It’s been a while since I wrote on the war in Ukraine (recall here; and here). As regular readers know, I don’t think my comparative advantage is in punditry. In what follows it will seem I am engaging in it, but that is really just bait. In a recent (April 13, 2024)
Excellent post NESCIO13. One of the weaknesses of 'liberal' political leadership is that it offers little, beyond participation in the marketplace, to give people a sense of meaning in life.. In this way it accepts rather than challenges the existential emptiness of modernity. https://areomagazine.com/2022/05/05/a-human-hearted-modernity/
So when people feel economic insecurity they're more likely to look at ideologies, however flawed, which offer meaning, like fascism, religion and hyper nationalism. As one of liberalism's problems is its failure to offer an overarching vision of meaning and the the good life, beyond economic concerns. This then feeds into the stresses you identify. In this context World Wars One and Two can be seen as nationalism and other isms offering a meaning based challenge to the existential emptiness of modernity and liberalism. If we don't develop a more inspiring and fulfilling global political ethos and system we may be continuing the same path again. So this definitely is as you note a key challenge for political theory today.
Your analysis echoes Arendt's view on the rise of fascism.
I don't think liberalism is about promoting economic concerns (at the expense of say freedom or moral/forma equality). But I do agree that in the 20th century it is reticent about offering a common account of meaning, and this is a problem for it.
This is overly charitable to Vance and to Trump, for whom he is little more than a microphone. They want Putin to win, and would like to emulate his policies.
And if I understand your terms correctly, right-liberalism (for example, the US Republican Party) is in the process of capitulating to far-right movements of one kind or another, though divided about Putin (roughly, the closer Putin is, the less they like him)
Excellent post NESCIO13. One of the weaknesses of 'liberal' political leadership is that it offers little, beyond participation in the marketplace, to give people a sense of meaning in life.. In this way it accepts rather than challenges the existential emptiness of modernity. https://areomagazine.com/2022/05/05/a-human-hearted-modernity/
So when people feel economic insecurity they're more likely to look at ideologies, however flawed, which offer meaning, like fascism, religion and hyper nationalism. As one of liberalism's problems is its failure to offer an overarching vision of meaning and the the good life, beyond economic concerns. This then feeds into the stresses you identify. In this context World Wars One and Two can be seen as nationalism and other isms offering a meaning based challenge to the existential emptiness of modernity and liberalism. If we don't develop a more inspiring and fulfilling global political ethos and system we may be continuing the same path again. So this definitely is as you note a key challenge for political theory today.
Hi Lyndon,
Your analysis echoes Arendt's view on the rise of fascism.
I don't think liberalism is about promoting economic concerns (at the expense of say freedom or moral/forma equality). But I do agree that in the 20th century it is reticent about offering a common account of meaning, and this is a problem for it.
This is overly charitable to Vance and to Trump, for whom he is little more than a microphone. They want Putin to win, and would like to emulate his policies.
And if I understand your terms correctly, right-liberalism (for example, the US Republican Party) is in the process of capitulating to far-right movements of one kind or another, though divided about Putin (roughly, the closer Putin is, the less they like him)
Here's my analysis from 2019
https://crookedtimber.org/2019/07/05/a-new-two-party-system/