How Liberals Built Western Civilization

Modern Western Civilization has experienced four waves of liberalism. Each is characterized by its focal ideas. Their intellectual descendants can be recognized by these focal ideas like they are genetic markers. All four waves have had their part in the making of modern Western civilization, for good or ill. Primarily it has been good, but there is ill.

These waves are as follows:

The Renaissance
The Protestant Reformation
The Individual Rights Movement among English Speakers (Puritan Revolt)
The French Revolution

Some of these may not seem like “liberalism,” but at the time they were. Each was a major change and each has influence to current times.

Here are the key ideas of each wave…

The Renaissance was the founding event of modern Western Civilization. It’s key idea is not art or literature as typical history books claim. The key idea is that the truth about the observable world is discovered by observing it. That is, data rules, not authorities. Truth is determined by observation and experiment. Experts may be right, but the final arbiter is observed data. And anybody can observe. This is not something only for the elite. Everyone can learn the truth from observation of what happens. This is the basis of technological advancement. And technological advancement is the basis of modern Western Civilization and its strength.

The second wave of liberalism was the Protestant Revolt or Protestant Reformation. This rose out of the first wave. Note that the first wave rejected authority as the final arbiter of truth in the observable world. Extend that to the spiritual world. Note that the first wave went to the original source of fact. As spiritual truth was understood in 1400, the original source was the founding fathers of Christianity, the Christian Apostles and also the Jewish Prophets and Patriarchs. That is, the Bible was all that they had that was solid and observable to represent them, their very own writings. And anybody coud read it.

St. Paul in his epistles was the main source, especially the New Testament Epistle to the Romans. He said that salvation was a gift from the Savior to the individual, who could get it only by freely choosing to accept it. Salvation was not something bestowed by the Church Body upon the Congregational Body. Salvation was arrived at by a free will decision of an individual to believe in the Savior and to choose to accept his salvation.

The third wave of liberalism was the Individual Rights Movement. This movement took place over several hundred years (as did the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation). And it was largely confined to the English speaking world, at least the successful part of it. So it is not usually recognized as an global historical event. It was not global, but its influence was wide. Among the historical events involved are Scotland’s rejection of their Queen Mary, the Puritan Revolution in England, the unsuccessful revolt against James II in England by the Duke of Monmouth, the successful revolt against James II known as the “Glorious Revolution,” and the American Revolution. Yes, strange as it may seem to many people, the Puritans were liberals. In fact, English Puritanism and Scotch John Knox Presbyterianism is the origin of almost all of the ideas that we now think of as liberal. These are the ideas in the United States Bill of Rights. If an individual can choose salvation, then he can choose what to think, say, write, print. He can choose who to associate with. He cannot be compelled to confess to some crime and he cannot be held prisoner without a lawful accusation. And so on. These ideas were largely originated by Puritans, including the right to bear arms.

The final stage of the Individual Rights Movement wave was the American Revolution. This was an inspiration for the fourth wave, the French Revolution. But the French Revolution was different. It was a social class and an economic class revolt. This liberal wave is obsessed with class distinctions. Upper class is bad, lower class is good. To be rich is evil, to be of the Proletariat is to be a hero. The power of the Oppressor can only be beaten if the Oppressed unite together as one totally. The Oppressor is anyone not in the lower class, anyone with money (even the lower middle class). And those who support the Oppressor are also Oppressors. This latter includes the military and the Church. Originally the “Church” was the Catholic Church, which supported the King, the Nobility, and the established order. But eventually it came to be any Christian denomination convenient, and sometimes any religion. This wave can be recognized and separated from the Individual Rights Movement by these characteristics: obsession with class and distinct hostility towards wealth, military, and religion.

The heirs of the Renaissance are Scientists, Engineers, and Technologists. The heirs of the Protestant Reformation are Evangelical Christians, the “Religious Right.” The heirs of the Individual Rights Movement are pretty much the English Speaking World, but particularly the United States: most American conservatives and many American liberals. The heirs of the French Revolution are diverse but include notably European liberals, Third World liberals, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Baathists, Peronists, and the American far left (about 25% of the adult population).

It may seem strange to lump the Fascists and Nazis in with the “left,” but they are intellectual siblings of the left. I will elaborate on this item and all of this when I have more time.

Only the Brave

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book The Peloponnesian War about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C.

I mentioned in an earlier item, that the most memorable described event for me was the Athenian reaction to the Revolt of the Lesbians: kill all the men and sell the women and children as slaves. The next most memorable event was the plight of the Spartans trapped on the island of Sphacteria. The Athenians had managed to trap some 400 Spartans on this small island just barely off the coast of the western Peloponnesus. The Spartans were desperate to rescue them. The Athenians were indignant at the failure of their generals to subdue and capture them. The Athenian demagogue Cleon taunted the Athenian military leaders saying that if he was in charge, he would have the Spartans dead or in chains in a week. Much to his surprise the Athenian voters decided to take him up on this. They voted him in charge.

