Table Of ContentThe E U R O P E A N
C O N S E R V A T I V E
Issue 15 • Summer/Fall 2018 €10 / $10
Contents
Guest Commentary: The Legacy of ‘68
Anthony Daniels 3
On True (and False) Conservatism
Andreas Kinneging 4
A Sea of Trouble in Europe: An Interview with Ryszard Legutko
Kai Weiss 8
The Migration Crisis & the Culture of Europe
Balázs M. Mezei 12
Choosing Our Battles
Darragh McDonagh 20
The Weakness of the West: An Interview with Martin van Creveld
Stefan Beig 21
Burke, Prophet of Peace
Mark Dooley 26
A Parable for the Fall of the West: A review of Le Camp des Saints by Jean Raspail
François La Choüe 30
The Brilliance of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
André P. DeBattista 34
Natural Law, Social Justice & the Crisis of the West
Ryan T. Anderson 41
Krakow: The City that Remembers
Carrie Gress 46
Communist Terror in Modern Film: Reviews of After Image and Bitter Harvest
Filip Mazurczak 52
Miłowit Kuniński, RIP
Ryszard Legutko 58
Editor-in-Chief: Alvino-Mario Fantini
Assistant Editor: Filip Mazurczak
US Correspondent: Gerald J. Russello
Editorial Board: Stjepo Bartulica, Matthew Edwards, Ellen Kryger Fantini, Roman Joch, Felix James Miller, Lorenzo
Montanari, G. K. Montrose, Alexandre Pesey, Matthew Tyrmand, Pr. Edmund Waldstein
Advisory Council: Rémi Brague, Robin Harris, Mark C. Henrie, Annette Kirk, Sir Roger Scruton
Contact: [email protected]
2 Summer/Fall 2018
Issue 15 Summer/Fall 2018
G U E S T C O M M E N T A R Y
The Legacy of ‘68
A n t h o n y D a n i e l s admire had caused the deaths of more than a million
people, their attitude would have changed much). For
I
n France, every eighth year of every decade, what are the deaths of a million Chinese to set against
there is an outpouring of histories, memoirs and the applause of their peers in the usurped halls of the
picture-books of the 1968 Parisian ‘events’, as they Sorbonne?
were and still are known. This will continue until the French society was in a weak position to call them
last bourgeois geriatric trying to relive the joys of his to order. The Second World War was not a period
adolescence dies. that many of their elders and betters wished to recall,
1968 was probably the only revolution in history, and the even more recent war in Algeria was still an
or attempted revolution, by spoilt brats. That they open wound (which has not completely healed even
were spoilt brats is evident from the photographs now). Former French President François Mitterand,
of the times and films of their meetings, where it is for example, had been a great signer of death warrants
evident that none of them ever forgot to pose. “Would during the efforts to keep Algeria française, quite
they look well?” was a question that was never far from apart from his Vichyite past. Few were the cupboards
their minds. that had no skeletons, and it is difficult for adults to
These were no downtrodden peasants groaning reprehend youth when their own moral past has been
under the yoke of heavy taxes that relieved them of too sufficiently ambiguous for them not want it too closely
much of the product of their own hard physical labour. examined.
On the contrary, they were the privileged children of It is, of course, difficult to say what are the
the elite of a country in full economic expansion — long-lasting effects of the events of 1968. Would
and those students who were not of this class were the world have been much different from what it is
destined soon to join it. now if they had never taken place? Counterfactual
So what were they rebelling against? The answer is arguments are impossible to avoid in historical
simple: self-restraint, particularly in the sexual sphere. assessment, but they are likewise impossible to
“It is forbidden to forbid” — them, at any rate. prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
For all their supposed concern for the poor and But it seems to me that the effects were to reinforce
oppressed of the world, it was obvious that they had no if not to originate certain tendencies. The first is the
interest in the poor and oppressed of the world. Though belief in adolescence and young adulthood as periods
one of their slogans was “Imagination in power”, they in life of generosity, selflessness, and idealism, rather
were totally lacking in imagination because they were than of ignorance, unwisdom, and self-obsession.
