It will probably discredit me in the minds of some, but I have to admit that I read Russell Kirk’s (1953) The Conservative Mind with a great deal of guilty pleasure, and admiration. Some time I would like to return to his defense of the liberal arts in the service of the cultivation of a natural aristocracy. But today I explore what
I don't really follow this, largely because I'm not sure how "liberalism" is being used here. "Liberal imperialism" seems like a coincidence specific to the mid-C20 US, when there was a bipartisan consensus supporting modestly social-democratic ("liberal" in the US sense of the term) and Cold War military and foreign policy. That was all gone by 1970, by which time US liberals were almost uniformly opposed to the Vietnam War, and the neoliberal (global sense) reaction against social democracy was beginning.
Hi John I warmly recommend *Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France* by Jennifer Pitts which shows it's already a nineteenth century phenomenon (despite cobden and bright). US Liberals have never really decisively turned against empire (despite the 1970s revulsion over Vietnam).
"Decisively" doing a fair bit of work there, I think, along with more ambiguity about who counts as "liberal".
The Clinton wing of the Democrats were certainly humanitarian imperialists, but they were also, by their own definition, neoliberal in the US sense of the term (roughly, Blairite Third Way). AFAICT, the liberal (traditional US sense) wing of the Democrats mostly voted against the Iraq War. Certainly, they supplied most of the Nay votes.
Yes pitts is very good on Mill. Even among progressive liberalism there is no groundswell for imperial retreat. Yes there are progressives who are antimilitaristic and during the Iraq invasion their numbers swelled. But why think they represent the main liberal current right now (re Ukraine)
In this context, "imperial retreat" means Russian Empire withdrawal from former colony it has sought to reconquer. The comparison with Peter the Great is Putin's own, not a liberal construct.
The progressive position so far has been "achieve this goal with as little challenge to Russia as possible" (no use of Western-provided weapons against Russia itself, no troops to Ukraine, no NATO membership before a peace settlement etc). That's been stretched further and further by Putin, not by the West.
John, I am not interested in relitigating the Ukraine war, on which I have been very clear. But US liberalism (left and neoliberal) has simply not retreated from empire, or foreign interventions, or Nato or bases around the world (including treaties with your own country). So I have no idea what you are trying to claim here.
I hadn't followed your position on Ukraine: agree we should leave that alone.
I'm trying to draw a distinction between the claim that the US is characterised by a specifically liberal version of imperialism (against which conservatives might react, as Kirk implied), and the much weaker claim that US liberals haven't offered wholehearted resistance to conservative/rightwing US imperialism. I agree with the second but not the first.
I don't really follow this, largely because I'm not sure how "liberalism" is being used here. "Liberal imperialism" seems like a coincidence specific to the mid-C20 US, when there was a bipartisan consensus supporting modestly social-democratic ("liberal" in the US sense of the term) and Cold War military and foreign policy. That was all gone by 1970, by which time US liberals were almost uniformly opposed to the Vietnam War, and the neoliberal (global sense) reaction against social democracy was beginning.
Hi John I warmly recommend *Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France* by Jennifer Pitts which shows it's already a nineteenth century phenomenon (despite cobden and bright). US Liberals have never really decisively turned against empire (despite the 1970s revulsion over Vietnam).
"Decisively" doing a fair bit of work there, I think, along with more ambiguity about who counts as "liberal".
The Clinton wing of the Democrats were certainly humanitarian imperialists, but they were also, by their own definition, neoliberal in the US sense of the term (roughly, Blairite Third Way). AFAICT, the liberal (traditional US sense) wing of the Democrats mostly voted against the Iraq War. Certainly, they supplied most of the Nay votes.
Does Pitts cover JS Mill?
Yes pitts is very good on Mill. Even among progressive liberalism there is no groundswell for imperial retreat. Yes there are progressives who are antimilitaristic and during the Iraq invasion their numbers swelled. But why think they represent the main liberal current right now (re Ukraine)
In this context, "imperial retreat" means Russian Empire withdrawal from former colony it has sought to reconquer. The comparison with Peter the Great is Putin's own, not a liberal construct.
The progressive position so far has been "achieve this goal with as little challenge to Russia as possible" (no use of Western-provided weapons against Russia itself, no troops to Ukraine, no NATO membership before a peace settlement etc). That's been stretched further and further by Putin, not by the West.
John, I am not interested in relitigating the Ukraine war, on which I have been very clear. But US liberalism (left and neoliberal) has simply not retreated from empire, or foreign interventions, or Nato or bases around the world (including treaties with your own country). So I have no idea what you are trying to claim here.
I hadn't followed your position on Ukraine: agree we should leave that alone.
I'm trying to draw a distinction between the claim that the US is characterised by a specifically liberal version of imperialism (against which conservatives might react, as Kirk implied), and the much weaker claim that US liberals haven't offered wholehearted resistance to conservative/rightwing US imperialism. I agree with the second but not the first.