The one thing I was curious about with this and one of your recent essays is how your analysis influences your personal values. Like you, I am persuaded that the liberal order and human rights institutions are crumbling.
However, the standards by which I mourn the decline of liberalism remain informed by human rights values - even if they were a fad for the powerful, are they still worth fighting for? Or do we accept defeat and retreat into the realist nationalism and competing civilisations you describe?
I think for now we should continue to endorse the noble lie about liberal values and at least pay lip service to them. We should get as much juice out of this concept as we can since it was indeed a good one, but not take it too seriously such that it puts us in a position where we are harming ourselves.
This is a highly delusional account of what Turkey was before the AKP and the AKP’s alliance with liberals.
Before AKP got elected for national government, Turkey was a place where if the Sunni mobs got pissed off at something, they would go find Alevi groups to burn alive (literally, repeatedly) or if the military could not solve an insurgency, they would resort to burying civilian Kurds in barrels of acid (literally, repeatedly). So called “secular” Turkey only existed for a few decades until the 1950s, after which Turkey was basically a muslim populist country.
The differences with a place like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran, due partly to Turkey’s organic European identity going back to the Ottomans and before, were attributed to “secularism” whereas it was much more explainable by attributing them to the indigenous understanding of Islam in Turkey and Anatolia.
The first decade of AKP rule was the high point of “liberalism” in Turkey and practically the only time “liberalism” came at all close to power.
I think liberalism has had many failures in recent memory, both domestically in terms of how globalization was structured and increasingly modified through regulatory capture and legalized corruption to only benefit the top 1%, as well as it's failures to address international crises ranging from the Rwanda genocide, to Myanmar, to Gaza, etc. But I think the ideal underpinning the creation of the liberal order cannot be fully cast aside - namely the need for a system to try to reduce the liklihood of unleashing the incredible destruction and suffering that resulted from applying traditional human tribalism (nationalism) with the destructive power of even early 20th century technology that was experienced in two World Wars.
The nature of human civilization has been fundamentally reshaped in recent decades by technology in the form of instanteous global communication through the internet, AI, hypersonic missiles, as well as the low barriers to entry for any reasonably developed country to obtain nuclear weapons. With increasing amounts of autonomous delivery systems for nukes, the speed at which these weapons can be delivered, and automation / AI augmentation of early warning systems - it is madness to return to a nationalistic Victorian-type era even if doing so aligns more closely with our evolutionary temperament as humans.
Hopefully we will see a new counterveiling ideology arise from the ashes of liberalism to challenge today's militaristic nationalism.
You also talk about the “hegemonic national cult of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which seemed to have a fanatical hold on his fellow citizens” but don’t define what about the reverence people in Turkey have for the founder of their country is cult like or fanatical.
How many people have been killed or lynched by Ataturk “fanatics”, compared to, say, by Islamists of either Sunni or Shia leanings? How many anti Ataturk people have been hanged by the supposed “fanatics”? (Answer: zero )
Perhaps it’s because you hail from Pakistan, a thoroughly failed state with nothing to be proud of and where people are routinely lynched to death by mobs based on mere rumors of disrespect for this or that religious figure, that you conflate fanaticism with righteous reverence for a founding leader.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay, this is why I follow you here and on Twitter. I feel like I have to at least try an attempt to defend the rump of the liberal order and its future prospects:
I think one can exaggerate the scope, depth and length of the liberal epoch in international affairs. While it had its origins post WWII, Cold War realpolitik and conditions across much of the postcolonial world mostly limited the scope of the "rules based liberal international order" and even liberal trade relations to the developed core within the US led west.
The full on deep "HR, IHL, R2P and UN global governance" liberal order was very much a product of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the American unipolar moment and arguably only lasted 10-15 years in its most pure form. It bears noting that the US, along with its core allies in the West (and Japan) controlled the vast majority of global economic output, high technology and military power when that period began. And so it was in the marketplace of ideas. Even then, the structural conditions of international affairs in an anarchic environment were still in the background. Human rights outrages, wars, genocides and abuses still occurred. Ironically, the state that the core of that order ultimately served to critically undermine it with its actions following 9/11 and now under Trump is effectively burying its (in my view, highly successful and advantageous) creation.
