[lbo-talk] Liberalism (was Molding the Ideal Islamic Citizen)

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Wed Sep 19 09:56:32 PDT 2007


Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> The United States government, independent of which party is in power,
> is more substantially based on the principles of political liberalism
> than governments of continental Europe, to say nothing of Iran or
> Cuba. Generally speaking, English-speaking countries like the USA,
> the UK, and Canada tend to have governments closer to ideal-typical
> political liberalism -- and therefore more freedom in civil society
> and less generous welfare states -- than others in the global North.
> The level of adherence to political liberalism in the USA is such that
> even many benefits and services that some Third-World governments that
> are more populist than socialist -- such as the Iranian government --
> provide as citizens' entitlements are not provided by the government
> here. You have to shop for them on your own instead.
>

The U.S. is certainly more economically liberal but to make the blanket statement that the U.S. is "closer to ideal-typical political liberalism" than continental Europe is incorrect. You are ignoring more than half of the political spectrum. In the U.S we have an entire section of the Justice Dept. searching for reasons to shut down porn sites for religious reasons. We have a president who claims divine providence in his attaining the Oval Office. Politicians claim they believe we are living in End Times and appear to be making policy choices influenced by that belief. Religion pervades the U.S. on a level unthinkable in Europe because it violates "ideal-typical political liberalism" utterly and completely. You conveniently ignore whatever facts violate your preconceptions. As I stated earlier, your criticism of the U.S support my position and undermine yours yet you put them forth as if the opposite were true.


>> Sometimes I wonder why readers seem to project their own prejudices into
>> others writings rather than taking them at face value.
>> I don't give a shit about the size of socialist, christian, muslim, etc.
>> communities. [JT]
>>
>
> In politics, numbers and levels of organization, in both of which US
> socialists are lacking, matter a great deal.
>
> In any case, opposition to religion as such makes no political sense
> in the USA. In the USA, no one is compelled by the government to
> observe any religious customs, unlike in Iran and many other countries
> in the predominantly Islamic world, and no one is compelled by the
> government to refrain from any religious customs, unlike in Turkey,
> France, and so forth. You are free to practice or not to practice any
> religion.
>

Here you go misreading again. My specific claim is that I don't care about the size of these communities with regards to any attempt to dismantle them or convert them to atheism, not that I don't care about them in general. Their size is irrelevant to my opposition to them but their size is exactly the reason I wrote "I can oppose religion and subsume that opposition for strategic reasons when necessary." Were they not significant because of their size I would have no need to subsume my opposition for strategic reasons would I?

In the U.S. one is compelled to observe religious customs if you wish to seek a democratically elected position. In non-elected govt. jobs you can forget any chance at promotion should you let it be known that you oppose all religious doctrines. We even had a President who expressed the belief that atheists should not even be considered citizens. That's some ideal political liberalism we have going here.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list