Deconstructing the Liberal Argument

I wanted to address liberal arguments; I will address, specifically, two types of liberal arguments; namely moral relativity and passive tyranny.

When liberals feel the need to argue with a conservative view point (and they often do), one common argument is that conservatives shouldn’t push their views onto others, because it infringes on their right to believe the way they believe. They argue this because their view of morality is relative, that is, morals depend on who you are talking to, and in what circumstance. The problem with this argument is, if you don’t believe in this relativistic view of morality then you are ridiculed, labeled as intolerant, ostracized, and perhaps they will even take you to court. Logically, this makes the liberal belief system every bit as dogmatic as they claim the conservative view point to be.

Have you ever noticed that when you are having an argument with a liberal, they are very hostile to your views, and it seems like all of your logical arguments bounce right off of their heads? Well this is easily explained by the aforementioned relative view of morality. This relative view of morality suggests that there is no absolute truth, that all views are equally true and equally fallible. This idea of openness, tolerance and equality is exceptionally prohibitive of anything being absolutely true or good. According to Alan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind), by dogmatically maintaining there is no truth, people who are relativists have become close-minded to the possibility of knowing the truth, if in fact it does exist.

The other problem with this logic is that the idea that there is no truth would have to be inclusive of the supposed truth of moral relativity. In other words, if nothing is absolute truth, than either is the idea of morality being relative.

Another liberal tactic is to use what Francis J. Beckwith calls “passive-aggressive tyranny.” That is, they present their argument in such a way, as to make those that disagree with their viewpoint seem harmful, stupid, mean bigoted, etc. For instance, if someone says I am ok with homosexuality because I believe people shouldn’t be judged based on who they love; it sets up anyone who disagrees to be someone that is judgmental and insensitive to people’s feelings and emotions. It is another example of the coercive nature of the liberal ideology. This type of argument is meant to silence any critics of the liberal viewpoint by laying down some preemptive land mines.

How can these arguments be overcome? Well, if Alan Bloom is correct, perhaps it is not possible. I think the only truly effective way to bring some one liberal around to a conservative viewpoint is for some life, and ideology changing event to take place that causes that person to reprioritze. I would be interested to hear your views. Perhaps the Good Book can give us some direction. Proverbs 26:4: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

At a later date I will address the liberal tactics of sophism and Ad Hominem arguments.

Here is some good reading on the subject.