interested only in themselves. Who but people utterly Closely tied to this is the tendency to believe that to
without imagination or historical curiosity could have be young is very heaven, and therefore it is a worthy
equated de Gaulle with Hitler, as was frequently done aim never to grow up or to change one’s tastes. Life
during the protests? Who but people utterly without for many is now precocity followed by arrested
imagination or historical curiosity could have equated development. In a sense, the pathetic 70 year-old rock
the CRS (Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité) with stars who comport themselves as if they were still 19
the SS? And this in a country that had been occupied are the true children of Paris, 1968.
by the Nazis less than a quarter of a century before! In addition, 1968 in Paris helped to inaugurate the
Nor was their Mao worship and Castrophilia cult of the present moment and an attitude to the past
anything deeper than a posture. They knew nothing as nothing but an immemorial waste-paper basket of
of the real conditions existing in China and Cuba at useless customs, traditions, and pedantry. But how far
the time and didn’t even think it necessary to know 1968 was a cause and how far an effect no one will
anything about them (not that, if they had known ever finally be able to say. Perhaps the relationship was
that the Cultural Revolution that they claimed to so dialectical.
The European Conservative is a non-profit pan-European conservative magazine founded by the Center for European Renewal (CER).
Written, edited, and designed by volunteers, it seeks to make available articles, essays, and reviews representing the different varieties
of ‘respectable conservatism’ across Europe. We welcome unsolicited manuscripts and submissions. Back issues are available in PDF
format at: www.europeanconservative.com. For information about the CER, please contact us.
About the cover: A partial view of “The Ipatiev House: The Morning After”, part of a triptych entitled “Imperial Golgotha”
(2004) painted by the late Russian painter, Pavel Viktorovich Ryzhenko (1970-2014). It depicts the cellar in the house in which the
Romanov family and four members of the staff were massacred on the night of 16-17 July 1918. Image courtesy of the ‘Ipatiev House’
virtual museum. More information at: www.romanov-memorial.com.
The European Conservative 3
On True (and False) Conservatism
A n d r e a s K i n n e g i n g
Everywhere in Europe and the US, the popularity of
so-called ‘populist’ politicians and parties — many of
which call themselves conservative — is growing. So, at
first sight, conservatism seems to be on the rise and doing
well. But that is a misconception. Calling populist parties
‘conservative’ is like calling a cat a ‘dog’: There are some
superficial resemblances, but in reality these are two very
different animals. Most apparently, populist parties are
in favour of more direct democracy — they believe that
the populus is virtuous and must stop the corrupt elite. The counter-revolutionary ‘Banner of the Holy Wounds’, used
Conservatism on the other hand, is sceptical of the political in 1536 during the English uprising — the ‘Pilgrimage of
acuteness of the common man and believes that the populus Grace’ — against the supression of the monasteries.
needs to be guided by a virtuous elite.
Isn’t that the conservative position? What, if anything, contemporary conservatives traverse the past, looking for
is conservatism, really? Let us go back in time and remind relatives that might make their lineage more respectable.
ourselves where exactly conservatism comes from, how it The opinions of these genealogists differ somewhat but
developed, and where it stands now. all agree that Edmund Burke is the founding father of
conservatism, and his Reflections on the Revolution in
France (1790) its Gospel. So the general picture, which has
On origins
acquired wide currency, is that there is one conservative
The word ‘conservatism’ goes back no further than about tradition, running from Burke to the present.
one hundred years. It was first used, to my knowledge, However, such general pictures with wide currency
by Lord Hugh Cecil, who in 1912 published a book often have one thing in common: They are usually not true.
