Why I'm interested in liberalism as an idea

Conservatism and socialism often appear as the two main alternatives when it applies to ideology, perhaps because they are usually placed near the two endpoints of an imaginary political spectrum. Personally, I am dissatisfied with both of these alternatives, precisely because they are so associated with the extreme variants in which they has its roots. This becomes clear when today's Social Democrats sing "thralls in all states / as the hunger buoys laid up "at all solemn occasions. And I get the same feeling of alienation when dress-clad men and equally party-clad ladies sing "be faithful to him and his family / make the crown on his head easy / and all your faith in him ways "at his solemn occasions. Such expressions may be results of traditions and conventions, but they still contribute to a sense of belonging socialism and conservatism have their roots in another time, and that they only have cut to be able to function today. Practical and good to have, maybe, but intellectually unsatisfactory.

If you are not happy with any of these alternatives, you can move on to liberalism. There is no realistic fourth possibility. But then it also follows that if liberalism is only to be seen as a reasonable compromise between socialism and conservatism, it appears to be even more so cropped than the alternatives, and therefore even less interesting. To be taken seriously it must have its own soul.

For me, this means, among other things, that there must be a short and concise summary of this own soul. I have searched in the literature for one but could not find it someone. Standard descriptions of liberalism often use formulations of the type "many liberals believes that ... "which is not so core.

In that situation, you can not do anything else to try yourself. For my part, I now choose to define my variant of liberalism by starting from

a conviction of the individual's ability to think independently and act with help of knowledge and reason, and guided by responsible values ​​and attitudes.

This formulation is quite natural because the easis on the individual's autonomy is one consistent theme in how liberalism is usually described. Still, it leads to some interesting ones consequences if you read it carefully and then think about it. The word 'sense of responsibility' can then be responsible for these (values ​​and attitudes) expresses an ability both for compassion with individual fellow human beings, for solidarity within a group, and to practical action also when it comes to meeting global challenges. In the concept of 'reason' I include both logically and rationally thinking as 'common sense', and everything in between.

What can then be meant by 'believing in' the individual's ability in these respects - that is easy to find examples of individuals who do not seem to have these praiseworthy characteristics? I see it as a combination of two attitudes, namely (1) these characteristics apply to a sufficient number of individuals and in sufficient extent to be able to take them for granted in many contexts, and (2) for a society and its members, it is a very great advantage for them properties are common there. The first point is thus one assessment of an actual situation, and I understand that it applies in ours country, as well as in many other places. The second point means that one society should strive to strengthen the capacity of its members in all those specified respects.

'Solidarity' is a key concept in other ideologies, but it follows from this that it is an obvious element in liberalism as well. At the same time it is easized that solidarity in its various forms should be the individual's own choice and not be forced. A collective can be seen as a group of people with forced membership.

With this choice of starting point, values play a key role. They are needed for to define the rights and obligations of individuals towards each other. But in an orderly society, values ​​have a mutual dependence with state which may be included in the continuation of the concise wording. The values ​​include the rights and obligations of citizens, and they lie as a basis for the laws established and enforced by the state. But the state judicial system is not in itself sufficient to guarantee citizens' rights; but one must also assume that there is a sufficient amount of societal values among citizens. Values ​​in general can vary widely between citizens, and they must always be open to debate and reconsideration. But it is precisely the societal values ​​that should preferably be common, they must be defended if challenged, and they must also be passed on to the next generation of citizens. Several actors are important in this context, especially parents, schools and the media, whereby the state must support the school and relate to the media, both by give them support and by setting boundaries.

Questions about the role of values ​​in liberalism are the subject of many studies, too if they may not be so visible in the Swedish debate. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:

Much of liberal theory has become focused on the issue as to how we can be social creatures, members of cultures and raised in various traditions, while also being autonomous choosers who employ our liberty to construct lives of our own.

When values ​​are brought into the context, a large amount actually opens up difficult questions. How balances the parents' rights to raise their children against the responsibility of the state to pass on the societal values? And what should we mean by that even parents have a responsibility222b to bring them forward? How do we balance freedom of expression and freedom of assembly against the defense of the founding members of society valuations?

And further: the above starting point thus quickly leads to reasoning about 'the state' and 'citizens', which is the traditional perspective on these issues. But how are we to use those concepts in today's world where there is so much migration and there are so many refugees? How to relate to double citizenship if citizenship includes both rights and obligations, and is not just an expression of the desire for participation? And what a place it is the frame of reference for the 'undocumented', ie for those who do not have the right to reside in the country that the state administers, but which also cannot be deported? An ideology worthy of the name must reasonably have an answer to such questions as well.

What I described as a starting point for the definition of liberalism must thus supplemented by a number of additional positions. I mean nevertheless that this can be done, and I have formulated a list of twelve points which begins with the above, and which comes a bit on the way to clarify what I mean by liberalism. They are reported and justified under the headings for Value Liberalism, and to begin with in the following article: [red-198] .

Under these headings there should also be an account of how this interpretation of liberalism relates to other similar interpretations, or for that matter to significantly different interpretations. Pending this to be completed here are just a few references outside of liberalism: there are tangible ones points of contact with Berggren and Trägårdh's state individualism [pan-15547] and with the association Humanists' program of ideas [pan-15768]. In a previous article, I discussed how this approach differs the 'value-free' liberalism that is presented, for example, in Dagens Nyheter [red-1572] .

And is this a liberalism that is clearly different from conservatism and socialism, as the idea was from the beginning? Yes and no. The twelve points that I suggest are incompatible with the extreme positions on the right-left scale, but I think they are perfectly acceptable to most moderates and most Social. In that sense, they are inclusive, but they are special strength is that they constitute a concise wording that does not appeal to some historical or extreme manifestations on one side or the other.

Then there is also a completely different, but equally important reason for me I am interested in the basic ideas of liberalism and in a concise one definition of these. I believe that a clear and distinct description of liberalism is a necessary precondition for a future dialogue between different societal perceptions that are represented in our country, and quite especially for a deeper dialogue with different directions within Islam. This developed in more detail under the tab 'Basis for dialogue'.

The text on this page is also the first part of the article [red-195] .

References

red-198   En värdeliberal grundsyn.
Erik Sandewall i Argument och Fakta,   2020-06-05

pan-15547    Social trust and radical individualism.
Henrik Berggren; Lars Trägårdh i Davos proceedings, 2010-12-20.

pan-15768    Humanisternas idéprogram.
i Egen webbplats, 2020.

red-1572   Skillnaden mellan värdeneutral och värdegrundad liberalism.
Erik Sandewall i Argument och Fakta,   2019-06-09