Submitted by dano, Dec 17, 2007 13:54

mr. waltzer wrote a very interesting, if elliptical, account of the emergence of the parliamentary mentality and its agent, the political activist, in his "Revolution of the Saints." there he draw an at least oblique line between the original proto-parliamentarians, the protestant schismatics like Calvin whose theology demanded not only a doctrinal revision but a reformation of the city of god/city of man dichotomy, to the bolsheviks, and other modern true-believers. one would think this delineation would rescue him from the temptations that kirsch observes in this his latest book. unfortunately, the liberal sentimentalism that so often ellides into outright leftism (which generally can be formulated as "the state the machine, the machine therefore for the ultimate good") is in fact alien to the original liberal tradition, which merely opposed hereditary monarchy and privilege by birth - the estate system. the systems and theories of locke and montesquieu and the rest were intended to safeguard the individual and promote the meritocracy - that is, individualism and all its foibles. unfortunately, these newer "liberals" cannot stand the foibles of individualism, which unfortunately reflects, and of course partly imposes, an abiding injustice - even as it promotes individualism. the problem with modern liberalism is ultimately the loss of a tragic worldview: it cannot see that "inequality" and "injustice" in these respects, as wittgenstein might say, are "muddles," not "problems." all attempts to solve them are procrustean, because there is simply no resolution.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.