
The Best Answer to Fanaticism—Liberalism (1951) - mpweiher
https://www.nytimes.com/1951/12/16/archives/the-best-answer-to-fanaticismliberalism-its-calm-search-for-truth.html
======
sctb
We've updated the link from a thread of tweets about a list from this article
([https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017697437165785088.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1017697437165785088.html)).
Another page with just the commandments:
[https://www.panarchy.org/russell/decalogue.1951.html](https://www.panarchy.org/russell/decalogue.1951.html).

------
ur-whale
From a time back when "Liberal" meant in America what it still means today in
the rest of the world.

~~~
mijamo
I doubt it, in France liberal is used only regarding economics and in that
case it refers to neo liberalism. In Sweden nobody agrees on the term and for
some it seems to be a synonym of libertarian.

~~~
nv-vn
Liberals of that time we're probably closer to libertarians than most American
liberals today are

------
smpetrey
Link to the full PDF:

[https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1951/12/16/898...](https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1951/12/16/89825036.pdf)

------
bernardlunn
As a Brit with parents who lived through both Fascism (World War Two) and
Communism (Cold War), this rings true.

~~~
vxNsr
At issue today is that many who call themselves Liberals are in fact calling
for a fascist, socialist new order. In age when words have no meaning (fake
news, alt facts, unlimited, gender/sex, etc) how do we communicate?

~~~
dang
Please don't post ideological rants to HN.

~~~
vxNsr
I wasn’t trying to rant and I’m sorry it came off that way.

I was trying to ask a genuine question about how real conversation happens
when neither sides seems to care about the real meaning of words.

------
djanogo
Fanaticism - subjective word associated with being in the wrong, and can be
subjectively used to accuse the other party when they don't agree with your
groups solutions on most important issues.

NY Times selling liberalism is akin to Google giving away "free" OS.

~~~
kadenshep
It's not really subjective, unless you're going to go down the rabbit hole of
"everything" being subjective making any discussion around this matter
pointless.

>when they don't agree with your groups solutions on most important issues.

No, it's typically done when there are well-understood motivations behind
people's opinions and the negative effects such opinions have when they make
the status quo.

~~~
djanogo
Most important issues in any society which is going back and forth between 2
parties are subjective, gun control, abortion, illegal aliens etc. Each party
tries to insults other party's stance on very complicated subjective feelings,
or at least that's what I see on news networks and late night shows(which are
mostly liberal).

~~~
kadenshep
There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are
subjective subjects. They're really not. Being disingenuous (which is really
pervasive in American politics) or taking nonconstructive stances to support a
narrative does not make certain view points or stances subjective, despite
some people's best efforts to control rhetoric surrounding these
conversations.

All opinions are not equal and not all opinions deserve the same stage time.
Especially when those opinions and view points are not based on any data but
rather ideological motivations.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
>There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are
subjective subjects. They're really not.

So, what are the objectively correct stances on these issues?

~~~
wolfram74
one objectively measurable observation is that freely distributing birth
control reduces the incidence of abortion. [https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/colorado-birth-control-fac...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-
check/colorado-birth-control-facts/)

~~~
grasshopperpurp
Absolutely - and a great example - but that's more of a sub-issue than the
actual issue itself.

------
basic1
Technology.

~~~
mfringel
<Looks at the current state of social media.>

Come again?

------
MsMowz
Political pieces aren't appropriate for Hacker News.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I disagree. Political flamewars aren’t appropriate, but this doesn’t seem to
be that. It’s a thoughtful piece, and will likely generate both thoughtful
responses and flamewars.

Let’s just downvote the flamewars and enjoy life :)

------
Dowwie
What about fanatical liberalism, though? How things have changed since this
article was written. What is this "calm search for truth" they spoke of? :)

relevant to this topic is a new, controversial book called, "Why Liberalism
Failed": [https://www.amazon.com/Why-Liberalism-Failed-Politics-
Cultur...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Liberalism-Failed-Politics-
Culture/dp/0300223447)

the author spoke with Russ Roberts on EconTalk this
week:[http://www.econtalk.org/patrick-deneen-on-why-liberalism-
fai...](http://www.econtalk.org/patrick-deneen-on-why-liberalism-failed/)

~~~
ihsw2
Progressive supremacism is a far more accurate term, denoting the outright
hostility towards even tacit opposition or signs of hesitation.

~~~
feocco
First, I recognize we're painting with a broad brush here. I wouldn't call it
supremacism. But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high
ground. Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

I don't care for discussing actual policies since I'm no law expert. I do like
drilling down into first principles with "either side" and seeing what their
ideal treatment of individuals in situations would be. It's just... difficult
to discuss such things without being seen as insensitive or even prejudicial.

This being said, this article has nothing to do with technology :). And
subscribing to view the full article... gross.

~~~
krapp
> But too often I find "progressives" see themselves a moral high ground.
> Often dismissing nuanced conversation for a "winner" due to morals.

This isn't a trait specific to progressives alone, given how often
conservatives insist their views are morally superior because they represent
the will of God or the founding fathers.

See: every argument about abortion or gun control ever.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Libertarians, too. I consider myself an extreme libertarian, for what it’s
worth.

Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

~~~
krapp
>Why even make an argument if you don’t believe it is the “moral high ground”?

Everyone, at the very least, believes their arguments to be correct (unless
they're doing some Devil's Advocate/false-flagging/Socratic thing,) but the
problem with believing one view to be morally superior is the tendency to then
believe other views are immoral, and therefore invalid, rather than see those
views as being held from alternate moral perspectives.

Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and
unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

~~~
justin66
> Both sides of the abortion debate, for instance, believe with absolute and
> unshakeable conviction that theirs is the moral high ground.

I know people who preface an explanation of their support for pro-choice
policy with something like "I would never have an abortion myself, but..."
That's the opposite of "absolute and unshakeable conviction that theirs is the
moral high ground." Most of the time it's the words of someone who recognizes
a compromise needs to be made.

~~~
krapp
Then again, the reason "pro life" exists as a term is to imply that the other
side is "anti life" or "pro death."

I may have engaged in hyperbole but this particular issue is still legendary
for the intransigence on both sides.

