In Your Heart

At times, “Liberal” seems like more of a pejorative than an actual ideology with proponents, as both ends of the horseshoe decry their enemies as liberals but define it in a variety of ways.

I don’t put a huge amount of stock into dictionary definitions of political movements, because people are particularly prone to being dishonest on these topics, intentionally or unintentionally.

"Liberalism" can be expressed as a traditional political ideology: our motifs are the (somewhat muddled) construction of human rights, the decentralization and democratization of the state, and the empowerment of private production to furnish the necessities of living. Liberalism in governments can run a fairly wide ideological spectrum, from Nordic-style social democracies to the Burkean social conservatism and Thatcherite economics of yesteryear's GOP, and traces most of its philosophical grounding back to the often-spirited debates of the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment, probably most centrally in the writings of John Locke. Some will find this ideology compelling and valuable; many will not.

But to read liberalism as "merely" one political ideology among many is to ignore what makes it most interesting! One of the coolest features of liberalism is that it is, unambiguously, the second-best ideology.

If you're quite sure you're going to win your political battles in an enduring sense, and achieve functional control over your society on behalf of your chosen way of life, then you don't worry so much about the second-best ideology. But all the enemies you subjugate along the way will be doing that calculus. They will notice that a liberal victory offers them the consolation of self-determination, rather than total catastrophe and violent repression.

And, just as powerfully, it's common knowledge that every ideology would prefer liberalism over your victory, no matter what their own doctrines are. Even in the absence of a large number of ardent liberals (and we were never all that popular), liberalism becomes a binding force among the dispossessed, a basis for cooperation in an otherwise zero-sum game. The net result is, when political minorities are on the outs, they often squawk and talk like liberals, even if they have deeper and prior philosophical commitments. And the net result is, to maintain power, it's not enough to be the strongest. A particular illiberal ideology must be stronger than all of its opponents acting in concert.

At most, all that the leaders concerned can hope for is that the war will eventually lead to mutual exhaustion, resulting not in a stable peace but the kind of precarious, repeatedly violated ceasefire that has existed in Kashmir since 1948, or in eastern Ukraine between 2015 and 2022. It is hard to see how any sensible person could believe that such an outcome would be in the interests of Europe or Ukraine. Among other things, it would make future Ukrainian accession to the EU impossible – which it may be in any case, given the difficulties this would cause for several key EU members. Poland and other East European states would have to give up the subsidies that they still receive from Brussels and Western Europe so that these could be reallocated to Ukrainian development; farmers across Europe (most importantly in France) would see a radical restructuring of the Common Agricultural Policy, leaving many of them facing ruin.

I feel that Anatol Lieven is not addressing the crucial question here, when the Ukraine war "ends", what ensures that it does not shortly resume? The question of security guarantees as a part of the peace deal is something I see often noted in other discussion but as I think Lieven implies that is viewed as unacceptable by Russia, which I think I would agree with him on. The permanent shaky ceasefire here is not pleasant but it also seems inevitable barring total Russian or Ukranian victory, which as you note is not on the cards except by the beliefs of some painfully deluded nationalists.

Anatol LIeven, it is time for you to learn the true lesson of the current day.

Now if the result of this is that we just don’t let people in at all, I agree with you that that’s worse. Allowing in guest workers is a compromise middle-ground position between immigration restrictionists and immigration liberals. And if the result of refusing that compromise is that the restrictionists win, then sure, taking the compromise is better.

see now this goes too far the other direction. if they'd thought about their ideas they wouldn't be the stupid kind of conservative, now would they.

B: but how will that help anyone?

A: you really dont fucking get it, do you, you selfish asshole: real ppl are literally dying in excruciating agony!! do you need me to draw a picture for you? its as bad as it gets, smth you perhaps dont appreciate while insulated in yr comfortable little bubble. this isnt some sort of abstract debate club proposition except for you, for them its real life. now get with the palm slices, chop chop!