Rabbi Rogson,
Thank you for the thoughtful (beginning of a) response. It might be interesting to pursue a dialogue, as you suggest. One of our other colleagues has already replied, privately and on RAVKAV, essentially putting forth the view that Liberalism may be “Jewish” in theory, but it never works in reality (that is, it pursues the right goals, but never manages to achieve them, and, with the best of intentions, does more harm than good. Would you say that that’s somewhat or fully consonant with your own views, or completely different?
I think you’re right that it’s important to define our terms, but I find that a frustrating exercise. The terms are used quite differently in every setting, so it’s hard to know exactly what we mean by them. I’ll give it a shot. I certainly would include what are probably the core values of liberalism – various freedoms. Freedom from government oppression/authoritarianism, freedom from government imposition of values on individuals, freedom from government imposition of (or establishment of) religion.
From what I can gather, the way that we often talk about Liberalism today is actually meant to mean/include Social Liberalism. My interpretation of that idea is to say that society has qualities which serve as de facto oppression. In other words, no one is actively trying to keep this or that group down, but society and history have conspired, as it were, to the same effect. Therefore, it would be incumbent on society/government to work against those trends. In other words, a lack of active oppression is not enough; we must actively oppose any oppression.
Off the top of my head (with a bit of Wikipedia checking, to get my terms straight), that might serve as a good starting point for defining Liberalism. Freedom from undue government restrictions, and obligation to right societies wrongs.
Do you think that’s a fair start for that definition? Could you offer a parallel definition for Conservatism?
L'Shalom,
No comments:
Post a Comment