Gene Expression

On liberalism-black, brown, yellow and white

A can of worms has been opened-and we are all dancing about on shades of degree. First, we need to
define the object in question, liberalism.

The term is twisted and torn to shreds by every political faction there is. But, by liberalism, I mean the
broad political tradition that has been ascendant in the West after World War II and had its genesis in the
18th century amongst mostly British philosophers and politicians (English and Scottish) [1].

For me, liberalism is most typified by the rule of law, wedded to equality before the law
(it is this second part that is so difficult to maintain without eroding the other foundations I believe). The
process took centuries, but today even kings and presidents are accountable to the judicial system in liberal
nations (in theory-but practice must always begin with such principles). Two other essentials tend to be
some level of representative democracy tempered by inviolable liberties (The Rights of Englishmen). The
cocktail is mixed to various degrees in the panoply of nation-states that lay claim to the liberal mantle.

As a libertarian I have grave concerns about the social democratic tendencies in other parts of the
Anglosphere, but I believe that Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are easily given places under
the umbrella of liberalism. The nations of the European continent I will equivocate more-but compared to
other regions of the world, such as Latin America or Africa, they are also havens of liberalism, though
different strands (contrast Italian political quasi-anarchy with French dirigiste).

Then there are other nations where the liberal tradition is younger-budding and maturing before our eyes.
Estonia, Taiwan and Senegal are a few examples I can think of. We do not yet know if they will be liberal
nations, for I believe that cultures are shaped by generations, not 10-20 years of stability. Nations become
liberal when their populace never remembers the memory of tyranny, never consider any alternative aside
from broad liberties (legally enforced segregation was the norm 50 years ago in much of the nation, but
today we would never think of turning the clock back). I suspect the Taiwanese will be ever vigilant for at
least a few generations, even without the threat of "Red" China.

Now, to the more explosive question, are some races by nature more liberal? This is a difficult question to
answer, and generalizations will tend to be easily refuted within the axis of human experience. For
instance, as Jon Jay Ray has pointed out, northern Germany went from the relative chaos of the 30 Years
War, to strict Prussian discipline by the 19th century that some would argue culminated in the
regimentation of the Third Reich, only to be later forced into a liberal model by the conquering powers
after World War II. In fact, in the United States, Americans of German ancestry are with the English the
most numerous of the many ethnos that have formed its polity, and seem to have not brought any
repressive "Hunnish" sensibility to its politics.

Certainly, the Soviet tyranny, and the soft-authoritarianism that dominated much of southern Europe until
the 1970s, stands as a counter-point to assertions of natural white liberalism [2]. It might be better to
generalize that Germanic, specifically Anglo-Saxon, nations are better suited to liberalism at this point in
their development. Today's generalizations are yesterday's falsehoods (Today [pre-1998]: Confucianism is
good for East Asian capitalism, Yesterday: Confucian values hold back individual initiative).

Nevertheless, let us look to East Asia, an economically prosperous region that some have asserted is
naturally uncongenial to democracy. Lee Kwan Hew, Singapore's senior statesman, has asserted that the
Chinese are not capable of accepting liberal democracy (and he is friendly to race realist ideas). He has
created a clean efficient and bureaucratic city that is the jewel of Southeast Asia that stresses order not
liberty. And yet, since 1987, Taiwan has engaged in raucous liberal democracy and seems to have
accepted the peaceful transition of power between parties that is one of the hallmarks of liberalism. South
Korea too has been successful in this experiment. Hong Kong lacks democracy, but it does have rule of
law.

But ultimately, we have to look at Japan, with its 50 year rule by the Liberal Democratic Party for
a more multi-generational example. The Japanese are a politically apathetic people from all encounters I
have had had with them personally (as well as being religiously apathetic, indicating that there is little
controversy at their parties!). They follow the forms of democracy, but seem less imbued with public
spirit than Westerners would expect given that they are now stakeholders in their society through
universal franchise. Japan is a relatively orderly society that does have rule of law. Though there have
been laws on the books that mandate equal treatment of the sexes since the occupation period, they are
regular ignored when they conflict with cultural sensibilities. It would seem then that Japanese political
traditions rest lightly upon the substrate of the culture.

And yet no one must deny that there have been changes. The Japanese are no longer warlike, and the fact
that a small population of Westerners have intermarried and settled down in Japan indicates that its
quality of life is comparable to that of the West. One can look at the German state, with its confessional
mixing (state support of established Churches, also present in England), restrictions on abortion, speech
and political organization (when the latter are outside the bounds of "democratic" discourse), and wonder
if the Germans have changed much either. Their corporate "social market economy" seems have to have
taken dollops of liberalism, but tempered it with Germany's own sensibilities and traditions of communal
negotiation and compromise that dates at least back to the era of Bismarck and his confrontations with the
National Liberals.

German or Japanese political traditions are to me somewhat on the outer edges of liberalism. It seems
that liberalism serves almost as a means toward expression of their own cultural particularisms, rather
than being a neutral abstract framework for individual action and competition. Be as that may, it may be
that these are the sort of compromises that liberalism will have to make if it is to "End History" and
become a universal civilization.

So will liberalism be destroyed by multiculturalism and race-mixing? The Germans and Japanese that
live in the United States (far more of the former of course) seem well adapted to liberal traditions. But
one must always be cautious. Hawaii for instance, for decades dominated by Asian-American Democrats,
has become a "machine politics" state that was rife with cronyism (on reason for a recent Republican
victory in the governor's race by a white woman). On the other hand, one could say the same until
recently (or even now) of Irish dominated Massachusetts.

I would simply ask for caution tempering our intellectual courage (yes, me included). We can not truly
say whether East Asians would or would not become "liberals." Certainly the Koreans, Taiwanese and to
a lesser extent Japanese have become "more like us," but immigrants from the mainland seem far less
influenced by abstract ideas and more driven by economic considerations (similar to immigrants from
Mexico).

More later.

[1] Yes, the United States of America was its first great unabashed experiment, while Frenchmen like
Montesquieu had some influence. But humor me when I say it was a Brit-thang.

[2] Spain, Portugal and Greece were all autocracies until the past generation. Italy was a democracy, but
one with a thriving Communist party as well as a post-Fascist party. One suspects that Italy's democracy
owed much to the fact that it had sided with the Axis powers and so authoritarianism could no longer be
allowed to remain dominant.

Posted by razib at January 6, 2003 03:33 PM | TrackBack | Email this article