Letters to the Editor
-
'Positive Liberty' at Heart of Radical Definitions of Liberty
Great catch on this one. If I can amplify on this point (I'm a specialist in 19th century Russian radicalism), let me say that the definition of liberty as a state of fulfillment, rather than as a lack of constraint--'positive' rather than 'negative' liberty--lies at the heart of radical movements in modern history.
Lenin, for example, routinely denounced parliaments as a charade, in as much as 'mere political liberty' was pointless (he claimed), as long as the working class could not seek fulfillment, given the 'objective' class structure of society.
Now, up to a point, I think, even non-radicals would agree that you need some sort of material, etc., security to be free. To the extent that terror (or want) suppresses one's ability to act, it's clearly an oppression and constraint.
But what characterizes the neo-conservative (and 19th century extreme, Bolshevik radical position) is the idea that security / socialism is a sufficient basis for human freedom. If you're safe, and have bread, you're free.
Yet the contempt for political liberties as mere formalities this implies gives a despotic edge to this way of thinking. In real life, 'non-ideological' people can see--based on all kinds of historic experience--that polities need some ability to set limits on the use of political power, or else the plan to make you free devolves into authoritarianism.
Here, in some ways, we see our own neo-cons coming quite close to the ideological positions their forefathers attacked during the Cold War. Is this another case of Oedipal rivalry? Just as George W. has to outdo G.H.W. Bush, so too the neo-Cons have to outdo the old-style cons--in both cases primarily through dangerous bravado, rather than intellectual depth.
Let's face it: our neo-cons are Romantic nationalists, of the radical rather than liberal stripe.