with the title Conservatism. The famous eleventh In reality, Burke’s views have little or nothing in common
edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which dates with contemporary, post-war conservatism. If we aspire to a
from 1911-12, has no lemma for the word. (It does true understanding of the history of conservatism, we have
for socialism and liberalism.) With the exception of to start making a few distinctions. Even if we limit ourselves
Britain, however, the word initially did not gain wide to the last two centuries, which is anything but self-evident,
currency, either on the European continent or in the we encounter not one but three types of conservatism that
US. And if it was used, it was as a term of abuse. It was differ greatly — so greatly in fact, that the question arises if
only after Barry Goldwater and his followers began to including them all under the same denominator isn’t (self-)
use it as a self-description in the 1960s, that it gradually deceit.
gained currency in the US. First, there is the counter-revolutionary tradition,
On the European continent, on the other hand, it is which reached its zenith in the period from 1790 (Burke)
still in the process of becoming ordinary and respectable. to the 1830s. Second, there is a liberal-conservative, or
As yet, it has not become as normal and accepted a word conservative-liberal, tradition that came into existence after
as ‘socialism’ and ‘liberalism’. The lineage of the word World War II and is still with us. And, finally, there is a type
‘conservatism’ is hence quite modest. And if words and of conservatism in which the ideas of the counter-revolution
things are connected, one would have to conclude that are aufgehoben in the Hegelian sense — i.e. annulled,
conservatism is something of the post-1960s era — and preserved, and brought to a higher level. ‘Philosophic’ or
as far as the eastern part of Europe is concerned, even ‘Platonic’ conservatism would be an appropriate name for
of the post-1989 era. But let’s be generous and say that this type. It predominated in the period from the 1830s to
conservatism as we know it is a post-war phenomenon that World War II, but there are several precursory figures and
began with the publication of Quentin Hogg’s The Case for it is still around. It is sometimes called ‘traditionalism’, or
Conservatism in 1947 and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative ‘anti-modernism’. This, in my view, is the true or the best
Mind in 1953. type of conservatism. Its ideas are more acute than ever in
Of course, like many people with modest roots, the present time.
4 Summer/Fall 2018
George Grantham Bain Collection, Library of Congress CCA-SA 3.0 Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal
Lord Hugh Cecil (1869-1956) Lord Quintin Hogg (1907-2001) Russell Kirk (1918-1994)
The counter-revolutionary tradition Liberal-conservatism (or conservative-liberalism)
The counter-revolution is the exact antipode of the Most conservatives today are liberals of a kind. Hence
French and American revolutionary ideas. Politically, the the name liberal-conservatism or conservative-liberalism.
revolution stood for a (more or less) democratic republic This type of conservatism came into existence after World
of free and equal citizens. The counter-revolution War II. Politically, it embraces the idea of a democratic
stood for a traditional mixed regime (regimen mixtum) republic of free and equal citizens. Socially, it stands for
of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy — i.e. king, a society of individuals who are equal before the law.
nobility, and commoners. Socially, the revolution stood Economically, it favours a free market system with full
for a society of individuals who are equal before the law, rights of ownership and freedom of contract. And, finally,
while the counter-revolution stood for a religiously, it approves of the principle of
société des orders — i.e. a ranked society the separation of church and state. That
of hierarchical families, communities, is to say, it regards religion as a private
and orders. matter.
Economically, the revolution Hence, if we compare the positions
stood for a free market system, with it takes with those of the counter-
full ownership rights and freedom of revolution and the revolution in the
contract, while the counter-revolution early 19th century, the verdict is clear.
stood for a corporatist system, based on Contemporary conservatism is a child
guilds, with limited ownership rights of the revolution, not of the counter-
and freedom of contract. Religiously, revolution. Its founding father was not
the revolution stood for secularism Burke but rather Burke’s opponent,
— i.e. religion as a private matter, Tom Paine. To associate contemporary
separated from the government, or, in conservatism in any way with Burke and
its extreme variety, for atheism (that the counter-revolution is preposterous. Its
is, a total rejection of Christianity), closest historical ancestor is the classical
while the counter-revolution stood liberalism of the period from the late 18th
for the fusion of church and state to the early 20th century — the tradition
and the ‘establishment’ of (one type that runs from Adam Smith to Friedrich
of) Christianity as the official creed, Hayek. Contemporary conservatism is
preferably shared by everyone. really a kind of liberalism.
