
Sohrab Ahmari and the Price of "Liberalism"
What we lost when we gave up the semantic battle over "classical liberalism."
I will admit to a lifetime of being the Well Akshually Guyāthe one who insists on technical accuracy, particularly in the use of words, beating the rest of you down on the history and etymology of terms that you normies bandy about with casual recklessness.
For most of that time, I have been that particularly annoying and futile version of the Well Akshually Guy known as the āclassical liberal.ā You know us, weāre the fellow in your college dorm who insisted that āliberalā actually means āpro-freedom,ā that the 19th-Century āliberalsā were pro-free-marketers, and that limited government is a far more coherent concept of liberalism than, say, a governmentās willingness to spend $6 trillion dollars (that it doesnāt have).
These corrections have usually been dismissed as pedantic quibbling, as a quixotic attempt to reverse a universally accepted shift in the language, as a misguided fixation on semantics rather than substance.
But maybe this issue is still relevant after all, and the Well Akshually Guys will eventually have our day in the sun.
As evidence, I submit a recent article in the Spectator by the nationalist conservative Sohrab Ahmari in which he proclaims that āTyranny Is the Inevitable Consequence of Liberalism.ā How does he reach that bizarre conclusion? Through precisely the method we classical liberals have been complaining about all these years.
It turns out itās really easy to prove that liberalism leads to tyranny if you simply redefine āliberalismā to refer to tyranny. Ahmari does this right off the bat by describing āclassical liberalsā as fans of the French Revolution.
Liberals disagree over where exactly lies the line dividing the enlightened time and the dark time. āClassicalā liberals tend to mark 1789, whereas āprogressiveā liberalsānoting that much of reality since that watershed year has failed to conform to their own liberal idealāare uncomfortable with anything not from the present or the future.
Letās grant that Ahmari has a history of trollishness and arguing in bad faith, so it might be hard to pin him down on exactly what he means here by ā1789.ā But when you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, and when you hear ā1789,ā you think the French Revolution.
Yet what he is describing hereā1789 being touted by āclassical liberalsā as the great historical watershed for the cause of human libertyāis not a thing that ever happens. Maybe 1787, the year the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Definitely 1776, the year the classical liberal principles of the American Revolution were proclaimed. British classical liberals might cite 1689 and its Glorious Revolution, which cast down the theory of monarchical absolutism. But the French Revolution is universally regarded by classical liberals as a model of what not to do.
I know this, you know this, and Ahmari knows this. But it doesnāt serve his preferred narrative, and that's the whole point of the dodge. It sets up the rest of the article, the basic message of which is that once there was the monarchy and the Churchāand then there was the French Revolution and contemporary āwokeness.ā These are the only two things that have ever happenedāand the only two alternatives. All of the actual history of classical liberalism, from 1689 through 1776 and beyond, is left out because he does not want to grapple with it.
He concludes, āAt some point, the liberal has to admit that the powdered-wig version of his ideologyāāi.e., classical liberalismāācontained in it the seeds of its woke, repressive variety.ā But Ahmari is just asserting that. He never gives a single reason or argument as to why this would be true, because he doesnāt spend a single sentence grappling with the actual ideas or history of classical liberalism. Or its implementation over a period of centuries. Nor does he spare any thought for the actual origins of modern wokeness. Ahmari attributes todayās censorious conformity to the advocates of āāfree thoughtā and āthe marketplace of ideasā.ā But anyone who has ever talked to the woke kids knows that they hate the āmarketplace of ideasā just as much as (and probably more than) they hate every other kind of marketplace.
Contemporary āpolitical correctnessā or āwokenessā comes from Marx and Nietzsche by way of the Postmodernists, not from John Locke or the Founding Fathers. A serious person would feel the need to at least attempt to trace some of that intellectual history and confront the ideological differences.
But like I said, that doesnāt serve the nationalist conservative narrative, which is this:
Given manās inclination to worship, to build altars in the public square, our societies will always enshrine some orthodoxy or other (and, therefore, empower some clerisy or other). The only questions are: which orthodoxy?
In other words, there is no such thing as the limitation of powerāthe actual classical liberal idea. The only question is which faction wields the power. Which, ironically, is exactly the premise of the āwokeā Postmodernists, too.
As for who will wield power, Ahmari recently nominated that great champion of political pluralism and religious liberty . . . China.
Like I said, there's a lot of trolling and bad faith involved here.
What is remarkable is not that Sohrab Ahmari tries to evade the entire history of classical liberalism, including the founding of America. Thatās kind of his shtick. What is remarkable is that he thinks the average conservative reader will simply accept the omission. And judging from the fact that he is being published in a venerable old publication like the Spectatorāand judging from what Iāve seen of the responseāit looks like heās getting away with it.
This is partly a sign of the intellectual decay of conservatism, a mass forgetting of its own intellectual foundations. But it is also a sign of the weakness of those foundations, a weakness centered on the old and seemingly irrelevant argument about the meaning of the word āliberal.ā
This is the price conservatives are paying for long ago giving up on the term "liberal" and agreeing to use it to describe anything on the left, no matter how illiberal it might be. It is the price they are paying for giving up on defining their own philosophy as āliberalāāas a defense of freedomārather than as a mere clinging to tradition.
That decision turns out not to have been merely semantic or terminological, but to have real, substantive consequences.
You may say, as the best conservatives do, that what you are trying to conserve is the American founding and its classical liberal ideas. But the act of couching your outlook as āconservativeā has the effect of shifting your focus toward the preservation of the past as such and draws you into an ideological and political alliance with those for whom the value of liberal principles is secondary at best. It creates a political category that attempts to encompass the souls of both Thomas Jefferson and Archie Bunkerāand ultimately cannot contain both.
Thatās the crackup that is happening right now on the right. Archie Bunker conservatismāthe kind that longs nostalgically for a past in which āguys like us, we had it madeāāis trying to assert itself and views the classical liberals as an obstacle to be cleared out of the way. The easiest way to accomplish that is by defining us out of existence.
When you let these people paint the totalitarian woke left as āliberals,ā think about how much of the glorious history of human freedom this sweeps out of existence. Think about how much you are giving up by abandoning the banner of liberalism to those who donāt deserve it.
The next time this happens, I hope youāll hear my voice in your head, saying, āWell, actuallyā¦.ā