Liberalism as an ideology or way of life definitely informs international affairs, and has since its early days (for example, Kantian democratic peace theory). But this is the weakest part of liberal ideology. At its core, when applied most comprehensively, it is a domestic facing ideology or way of life, that seeks to secure harmony, good governance, fairness and flourishing at home (particularly within pluralistic societies) and as an attitude for relations with your neighbours and countrymen. In this way I very much agree with Adam Gopnik's framing in "A Thousand Small Sanities". Liberalism evolved contextually out of particular conditions in Western Europe and before the contemporary era was only entrenched (partially) in very few regions or fields within certain states.
Now, arguably while it is threatened in some ways in some places (most disturbingly in the United States), it remains hegemonic or at least dominant in the cultural West (Europe, the Americas and the Oceanic offshoots) and probably Japan / SK. I think the Trumpian challenge will burn itself out, or at least will not critically weaken liberalism in the USA - even if it makes the US politically more akin to a Brazil, Argentina or Mexico, than a UK or Canada. I think this large rump of cultural, political and institutional liberalism will remain for a while because the forces of modernization that nearly destroyed liberalism in parts of Europe and elsewhere in the early 20th century have now been unleashed in the rapidly developing regions of Asia, without (yet) the concomitant catastrophes that followed. Perhaps those will be avoided or limited and we will live in a future of Neo-Ottomanism, Hindutva and a Neo-Confucian Chinese Imperium etc., where harsh nationalisms and chauvinisms will coexist with economic modernity. But I am not so sure, I think most humans demand respect and recognition and want to live in peace. These ideologies and ways of life previously mentioned seek control and domination at home and abroad and will in the end create instability and possibly lead to catastrophe. And from that, may spring some form of liberalism anew.
It's not so much that liberalism is dead, it more that that old ways never really left. Not just in politics but also in culture and society. Liberal ideologies have done a lot to prop up modern slavery and the attitudes that facilitate this. Liberal ideologies have been brilliant at perpetuating misogyny and attitudes to disability the list is endless. If it's dressed up as secular rationality it was ok. I'll miss Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.
The problem with Illiberalism today is always about Human Capital.
The Turkish Islamist's position about the death of Liberalism is correct and right? Probably.
But until Liberalism is the ideology of high IQ and Human Capital, class divisions based on culture can only enhance themselves.
The only strategy that the Right could theoretically use is probably Anti-Feminism, in order to smash both the hyper-liberal young women vote and promise something more to the young men block. But this is highly hypotetical and probably would be unsuccessfull.
What made you a liberal, in action and not just in belief, before now? Just curious how we all think about these things. Would it be having the character and behavior of an individualist, owning private property, limiting government’s authority over our perceived natural rights? I know you’re Canadian; so, don’t know if you are a US citizen registered to vote in the US, etc. Is being a liberal just something we imagine in our mind’s belief and decide whether to disbelieve it at some point? Furthermore, how is liberalism dead if Western Europe and North America still enact it as a political and social culture, like in the way that communism forges on and flourishes in China (in you mentioned the absurdity of communist notions after the Soviet Union)? I know you mean global liberal institutions that reflect project American influence and power; but still. Thanks! Always great to ponder over your writings.
Great Qs. Yeah I became American some time back officially and started voting etc. I think it’s not “dead” in the sense it’s disappeared but it peaked and is in terminal decline. I’d say I was a classical liberal in the sense I was very invested in defending people’s speech rights even if I disagreed with them, that sort of thing …
I wish I could disagree.
So, we’re not at the “End of History” but rather in one of the “Friday the 13th” horror sequels
I feel like there should be a way to agree and maintain optimism.
It’s tiger riding all the way down
You dare to speak the truth.
