RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-liberal-in-all-of-us

The Struggle for a Decent Politics: On “Liberal” as an Adjective, by Michael Walzer

A prominent political theorist and longtime editor of the democratic-socialist magazine Dissent, Michael Walzer has been at the center of major intellectual debates and activist movements of the past 60 years. In his latest book, The Struggle for a Decent Politics, Walzer fuses his longstanding interest in pluralism and his decades of activism to craft a narrative of the “liberal” that stresses flexibility, uncertainty, and diversity. Through stories about visiting Israel in the 1950s, organizing against the Vietnam War, and marching against Brexit, Walzer offers a synoptic view of a career of political involvement. And his wider account of the “liberal” illuminates conflicts about politics today, challenging some of the dichotomies of our own polarized moment.

A debate about liberalism broadly understood suffuses contemporary American political life. Some critics of liberalism—perhaps most notably, Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen in Why Liberalism Failed—argue that a liberalism of relentless autonomy has dissolved social bonds and led to an alienated misery. Others insist that liberalism should be defended from an onslaught by post-liberalism, nationalism, populism, and other supposed reactionary terrors.

Rather than conjuring some titanic clash between isms, Walzer offers a more parsimonious account of “liberal” as an adjective. Here, what is liberal is not the product of some grand ideology, nor does it necessarily lead to a single set of conclusions (as ideological narratives often do). Instead, it is marked by ambiguity, toleration, pluralism, and an acceptance of openness. That spirit of generosity is not the same as moral relativism: liberals “oppose every kind of bigotry and cruelty.” But it is marked by some acceptance of difference and an openness to correction. For Walzer, the “liberal” is not an ideology but an accent for an ideology; it is “not who we are but how we are who we are—how we enact our ideological commitments.” The “liberal” is thus compatible with a wide range of ideological orientations, and the course of the book is dedicated to exploring the liberal flavors of different ideologies (all dear to Walzer’s heart): liberal democrats, liberal socialists, liberal nationalists and internationalists, liberal communitarians, liberal feminists, liberal professors and intellectuals, and liberal Jews.

In this sketch of the “liberal” as not ideologically tethered, Walzer taps into a broader tradition. Judith Shklar’s “liberalism of fear,” which he cites as an inspiration, argues that the core of the “liberal” is the avoidance of cruelty. Helena Rosenblatt’s more recent The Lost History of Liberalism also broadens the valence of the concept by attending to diversity and even tensions within different liberal traditions. Walzer does not discount the possibility of liberalism as an ideology; he argues that liberalism in this sense (of free trade, open borders, radical individualism, and so on) has many resonances with contemporary American libertarianism. However, he also hopes to show how “liberal” as an adjective can be compatible with a variety of other traditions and political approaches. The “liberal” supports pluralism in numerous ways.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-left-weaponized-our-legal-system/

Setting: Loudoun County, Virginia, 2021. A girl is sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a self-styled “trans girl” – i.e., a boy. But school administrators are so fiercely devoted to transgender ideology that they cover up the assault – and when the victim’s father, Scott Smith, speaks up at a school-board meeting, he gets tackled by cops. In the wake of this and similar incidents around the country, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) collaborates with Biden White House staffers on a letter to the Justice Department falsely claiming that parents like Smith have been guilty of “malice, violence, and threats against public school officials” and asking the DOJ to deal appropriately with these “domestic terrorists.”

Cruz, who begins his splendid third book, Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, with this story, points out that it’s taken months for the DOJ to answer letters from him – a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But it took only six days for the NSBA letter to result in a memo by Attorney General Merrick Garland promising to act against recalcitrant parents and ordering the FBI and DOJ to investigate them. Thanks to widespread publicity, massive displays of parental outrage, a definitive investigation by the Daily Wire, and a firm grilling of Garland by Cruz himself at a Senate committee hearing, the DOJ backed off. For the moment, anyway.

Such weaponization of executive agencies isn’t new. Cruz tells the story.  The DOJ, founded in 1870 by President Grant to address the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, succeeded eventually in bringing it down. Grant was a Republican and the Klan was overwhelmingly Democratic, but the DOJ’s mission wasn’t political; it operated independently from the White House, and continued to do so under successive administrations. That changed under FDR. Both the DOJ and Edgar Hoover’s FBI (founded in 1908) engaged in extralegal shenanigans on FDR’s orders; FDR also seems to have been the first president to weaponize the IRS (founded in 1913), which he used to target personal enemies as well as New Deal critics such as Huey Long and William Randolph Hearst. Later, JFK not only sicced the DOJ (conveniently led by his brother) on his enemies, but also told the IRS to deny nonprofit status to conservative groups.

Then came Nixon, at whose behest the FBI harassed the likes of John Lennon and Muhammed Ali; in 1975, a committee led by Senator Frank Church uncovered sundry abuses not just by the FBI but also by the CIA and NSA. But during the Nixon years there were also cases of impressive integrity. The IRS, while willing enough to look into Nixon’s enemies, balked at acting against them; indeed, IRS commissioner Donald Alexander eventually halted such investigations altogether, and when Nixon tried to fire Alexander, Treasury Secretary George Schulz threatened to quit. Similarly, when a low-level Nixon aide, with the president’s approval, proposed a joint DOJ, FBI, and CIA operation against presidential enemies, both Hoover and Attorney General John Mitchell said no; later, both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Assistant Attorney General William Ruckelshaus famously quit rather than obey Nixon’s order to dismiss Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. In short, as Cruz puts it, to a remarkable extent “the system worked during the Nixon administration.”