In short, the counter-revolution wanted to restore the Why then the fuzzy terms liberal-conservatism or
antediluvium and go back to the ancien régime or to the conservative-liberalism? For the single reason that there is
Middle Ages. This was also Burke’s position. But there a different social philosophy around — it’s the dominant
are evidently very few conservatives in the world today ideology at the moment, at least in the West — that also
who share these ideas, notwithstanding Burke’s aura as a lays a claim to the name liberalism but is of quite another
founding father of conservatism. nature: progressive-liberalism or liberal-progressivism.
The European Conservative 5
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Louis de Bonald (1754-1840) Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)
Contemporary conservatism and progressivism are second including the freedom from want, fear, social pressure,
both children of the revolution. They both embrace the and religious ‘indoctrination’. Obviously, to establish equality
revolutionary principles of liberty and equality as the highest and liberty in such a broad sense, massive government
principles there are, which makes them both liberal. But they interference and surveillance is needed.
rank these principles differently. For progressives, equality is In sum: The differences between liberal-progressivism
more important than liberty. For conservatives, it is the other and liberal-conservatism are big and real enough. But they
way round. are similar to the differences between de Girondin and the
Equality usually does not come naturally. It has to be Jacobin Party, or between Adams and Jefferson during,
enforced. For that the government is necessary, enforcing the respectively, the French Revolution and the American
laws that make people more equal. Such laws by definition Revolution. On the level of fundamental principles they are
reduce individual liberty. Moreover, if true equality is to rule, at one. For both of them, liberty and equality are the highest
the laws need to be the same for everyone — i.e. general values. Anything that goes counter to these is ultimately
laws, made by the central government. Hence, the quest for regarded as indefensible and must go. This is bound to result
equality also leads to an ever increasing centralization. Liberal- in some serious blind spots.
progressives are in favour of big, centralized government,
whereas liberal-conservatives prefer small, decentralized
Philosophic conservatism
government.
Take human rights (or, in America, civil rights). Based What about the third type of conservatism that came into
on a conservative interpretation, these are rights against the existence in the 1830s and dominated the Right until World
government, preserving the liberty of the individual, groups, War II? It is the heir of the counter-revolution, the essence
and organizations in society. However, based on a progressive of which is opposition to the revolutionary principles of
interpretation, they are the rights of the individual vis-à- freedom and equality. Instead of equality it upheld hierarchy
vis other individuals, groups, and organizations in society, as a fundamental principle — in the cosmos, in society, and in
guarding their equality — rights that need to be enforced by the soul. Equality it held to be unnatural, and so is a hierarchy
the government. in which what ought to obey, rules; and what ought to rule,
The difference between the ‘liberal progressives’ and the obeys. Both are unstable and bound to disintegrate.
‘liberal conservatives’ involves not only the ranking of liberty Instead of standing for liberty, the counter-revolution
and equality. It is also the result of different interpretation of stood for discipline and duty towards God, the community,
each. In general, equality and liberty to liberal-conservatives family, and oneself. Liberty in the sense extolled by the
means what it meant to the classical liberals of the 19th revolution was called licence (licentia) and regarded as a vice.
century: equality before the law and (principally) freedom The idea was that a society where licence ruled, and discipline
from government interference and surveillance. Limited and duty had a bad name, is bound to crumble and fall apart,
government is sufficient. Liberal-progressives, on the other or be destroyed from the outside.
hand, see equality and liberty as something much broader: the The third type of conservatism is the heir of these
first including (a degree of) social and economic equality, the counter-revolutionary principles of hierarchy, discipline, and
6 Summer/Fall 2018
duty. But this conservatism is more abstract and
philosophical than its predecessor. It points out
the need, not for a return to the mixed regime
of old but for a political order that is a balance
between the various elements of society: rich
and poor, educated and uneducated, town and
country, etc. Instead of defending the société des
ordres, it vindicates the necessity and usefulness
of virtuous elites in society. Instead of defending
corporatism and the feudal order, it stresses the
need for cooperation alongside of competition, and
market regulation not from above, by the central
government, but from below, by the stakeholders
themselves. Instead of the clergy and the established
church, it defends the indispensability of religion
in general and Christianity in particular, not as a
private matter but as a mainstay of public peace,
order, and happiness.