Thank you.
The one thing I was curious about with this and one of your recent essays is how your analysis influences your personal values. Like you, I am persuaded that the liberal order and human rights institutions are crumbling.
However, the standards by which I mourn the decline of liberalism remain informed by human rights values - even if they were a fad for the powerful, are they still worth fighting for? Or do we accept defeat and retreat into the realist nationalism and competing civilisations you describe?
I think for now we should continue to endorse the noble lie about liberal values and at least pay lip service to them. We should get as much juice out of this concept as we can since it was indeed a good one, but not take it too seriously such that it puts us in a position where we are harming ourselves.
I don’t want to believe this. Death of liberalism is a nightmare scenario.
yeah especially sucks if you're a minority
This is a highly delusional account of what Turkey was before the AKP and the AKP’s alliance with liberals.
Before AKP got elected for national government, Turkey was a place where if the Sunni mobs got pissed off at something, they would go find Alevi groups to burn alive (literally, repeatedly) or if the military could not solve an insurgency, they would resort to burying civilian Kurds in barrels of acid (literally, repeatedly). So called “secular” Turkey only existed for a few decades until the 1950s, after which Turkey was basically a muslim populist country.
The differences with a place like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran, due partly to Turkey’s organic European identity going back to the Ottomans and before, were attributed to “secularism” whereas it was much more explainable by attributing them to the indigenous understanding of Islam in Turkey and Anatolia.
The first decade of AKP rule was the high point of “liberalism” in Turkey and practically the only time “liberalism” came at all close to power.
I think liberalism has had many failures in recent memory, both domestically in terms of how globalization was structured and increasingly modified through regulatory capture and legalized corruption to only benefit the top 1%, as well as it's failures to address international crises ranging from the Rwanda genocide, to Myanmar, to Gaza, etc. But I think the ideal underpinning the creation of the liberal order cannot be fully cast aside - namely the need for a system to try to reduce the liklihood of unleashing the incredible destruction and suffering that resulted from applying traditional human tribalism (nationalism) with the destructive power of even early 20th century technology that was experienced in two World Wars.
The nature of human civilization has been fundamentally reshaped in recent decades by technology in the form of instanteous global communication through the internet, AI, hypersonic missiles, as well as the low barriers to entry for any reasonably developed country to obtain nuclear weapons. With increasing amounts of autonomous delivery systems for nukes, the speed at which these weapons can be delivered, and automation / AI augmentation of early warning systems - it is madness to return to a nationalistic Victorian-type era even if doing so aligns more closely with our evolutionary temperament as humans.
Hopefully we will see a new counterveiling ideology arise from the ashes of liberalism to challenge today's militaristic nationalism.
You also talk about the “hegemonic national cult of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which seemed to have a fanatical hold on his fellow citizens” but don’t define what about the reverence people in Turkey have for the founder of their country is cult like or fanatical.
How many people have been killed or lynched by Ataturk “fanatics”, compared to, say, by Islamists of either Sunni or Shia leanings? How many anti Ataturk people have been hanged by the supposed “fanatics”? (Answer: zero )
Perhaps it’s because you hail from Pakistan, a thoroughly failed state with nothing to be proud of and where people are routinely lynched to death by mobs based on mere rumors of disrespect for this or that religious figure, that you conflate fanaticism with righteous reverence for a founding leader.
Thank you for this thoughtful essay, this is why I follow you here and on Twitter. I feel like I have to at least try an attempt to defend the rump of the liberal order and its future prospects:
I think one can exaggerate the scope, depth and length of the liberal epoch in international affairs. While it had its origins post WWII, Cold War realpolitik and conditions across much of the postcolonial world mostly limited the scope of the "rules based liberal international order" and even liberal trade relations to the developed core within the US led west.
