Antiliberalism’s Last Hope, or Not

My experience is that attempts at conversations about the future of Democracy in America are significantly hampered by lack of clarity as to the meaning of two controversial words, “liberalism” and “antiliberalism.”

Therefore, I first need to make clear what I believe those two words mean, drawing heavily on the splendid recent book by Robert Kagan titled Rebellion: Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart – Again.

The essence of “liberalism” is commitment to “universal human rights” extended to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion (or lack thereof). The existence of these universal human rights is clearly articulated in the following well-known portion of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (emphasis mine).

In sharp contrast, the essence of “antiliberalism” is “white supremacy,” a belief that “white persons” are superior to persons of other races, and can, therefore, be granted rights that persons of other races cannot expect to receive.

Kagan argues that, in my own words, antiliberalism “sees failure on the horizon,” because of the rapidly changing demographics in America, where ever increasing percentages of residents belong to non-white population groups.

Therefore, the ‘last hope” for antiliberalism is for a “rebellion,” in which antiliberals strongly reject “liberalism” and take steps to “overwhelm” liberals. And this could happen in the 2024 presidential election if Donald Trump is returned to the presidency.

None of the above addresses the tragic legacy of slavery in America. Supposedly, the U. S. Constitution was intended to provide remedies for this legacy, primarily by means of Amendments 13-15 – with the 13^th Amendment abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude in the U. S (with the exception of punishment for a crime); the 14^th Amendment extending rights and liberties to formerly enslaved people and granting citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the U. S.; and the 15^th Amendment stating that the right to vote  cannot be denied based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And, furthermore, Article 1 section 2 of the U. S. Constitution nullified what has been called the “Three-fifths rule,” which had held that any person who is not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation (which, in effect, made each slave three-fifths of a person).

Here are my two reflections on these supposed “constitutional remedies” for the tragic legacy of slavery. First, these “words on paper” didn’t diminish the commitment to antiliberalism of those believing in white supremacy, Quite to the contrary, such antiliberalism grew stronger in the south during the years following the civil war, as witnessed to during the Reconstruction era and thereafter, with the lynching of many Black persons and a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan.

Secondly, the debate as to what the U. S. Constitution does, or does not, allow is as “heated” as ever, and inadequate clarity has emerged.

So, what to do? The “remedy” I propose is that we do not allow unresolved debates about what the U. S. Constitution does or does not allow to steer us away from the “liberalism” that is clearly embedded in the affirmation of “universal human rights” found in the Declaration of Independence.

The practical implication of my proposed “remedy” is that those residents of the U. S. who embrace liberalism (like me) need to find many venues for promoting the ideal of “universal human rights” for all people, whatever their race, ethnicity or religion, as an antidote to the strong strain of antiliberalism that is currently threatening our Democracy.