In opposition to the revolution, it argues
that a good society is not a collection of atomic
individuals but of organic communities —
and, first and foremost, (traditional) families.
In opposition to ‘cosmopolitical’ ideas (the
counterpart of individualism) it stresses the
importance of neighbourhood, locality, region, Real Academia de la Historia
nation. In opposition to the idea that the purpose
Spanish philosopher and politician, Juan Donoso Cortés (1809-1853),
of life is to satisfy as many desires as possible or to
and philosopher and theologian, Jaime Balmes (1810-1848), in a 19th
seek and ‘be oneself’, it highlights the importance of century painting by Luis Brocheton.
sacrifice, duty, discipline, virtue, self-renunciation,
etc. Seeking a renewed tradition
All of this is inherent in the counter-revolution, of
course. But the counter-revolution presented these ideas in The conclusion: What contemporary conservatism needs,
a way that had become wholly unconvincing, if not utterly most of all, is a renewed consideration of the ideas of
incomprehensible to most people. What the philosophic the conservatism of the period from the 1830s until the
conservatism of the period from the 1830s to Word War II 1930s. For, even in the unlikely case that contemporary
did was to detach what was essential and of timeless value in conservatism were to vanquish liberal-progressivism, the
the counter-revolutionary tradition from what was secondary resulting world would still not be to our liking. It would
and historically contingent. still be a liberal world of sorts — and thus be, so to speak,
In doing that, philosophic conservatism did something contra naturam, a valley of tears, since some of the most
that had been done before — most importantly by Plato in his important preconditions for happiness and fulfilment,
struggle against the democratic revolution of Athens, which peace and joy would still not be met.
had also extolled liberty and equality — namely, to think You want names? I will give you some: Thomas
through the case against these principles, to think through Carlyle, Alexis de Tocqueville, G.W.F. Hegel,
what principles a society really needs to function well, and John Henry Newman, Wilhelm Röpke, Matthew
to serve the bonum commune. Hence, it is fitting to call this Arnold, G.K. Chesterton, Irving Babbitt, T.S. Eliot,
philosophic conservatism ‘Platonic’ conservatism. Romano Guardini, Denis de Rougemont, Otto
Whatever name we give it, this third type of conservatism Friedrich Bollnow, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Nicolai
is the most important of the three. It calls attention to a Hartmann, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin. But this
whole range of things that are crucial for a good society, many is just the tip of the iceberg. Seek and you will find.
of which have been forgotten and disregarded in the post-
war era, especially in the last decades. Liberal-conservatism Andreas Kinneging is a professor at the Law School of the
certainly does not draw attention to them. It isn’t even aware University of Leiden in The Netherlands. He is a founder
of them, which is hardly surprising, in view of the fact that and board member of the Center for European Renewal, and
it shares the revolutionary principles of equality and liberty. former president of the Vanenburg Society.
The European Conservative 7
A Sea of Trouble in Europe
K a i W e i s s An Interview with
Ryszard Legutko
You fought against Communism, and when the Soviet
Union fell, there was a lot of hope with liberal
democracy coming into Eastern Europe. But, as you explain
in your latest book, you soon realized that it was not actually
that different from the previous system. Could you explain
how it has become surprisingly similar?
Of course there are differences because, as I write in my
book, I wouldn’t have had the political position I have
now under Communism for obvious reasons. But there are
some similarities and my feeling is that these similarities are
becoming greater.
I come from a staunchly anti-communist family, so
I never had a moment in my life where I sort of flirted
with communist parties or with Marxian and communist
ideology. It was obvious to me from the very beginning
— from the day I was born, from when I could start
thinking — that the communist system was bad and evil.
I was active in opposing the system. And at the same
time, as a university professor, I was interested in what
liberalism is, what democracy is, and I was working on
the political philosophy of antiquity and modernity. I
had, I would say, a good general overview of political
thought.