The full on deep "HR, IHL, R2P and UN global governance" liberal order was very much a product of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the American unipolar moment and arguably only lasted 10-15 years in its most pure form. It bears noting that the US, along with its core allies in the West (and Japan) controlled the vast majority of global economic output, high technology and military power when that period began. And so it was in the marketplace of ideas. Even then, the structural conditions of international affairs in an anarchic environment were still in the background. Human rights outrages, wars, genocides and abuses still occurred. Ironically, the state that the core of that order ultimately served to critically undermine it with its actions following 9/11 and now under Trump is effectively burying its (in my view, highly successful and advantageous) creation.
Liberalism as an ideology or way of life definitely informs international affairs, and has since its early days (for example, Kantian democratic peace theory). But this is the weakest part of liberal ideology. At its core, when applied most comprehensively, it is a domestic facing ideology or way of life, that seeks to secure harmony, good governance, fairness and flourishing at home (particularly within pluralistic societies) and as an attitude for relations with your neighbours and countrymen. In this way I very much agree with Adam Gopnik's framing in "A Thousand Small Sanities". Liberalism evolved contextually out of particular conditions in Western Europe and before the contemporary era was only entrenched (partially) in very few regions or fields within certain states.
Now, arguably while it is threatened in some ways in some places (most disturbingly in the United States), it remains hegemonic or at least dominant in the cultural West (Europe, the Americas and the Oceanic offshoots) and probably Japan / SK. I think the Trumpian challenge will burn itself out, or at least will not critically weaken liberalism in the USA - even if it makes the US politically more akin to a Brazil, Argentina or Mexico, than a UK or Canada. I think this large rump of cultural, political and institutional liberalism will remain for a while because the forces of modernization that nearly destroyed liberalism in parts of Europe and elsewhere in the early 20th century have now been unleashed in the rapidly developing regions of Asia, without (yet) the concomitant catastrophes that followed. Perhaps those will be avoided or limited and we will live in a future of Neo-Ottomanism, Hindutva and a Neo-Confucian Chinese Imperium etc., where harsh nationalisms and chauvinisms will coexist with economic modernity. But I am not so sure, I think most humans demand respect and recognition and want to live in peace. These ideologies and ways of life previously mentioned seek control and domination at home and abroad and will in the end create instability and possibly lead to catastrophe. And from that, may spring some form of liberalism anew.
It's not so much that liberalism is dead, it more that that old ways never really left. Not just in politics but also in culture and society. Liberal ideologies have done a lot to prop up modern slavery and the attitudes that facilitate this. Liberal ideologies have been brilliant at perpetuating misogyny and attitudes to disability the list is endless. If it's dressed up as secular rationality it was ok. I'll miss Captain Kirk and Mr Spock.
Perfect timing to write this, Pakistan just showed this yet again
The problem with Illiberalism today is always about Human Capital.
The Turkish Islamist's position about the death of Liberalism is correct and right? Probably.
But until Liberalism is the ideology of high IQ and Human Capital, class divisions based on culture can only enhance themselves.
The only strategy that the Right could theoretically use is probably Anti-Feminism, in order to smash both the hyper-liberal young women vote and promise something more to the young men block. But this is highly hypotetical and probably would be unsuccessfull.
What made you a liberal, in action and not just in belief, before now? Just curious how we all think about these things. Would it be having the character and behavior of an individualist, owning private property, limiting government’s authority over our perceived natural rights? I know you’re Canadian; so, don’t know if you are a US citizen registered to vote in the US, etc. Is being a liberal just something we imagine in our mind’s belief and decide whether to disbelieve it at some point? Furthermore, how is liberalism dead if Western Europe and North America still enact it as a political and social culture, like in the way that communism forges on and flourishes in China (in you mentioned the absurdity of communist notions after the Soviet Union)? I know you mean global liberal institutions that reflect project American influence and power; but still. Thanks! Always great to ponder over your writings.
Great Qs. Yeah I became American some time back officially and started voting etc. I think it’s not “dead” in the sense it’s disappeared but it peaked and is in terminal decline. I’d say I was a classical liberal in the sense I was very invested in defending people’s speech rights even if I disagreed with them, that sort of thing …