On The Growth of the Liberal Soul

(Comments based on a hasty reading)

This 1997 book, by David Walsh, is strongly influenced by Voegelin (see preceding posts), but has a more self-consciously liberal point of view. Walsh sees liberalism—the adoption of liberty as the foundation of the political order—as the only remaining viable political tradition in the West and, indeed, the world; at the same time, he recognizes that it is in a state of crisis. Walsh's basic point is that if it is to survive, it necessary for liberalism—which is a kind of secularized Christianity, as Hegel seems to have been the first to point out—to recognize that it rests on transcendent values. Historically liberalism has failed to investigate its own foundations adequately because it developed as a kind of pragmatic compromise among specific conflicting religious beliefs. Under such circumstances, it was safer, as well as unnecessary, to avoid examining the bedrock assumptions of the political order: such examination would have been likely only to stir up the ashes of ideological conflict. But this meant that there grew up the illusion that liberalism was value-neutral; and this neutrality, now carried to absurd lengths, has come to be seen as the core of liberalism. But a value-neutral civic theology, a credo of pure tolerance, will merely amount to license—such as we are now seeing—and will soon disintegrate. Unless people are capable of using their freedom wisely, it may be their downfall. Nevertheless, Walsh seems to concur with Voegelin that freedom is of such overriding importance that one should accept even the possibility of ruin rather than limit freedom. Everyone over 18 is to be treated as a mature, morally independent adult, even if this should have little basis in reality.

Unfortunately Walsh does not seem to have any suggestions as to how the crisis of liberalism might be resolved, other than to exhort people to spiritually transform themselves. Since we should in any case (regardless of political considerations) presumably be attempting to spiritually transform ourselves, this political prescription appears to amount to precisely nothing. Hence, the book is profoundly unsatisfactory. The material on thinkers such as Hegel and Rousseau, which emphasizes the attractive sides of their doctrines, may be of interest, though.

Walsh may also not have fully disentangled himself from the contemporary "neutral" liberalism he is opposing. There seems to be a failure in the book to appreciate the distinction between democratic government and individual liberty: for Walsh, the first of these is simply the collective dimension of freedom. But in reality it is more important that government be limited than that it be democratic. Government is inherently restrictive of individual freedom, whether its decisions are made democratically or not. The unlimited "collective freedom" of unlimited democracy simply amounts to totalitarian enslavement of the individual. I don't think Walsh acknowledges this.

A vivid metaphor from Walsh (p. 278), describing the predicament of liberal societies without an animating conviction of moral duty:

The paralysis of the central nervous system has left the victim powerless to do anything to defend himself against the myriad small assaults against his flesh, although he remains perfectly conscious of the process for a very long time.