When the older regime was falling to pieces, I had this
idea that the new system would be exactly the opposite
of the one we had, that there would be a lot of freedom,
diversity, an exchange of ideas, and that there would be
Katarzyna Czerwinska / CCA-SA 3.0 Poland
a plurality of points of view and a certain seriousness in
talking about important issues. And it wasn’t the case. Of
course, I didn’t see it clearly at the very beginning.
Ryszard Legutko is a Member of the European
It is difficult to see things as they are because there are
Parliament, a member of the Foreign
lots of prejudices and judgements through which you see
Affairs Committee, and Deputy Chairman
things. But at a certain moment in my life I was starting
to think: “There is no plurality.” There is a monopoly, of the Parliamentary Group of European
and there is one point of view that has a monopoly. And Conservatives and Reformists. He is also a
there is this mendacity of language. There are many people professor of philosophy at Jagellonian University
who use words such as ‘plurality’, ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy’.
in Krakow, Poland. He has served as Minister of
They are the most autocratic. So I thought: “Maybe there’s
Education, Secretary of State in the Chancellery
something wrong with it.” So I came to this notion that
of the late President Lech Kaczynski, and Deputy
there is a certain similarity which goes back to some ideas
Speaker of the Senate. His most recent English-
in early modernity.
Both liberal democracy and Communism tend to language book is The Demon in Democracy:
politicize the entire society. You have to be political. There Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies
is no space, no area, no family, no religion which is discrete (Encounter Books, 2016).
from politics. Everything had to be communist — and now,
everything has to be liberal democratic.
8 Summer/Fall 2018
CC BY 2.0
The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, seated next to Ryszard Legutko and Geoffrey Van Orden,
during a meeting with members of the European Conservatives and Reformists parliamentary grouping.
In which specific way are you using the term liberal terms of politics.” In fact, they become monopolists.
democracy? Is it the politically correct, social justice culture, About three to five decades ago, when you looked at
or are there already problems in libertarian, classical liberal political theory, there were several political orientations,
thoughts? both in the real world and in the academic world. Now it’s
all gone. There is liberalism. It is a monopoly. Liberalism is,
My point is that it’s not just political correctness. See, in fact, the only legitimate philosophy out there. If you are
political correctness is the consequence of a long process, not a liberal, then what are you? Either a fascist or simply
and it’s a legitimate consequence. It’s not like, “Let’s get rid crazy — because every rational, well-educated person has
of political correctness” and then we will have the world or to be a liberal.
the system as it should be, with open space and a serious Now, when it comes to democracy, some people
discourse of opinions. My argument, which I put forward somehow think democracy is a system of freedom, a
in the book, is that from the very beginning liberalism was system that is ‘open’. Well, that’s not the case. It was the
a very restrictive, authoritarian theory. ancient democracy that was very autocratic. But what was
The word ‘liberalism’ comes from ‘liberty’, so eye-opening to me was reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s
etymologically people tend to think that whoever is liberal Democracy in America. The first part of the book is almost
must be for liberty. No, whoever is liberal is supportive of a entirely enthusiastic about American society because there
certain theory which is called ‘liberalism’. This is an entirely are so many NGOs — what he called associations, civic
different thing. Now, what I object to in liberalism — and organizations. He loves that and is very much impressed by
it starts with John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and John Stuart it — and quite rightly.
Mill — is that from the very beginning liberalism was However, the closer you get to the end of Tocqueville’s
conceived as a theory which considers itself to be superior book, you see that he is very much concerned. He sees that
to all others. That is: “We are better than you are, so we will there is a tendency in democracy to homogenize. Democracy
organize a life for you where each of you will have an equal is not about plurality. Democracy is about homogeneity,
amount of liberty.” the rule of the majority. And one of the sentences from
This promise may or may not be true, but by the Democracy in America that I quote in my book is: “I know
very idea, liberals position themselves above all other of no other country in the world in which there is less
orientations. They say, for example: “You conservatives are freedom of thought.”
one-sided, you Christians represent one particular religion. We have been living under the spell of a word — that
We liberals, we represent everybody. And since we represent ‘democracy’ is a good thing. But look at how it works: look
everybody, we will take control in terms of ideology, in at the institution in which I work, the European Parliament.