There were few heavy troops available, so Cleon took light troops with him, archers and javelin throwers. With these he joined up with the heavy troops at the scene. The local commander Demosthenes had recently had a mind expanding experience. He had been in command of a force of heavy troops in rough terrain. He had been attacked by light troops who showered his men with javelins and arrows. His heavy troopers were unable to catch the light troops as they scurried out of the way and others closed in behind them. His force had been decimated.

So Cleon and Demosthenes applied this same idea to the Spartans on the island. They used their own heavy troops and the terrain to protect their light troops. The light troopers swarmed around the Spartan heavy troops, striking with javelins and arrows and then darting away. They tightened a ring around the Spartans and eventually exhausted them. In a hopeless situation, the Spartans surrendered. Spartans never gave up, so this was a shocking victory.

The Spartan prisoners were brought back to Athens. Here Athenian noncombatants could taunt them as though they themselves were great conquerors. They felt that they personally had defeated the Spartans. One Athenian civilian taunted one of the Spartan prisoners as a coward. After all, he had been captured while his brave comrades lay dead on the island. Spartans were famous for their sparse use of speech. The area where they lived was called Laconia. The English word “laconic,” meaning a spare use of words, comes from that. The Spartans were adept at pithy one liners, putting a lot of meaning into few words. The Spartan prisoner replied, “The arrow would truly be a great weapon if it killed only the brave.”

Don’t Need Leaders

I have said before that Conservatives do not need or want leaders. Conservatives already know where the are and what they want. They do not need leaders to take them somewhere else that they are not. Conservatives want spokesmen to articulate the views they already have. If a would-be Conservative leader feels confident enough to try to lead Conservatives to new ground, generally they will balk, revolt, refuse to follow.

Followship is voluntary, not required. A leader cannot compel followers to follow. If no one follows, then he is not a leader. And basically Conservatives just do not have leaders. Frequently Liberals mistake Conservative Spokesmen for being Conservative Leaders. Sometimes popular Conservative spokesmen mistake themselves for Conservative Leaders, too. When they try to lead their "followers" to new ground, they look over their shoulder and no one is following.

President Bush has experienced this on his Immigration views. And it has come home to roost, as the Liberals say, with the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Liberals appear to be a little puzzled by the whole thing. Liberals tend to give their leaders overwhelming devoted support. For them, something doesn't add up here. The sheep aren't sheep. Who are the sheep?

Blame Those Who Wish to Serve

I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C. Thucydides fills his book with speeches purportedly given by people arguing one way or another. He admits that these are not their exact words but are the gist of their position. To construct these speeches, it appears that Thucydides is drawing on the body of ancient Greek proverbs, common wisdom, and cliché arguments. He piles these together in a speech for one side of the argument, then puts the opposite ones together for the other argument.

However, many of the quoted proverbs he used are pretty good, or at least thought provoking. Since he generally gives both sides of the argument, they often express opposite sentiments. Since human nature has not changed in 2400 years, many are not much different from what one hears today. Some are not heard today, but maybe they should be. Here are some of Thucydides’ sound bites from the middle of his book.

My favorite,:
I do not blame them for wanting to rule, I blame those who wish to serve.
[spoken to Sicilians, some of whom were submitting to the Athenians, others allying with them, which amounted to the same thing]

Mutual fear is the only firm basis of an alliance.

What can be more detestable than constantly changing our minds?

A nation whose laws are flawed but inviolable is better off than one whose laws are good but unenforced.

Simple persons make better citizens that brilliant ones.

When there are speeches, you use your eyes, but when action is needed, you use your ears.

Men despise those who flatter them but respect those who stand up to them.

If you impose the same penalty on those who willfully rebel and those who are forced to cooperate with the enemy, who will not revolt for any trivial reason?

Mercy should be reserved for the merciful and not thrown away on those who would have no compassion for us if conditions were reversed.

Forgiveness should be given to those who will be our friends after we are reconciled, not to those who will remain our enemies and hate us nonetheless.

If they were right in revolting, then you must be wrong in ruling.

The two worst things for making the right decision are haste and emotion.

When someone gives you a great benefit, you suspect that somehow he has gained more than he has given.

The question should not be what have they done and what do they deserve, but instead, what is our best interest?

We should be concerned not with the present but with the future.

Poverty leads to necessity and daring; wealth leads to pride and arrogance.

Do not hope to find safety in the severity of your laws but only in the vigilance of their execution.

It is better to suffer a wrong willingly than to punish those whom it is in our better interest to spare.

If we are enemies, then we have not wronged you by defending ourselves; if you think we were your friends, then it is you who have attacked us, and we are not to blame.

If you act wrongly and lead your associates into evil, then it is the leaders who are to blame, not the followers.

It is not ingratitude to refuse to return a kindness, however justly deserved, if it can only be done by committing a crime.

War is a hard master and tends to join men’s character with their condition.

The cause of all these evils was the love of power.

They were animated by a passionate desire for their neighbor’s goods.

