, and I think Kagan could potentially be convinced of this also. The American Founders unwisely separated Locke from his theology by asserting that certain unalienable rights were self-evident. And Kagan himself marshals all the evidence to prove that this assertion was wrong.

It was the liberal constitution of 1789 that permitted slavery for nearly a century, and slave-holding elites constantly appealed to principles of freedom and to property rights. Their opponents did not make convincing counterarguments, so much as opposite appeals to other liberal values. Kagan portrays this contest as one between liberals and anti-liberals; but one may see it more clearly as a fight within liberalism, especially when the South seceded on the same pretext of liberty and property rights invoked by the colonists in 1776. The South was of course defeated in the ensuing Civil War; but, as Kagan reminds us, the South continued to defy the federal government, asserting white supremacism and racial segregation with appeals to rights, liberty, autonomy, and so forth.

Obviously, it would be impossible to argue that slavery was genuinely compatible with liberal principles. But the Founders liberalism did not only fail to vanquish it, but liberal principles were also useful in defending it and its similarly loathsome aftermath. Moreover, liberals of the North easily persuaded themselves that their values would gradually prevail in the postbellum South without further interventionan attitude which prolonged segregation and white supremacism. Self-evident truths, indeed!

Nevertheless, Kagan is very close to identifying the actual flaws in the American republic. Or rather, he has rightly summarised all historical proofs of them, without drawing the right conclusion. He is right to say that many Americans have never fully accepted Lockean liberalism, but he cannot yet see that the American tradition of liberalism has been cut off from its root.

The root of liberalism, as Kagan says, is faith. But liberals no longer believe in it. The theory of natural and inherent equality among all persons comes from the New Testament and was elaborated over many centuries from St Augustine onwards. As historian and philosopher Larry Siedentrop put it, belief in the moral equality of men created a role for conscience, and that set limits to the claims of any social organisationa conviction which requires respect for the difference between inner conviction and external conformity.

Remember also that Thomas Jefferson had sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man, not because he hated religion, but because the individual person must be free to follow the dictates of his reason and conscience implanted in him by God.

In this July 14, 2010, file photo, a statue of Thomas Jefferson, right, stands in New Yorks City Hall Council Chamber. Richard Drew/AP Photo.

Christianity is also the origin of the secularism and tolerance that Kagan makes so much of. The idea that there is a secular and a religious realm, and that the two must be separated, is a constitutional theory best associated with the 11th-century papacies of Leo IX and Gregory VII. The idea, originally unknown outside Europe, has prevailed ever since, and theories of secularism, tolerance, and religious freedom grow out of it.

Those principles must be in place, as Locke and his epigones knew, not because religion is a pernicious influence on government (as Kagan repeatedly says and implies), but because belief would be insincere without them. Liberalism ought to form the conditions under which authentic beliefs may flourish, for there can be no benefit to anyone if people are forced to conform to what they do not really believe.

Both American theories of a biblical republic on the one hand, and utter godlessness on the other, depart from this tradition. In our own irreligious age, demand for external conformity has vanquished respect for inner conviction. And the divorce between liberalism and Christianity has undermined the only justification that liberalism has ever had.

Apart from religion, Kagans liberalism has another blind spot. I mean the illiberal, or (to borrow Kagans adjective) anti-liberal, excesses of the political Left. For instance, the collapse of American race relations in our own time is in Kagans view simply a reckoning and the inevitable by-product of the liberal system the Founders created. And he asserts that wokery is unfairly vilified by conservative, anti-liberals.

But if Kagan really believes that, it only emphasises how remote he is from Lockean liberalism. The woke hierarchy of oppression and fixation on race and privilege do not aim at equality and unity, but rather division and exactly the sort of tyranny over the mind of man that Jefferson hated. DEI initiatives are exclusionary and illiberal also, and they have not raised up minorities so much as empowered a new class of commissars policing everything from speech to Halloween costumes.

The New York Times 1619 Project, a re-examination of the history of American slavery, notably teaches that the liberal ideals of the American Constitution were false from the beginningexactly the same conclusion reached by John C. Calhoun and the other defenders of slavery. By Kagans own logic, the two antagonists of wokists and slavers are actually les extrmes qui se touchent.

If the stakes are really as high as Kagan says, then liberalism requires a much more vigorous and convincing defence than Rebellion provides. Jefferson wrote of the tree of liberty which from time to time needs the refreshment of its natural manure: the blood of tyrants and patriots. This is a dreadful thought that seems to lurk behind Kagans assertion that the people and their beliefs have always been the problem for liberalism. But if the root of the tree is faith, as Kagan affirms, then nourishing that faith is the only thing that can renew liberalism, not vanquishing unbelievers.

But Kagans liberalism takes shape as a non-metaphysical religion that cannot be vindicated by reason; which is no more just than any other worldview; and which has consistently failed to achieve its goals.

So why, one may wonder, should anyone espouse it? And how can a non-believer be convinced? Kagan, like a crypto-Protestant theologian, simply affirms that you either believe it or you do not. The Liberal Elect simply know who they are. No amount of persuasion, but faith alone, can make the American people into liberals. If this is true, and Kagan seems to believe that it is, the track record of that non-theological faith suggests that its future will be very bleak indeed, no matter who wins the next American election.

Original post:
Michael Bonner: Defenders of the liberal faith feel the fire - The Hub