The European Conservative 9
This is a typical majoritarian institution, where the power have to use the arguments of John Locke. Edmund Burke
is in the hand of the majority which has the monopoly — was a better defender of freedom, he is more persuasive.
and whoever does not belong to the majority and does not Or you have Hegel, who was a better defender of freedom
conform to mainstream politics is marginalized. than Thomas Hobbes. For some reasons, liberals reserve for
More and more people are trying to convince us that themselves this role of the defenders of freedom.
liberal democracy is a perfect invention. It isn’t. There are
a lot of dangerous consequences, and we have to be aware Does liberal democracy in general lead to these ‘totalitarian
of those consequences, and try to either improve — or temptations’ or can some parts be sustainably retained?
eliminate — them.
We have to be very critical. The word ‘critique’ or There is no inevitability. Of course, you can change the
‘critical’ has become one of those favourite notions of system. My idea was that a better solution is a kind of
modern discourse, but this is also mendacious language. mixed regime, a mixed constitution system. Believe me,
There is the typical politician, and he is not critical at all the final months of Communism, and the first months of
because he’s not criticizing anything. He’s an apologist of liberal democracy, was the period when we had the greatest
the system. freedom. Before it was bad, and afterwards things have
Going back to your question: No, it’s not just the become worse and worse. I believe we can somehow change
recent developments in liberal democracy. Of course, the the system, we can somehow reform it if we diagnose the
recent developments in liberal democracy are particularly problems and influences.
acute, that’s why we can see them. But Tocqueville saw it Certainly, the system that we live in has become very
almost two hundred years ago — and then John Stuart Mill constraining. There are fewer and fewer things you can do,
saw it 150 years ago. It has been there, at various degrees there are fewer and fewer things that you can say, or that
of intensity, but it’s one of the problems of our times. The you can publish. This is ridiculous. Even private life and
same civilization that produced Marxism and Communism family life have been permeated by politics. Once you have
also produced liberalism and liberal democracy. made this diagnosis, you see that things are going wrong.
We are more and more trapped by this politics and by this
But aren’t those liberal values such as freedom of speech, ideology, but I can see a possibility that we can change the
natural rights, and human dignity — often derived from system.
Christianity — in and of themselves still correct, and have
simply been abused? When it comes to changing the system, do you have any
concrete solution at hand? Is it perhaps to strengthen civil
Natural right is a very bizarre concept — the whole idea society and the intermediary institutions again?
of a state-of-nature, which you can find in Hobbes, Locke,
and Rousseau, too, even though he was no liberal himself. I long ago gave up on the intermediary NGOs. Just two
This is a very strange notion. It is a purely fictitious picture hours ago, I was at a conference where a special fund
of human beings living in a very strange place. This is a for giving money to NGOs that are supportive of liberal
pure theoretical construction. You cannot say that it is democracy was discussed. That kills the entire concept of
natural. It is artificial. It’s a world of fiction. It’s a creation
of human imagination. There is nothing really natural
about a Hobbesian or Lockean state of nature. You cannot
defend freedom on the argument that in the state of nature
we were all free, because at the same time you can envisage
a different picture of society, where you say in the state
of nature we were all deprived of freedom, we were all in
shackles. Freedom is to be defended on different grounds.
If we look at Thomas Hobbes, he had this notion of
the state of nature in which all people were equal, people
were free, but at the same time everybody was endangered.
Then, in order to reduce this danger and increase security,
you had to build a big bureaucratic state, for the creation
of which you had to give up your freedom. The Hobbesian
people aren’t really free people. If you look at Locke, his
society is also a society ruled by a majoritarian government,
so it’s not a very free society either.
I don’t really believe that if you cherish freedom, you
10 Summer/Fall 2018