I am Not Alone

I was pleasantly surprised to see attention on a new book about the Peloponesian War. It is "A War Like No Other" by Victor Hanson. I am continuing re-reading a translation of Thucydides book “The Peloponnesian War” about the 27 year war between Athens and Sparta back in the fifth century B.C. This is the original book about the Peloponesian War, written by a witness and participant 2400 years ago.

It is proper that there should be renewed interest in this period. For one thing, it is fascinating. But besides that, it is very relevant. How could 2400 year old history be relevant today? Consider this. Today’s national political situation is that of a more or less democratic republic, a government that to some extent responds to popular opinion. Furthermore, there are many other political states out there interacting with us. And a good number of them, at least the most important ones, are also more or less democratic republics, or some semblance of such.

Now as they say, we need to learn from history. But when have these conditions been the norm in the past? Well, it’s been like this for the past 50 years, less so for the 50 years before that, even less before that, and nonexistent before that, for a long time. The last time such conditions were even close before the modern era was during the period of Roman expansion. And then, monarchies and dictators and such were a bigger component than today, more like earlier in the early 20th century and just before. The last time conditions like today were really common was the fifth century BC and perhaps a bit afterwards, eventually merging into the Roman period.

This was the Age of Pericles, Aristophanes, Socrates, Sophocles, Plato, and the like, and the age of the Peloponesian War. These were not a bunch of ignorant primitive or backward people. Thucydides puts speeches in the mouths of many of his characters explaining their reasons, trying to sway people to their point of view. And their logic is pretty modern. Except that they fought with pointed sticks and long knives and ships that rammed each other, they were much like us.

Liberal Leaders and Conservative Spokesmen

Liberals often ridicule the lousy leaders produced by Conservatives and point to the outstanding Liberal leaders as an example of their superior intellect. It is absolutely true that Liberals produce better leaders than Conservatives, but it has nothing to do with intellect.

As I pointed out in earlier postings, Liberals are intrinsically divided into interest groups and exist as a potent force only if they join together in a coalition. This is because by definition, Liberals are people who want to change things because they are unhappy with the way they are now. By the Anna Karenina Principle (explained by Jarod Diamond in his extraordinary book, Guns, Germs, and Steel) there are all kinds of ways for people to be unhappy, hence the natural divisions among Liberals.

Liberals need leaders. They want to go somewhere. They want to change. Liberals need leaders to focus and direct them to achieve this change.

Since Liberals are divided, they need leaders who can unite them. Each Liberal interest group needs leaders to drive their interests, but Liberals as a group need sort of super-leaders to coalesce the disparate interests groups into a single powerful party group that can get political power. Otherwise, they will amount to little. Without and overall leader, they will expend as much or more energy competing with one another as with pushing their agenda.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Liberals need leaders; therefore, they will produce them. And they produce good ones, and lots of them. By “good” ones, I mean, effective, successful, not necessarily morally good. Look at good or great leaders currently or throughout history. Nearly always they are Liberals. Not necessarily Liberals by the modern day list of issues and position, but Liberals in the definitional sense, they are leading change to the system. It is virtually a tautology.

Conservatives are quite different. Conservatives are people who are more or less happy and satisfied with the current structure and functioning of their society. They don’t want to change it, they want to preserve it and benefit from it as it is. They don’t want to go anywhere. They don’t need or want leaders.

In fact, in general, Conservatives don’t even like leaders, although they make claims to the contrary. Remember what leaders do, they lead. They lead you somewhere different from where you are. Conservatives are happy where they are. They are more or less satisfied with where they are. They do not need someone to take them somewhere else. As it turns out, if someone purports to be their “leader” tries to take them somewhere else, they balk. They reject the leader. They abandon him as followers.

What Conservatives want are not leaders but spokesmen. Conservatives want someone who will articulate their point of view well and make their case. This is something Liberals often fail to realize. Conservatives already know their views and opinions, their position on issues. They want someone who will express these views articulately and will give good explanations and justifications for them. They are not interested in someone telling them what to believe. When Liberals hear some Conservative “leader” like Rush Limbaugh express Conservative views and then find Conservatives adhere to those views, they mistakenly think that the Conservatives are “getting their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh.” Not so, it is the other way around. Rush Limbaugh is getting his orders from them, in a sense. He is merely articulating very well their position. If Rush Limbaugh were to try to lead Conservatives to new points of view, they would abandon him.

Look at President George Bush’s attempts to lead Conservatives in different directions away from where they already stand. It hasn’t worked on immigration or any other such issue. However, they rally to him when he espouses their views.

Liberals on the other hand, do need someone to tell them where to go, what to believe. Being unhappy is not enough to clearly know what you want. Neither is wanting to change. Liberals need leaders to coalesce and direct their views and agenda. Furthermore, since Liberals as a group are a coalition, they are full of disparate and contradictory opinions. They need someone to somehow suppress all this and give them a clear vision. Such people are ready at hand. There are many volunteers. The best of them rise to the top. Thus Liberals have outstanding leaders, and lots of them