Woke theory and Classical Liberalism

THE ECONOMIST, A BRIT PUBLICATION WITH AN INTERNATIONAL STAFF HAS TURNED IT’S BACK ON THE DEMOCRAT LEFT. Wokeism is a threat and violates the principles of classical liberalism, they say. Amazing—a publication that has always seemingly to been run by lib Democrats is now turning against them! But they explain their split. Classical liberalism (in which they pride themselves) believes that human progress is found in debate and reform, individual dignity, open markets, limited government, and separation of powers.  To an American, this sounds a lot like Conservatism.  How indeed did anyone who believes such things ever start sounding like the LDP of Canada or hate Trump like a lib Dem? And from that perspective are now appalled by the Left?

            The answer to this puzzle is that America and Europe have fought different battles.  Europe began with the confessional state and forced belief.  Spain and Italy had the Inquisition, Calvin’s Switzerland had death for dissenters, and everybody had pogroms for the Jews.  Free-thinking intellectuals were at war with the confessional state throughout the Enlightenment and Romantic eras. Why did the churches behave so autocratically, especially during the Middle Ages?  Well, they learned it from the barbarians who came in the 4^th to 10^th century. Historian Will Durant relates stories of how, even after a surge of barbarians, the Roman citizens still had skills, but the barbarians rejected good physicians preferring magic, rejected good Roman Law in favor of trial by ordeal.  But most tellingly, could not be converted to better practices. They became nominally Christian, practically pagan.  The fire of Christian faith in Augustine, Patrick, Ambrose, and Jerome grew into a sort of dim, illiterate magic even though Europe became Christian.  When one possesses a strong God, dissent is not threatening. Jesus just let disbelievers walk away.  When one believes in a weak God, one must squelch debate and crush dissent.  It carried over. In modern Europe, polls have shown that more people believe in trolls, spells and fairies than the Christian faith.  Hence the French Revolution wanted “brotherhood” while the American Revolution wanted Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When the consensus of brotherhood (the population or ruling elite) chooses rights they ascribe government as the author.  When they think morality, they think of something fuzzy, personal and hard to define.  A European thinks they are free because the government gives them the right to wear a tee shirt with an obscene hand gesture. An American thinks of freedom as freedom of opportunity, endowed by the Creator which cannot be taken away.

            The 13 colonies,were every bit as much confessional states as the British back home, and equally divided.  But the Great Awakening, a Christian Revival, swept the colonies in the 1740s and everything changed.  It became apparent to most people that finding peace with God was imperative in the harsh wilderness.  And that there were many versions of Christian belief (and others) but each person must work it out to come to grips with not just their faith but with their mission in life. British historian Paul Johnson says that America solved the dilemma of unity vs. tolerance by insisting on a common ethic of public behavior but allowing freedom of religion and free speech, Liberty, for the individual. Johnson, a Catholic, says this has changed American Catholics into a people who concern more with personal belief than Papal dispensations. Thus free speech was not a goal or ideal but a right secured by the Divine.  So while Europeans were happy that Jefferson wrote, “the loathsome combination of church and state” as a root cause of evils, they were tepid over complete religious and speech tolerance.  The upshot of the Bill of Rights was to permanently establish certain rights as bedrock to the American way. Hence others—atheists or Buddhists--could subscribe to America and be in unity with a melting pot nation. Nowhere is this more apparent than the enormous migration of Jews to USA.  Other countries might claim they were welcoming, but in America you get Rights!

            Comes now the woke-o locos.  They arose from an academic society that came up with a vague, malleable theory of racism associated with society’s structure and it has leftist, socialistic goals. Contradictions, for example: if the socialist goal is a universal public education/indoctrination, isn’t the insistence that Afro-Americans attend failing inner city schools a racism structure? Wokeism appeals to the usual alienation of youth and is encouraged by administrations of colleges. (Leftist university administrators outnumber moderates and conservatives 13 to 1)  None of these have to answer for what they create. Since those youth have now arrived as workers and leaders, they demand woke speech, woke business, and strident journalism, Democrat Party rule, and corporations.  Long term, this won’t survive.  No other system of business beats capitalism, but the woke-inistas won’t allow capitalism.  Math classes now have to talk to students about gender choice. Loss of freedom of thought will bring innovation and science to a halt. Weaponizing social media will only drive the opposition forces underground to foment civil war against this new status quo.

            Classical Liberals of Europe see all the evils of the confessional state in the woke movement—imposed orthodoxy, expulsion of heretics, book burning and creeds.  Actually, that’s rather amusing beecause both groups start with a godless premise.