Last year, I found myself browsing abebooks in the days before Christmas and came across a text now largely forgotten: Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.
It was by the late jurist Robert Bork—still probably best known for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court. Bork’s mission in this book is to explain how a degrading popular culture came about, which he lays firmly at the door of modern liberalism in all its egalitarian showiness and vapidity. His criticisms are biting to say the least. Here everyone, and everything, gets it in the neck. For this reason Bork’s sweeping narrative is exhilarating in places (no more so than in his assessment of the student movements of the late 60s and early 70s) and bitter and blustering in others (see anything related to the judicial system). Some parts are almost comical. In one chapter Bork recalls evaluating the sociological significance of a nude woman gyrating on television.
However, Bork’s work should not simply be categorized as merely a rant, a diatribe on the consequences of poorly considered socio-political policy and the negative side-effects this has on wider culture. At its heart, the book is a serious reflection on the idea of liberalism itself—an idea that, as Bork sees it, caused the vices of yesterday to morph into the virtues of tomorrow. Offering to define liberalism succinctly, Bork calls it the belief that taboos are made to be, and must be, broken for the sake of ‘progress’; whatever this happens to be at any given time. This, Bork adds, is why the attitudes of modern day liberal have little in common with the liberals of decades gone by. Admittedly, it is hard to imagine someone like Woodrow Wilson unfurling the rainbow flag.
This summary also demonstrates a depression aspect of the linear, Whiggish view of history. Nothing is timeless. There is no wisdom in ‘going backwards.’ What is done is done and the only real taboo is traditional values and perspectives. It is these passages that the reader is perhaps most likely to dwell on and the student of intellectual history will find the most illuminating. Bork’s definition leads the reader to ask a few questions: what are the next taboos to be broken? What is the next cause celebre? The next value to deconstruct?
It seems that in modern politics there are two camps that form with every bellwether issue. The first are the self-described enlightened proponents of change and the second are the Neanderthal bigots who, for reasons known only to themselves, do not appreciate nice things. It is easy to find this trope through pundits in the media, but to witness it in front of you is something else entirely.
During my university days a friend and I were enjoying a night out in the days before the start of the new academic year. My friend spoke with one of his friends and somehow the conversation turned to politics, specifically gay marriage. My friend expressed moderate doubts. This did not go down well. The girl he was having the conversation with responded by pressing her hands against her ears and announced, in an unnaturally loud voice, that she would not be speaking to him any longer. She repeated this action to make sure everyone understood how offended she was.
That the topic of debate was gay marriage is practically an irrelevance. The same dynamic will come up again for the next special interest issue. And the modern world has no shortage of fringe movements clawing for mainstream approval. There are the transgender, the transracial, the ‘otherkin’ (you don’t want to know), the hebephiles, and so on. These are currently regarded as either weird or morally perverse, possibly both. In the future that might not matter. At this point I may sound as If I am wading into a slippery slope argument, but my contention is not that these movement will necessarily succeed, it is that the debate for and against will be characterized in the same way.
The progressive-regressive schism, through which new ideas continue to be screened, does not show any signs of slowing down. And why should it? No matter how lukewarm or disapproving the feelings of those confronted by the latest faddish campaign, they will be tempted to withdraw their objections by the social pressure of being unpopular. That’s the tragedy of contemporary debate. The side fighting for ‘progress’ does not have to win deservingly. All that matters is the human desire to stand with the cool people, or risk exclusion. The electioneers know this even if they will not admit it. It’s why any serious election candidate reaches for celebrity endorsements. They want to bask in the warm glow of the A-listers. Change, after all, is rarely driven by the moral majority, but more often a vociferous minority willing to stigmatize those who fail to fall in line.
The post Bork On Liberalism appeared first on Social Matter.