Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

"Stated another way, there is no divine element in the world, there is no justice, there is no trust; there is only room for the equality of everything and everyone, thus creating a transparent absolute of no absolutes. These are the liberal presuppositions."

While being an accurate summary of how right-wing ideologues and fundamentalist extremists describe liberals, that statement is an entirely inaccurate description of liberal presuppositions (I do recall a similar - yet more specific - sentiment in the Declaration of Independence, however). If one wanted an accurate view of a liberal presupposition in regards to equality, one would be better stating that liberals presuppose that justice is guaranteed by equality - both of rights and responsibilites - between all people under the law.

However, this doesn't address what I think your point is. Am I right in reading you as saying that for a liberal all of these "liberal talking points" are of equal importance and doing equal damage to the Republican Party, while non-liberals do not? If so I'd say you're again incorrect. While all of these so-called "talking points" are doing damage to the Republican party, they are not assumed to be doing equal damage. Even the cartoon renders your description inaccurate. Notice the hammers are all of different sizes. As to whether it is only liberals "beating the drum", as you put it, again you're incorrect. Quite a few of the criticisms summarized in the cartoon are in fact coming from conservatives as well as liberals; if polls are to be beleived many of the criticisms are coming from the majority of the American people regardless of ideological affiliation.

On your larger point I think liberals would completely agree that the only way to defeat the nihilistic world-view you describe (one which liberals do not in fact have) is to embrace truth. The real argument is not nihilism versus truth. The real argument is where the source of truth lies. Liberals, like anyone, believe that truths - be they scientific, logical, or moral - exist and can be discovered and described. In fact the only real difference between liberals and non-liberals is that liberals do not believe that the ideas in a single book written by a bronze-age tribe are to be privileged simply because they come from that book. Liberals also don't think that those who believe that book is the source of all truths should be privileged above those who don't (equality under the law again). If liberals can be accused of an urge to see things as equal, it's due to the observation that many of the same ideas present in that book are present in other books too.

You've also missed the source of this moral equivalance and nihilism which bothers you (and me). Starting in the 1940's, certain political and social scientists embarked on such a program but almost all of them were either communists, facists, or anarchists working in elite universities in the United States, England and France. Almost none of them were liberals. That some who would claim to be liberal embraced parts of this program is indeed a shame. That it's been a boon to the far right is certainly true. But to claim that anyone who is a liberal embraces this program by default is to paint with far too large a brush.

I’m glad that you chose to continue the dialog as I was honestly uncertain if you would or not. Rather than debate the merit and source of talking points being left, right or center; I would prefer to focus on the liberal principles as you lay them out. It is interesting that you would criticize me for painting with a large brush and then border on doing that yourself. But I suppose that gives some credence to the consistency of the inconsistency.

Your view that “justice is guaranteed by equality - both of rights and responsibilities - between all people under the law” may be your model of thought but it is not how liberal thought is put into practice; at least not with any consistency. I believe the major breakdown here, causing the greatest inability to remain consistent is the false hope of equality especially as it relates to truth.

The major foundational flaw is the birth of a post-modern view of truth which is rooted in existentialism which is rooted in nihilism. The discovery of truth has been reduced, especially that of moral truth, to a set of finite, man-made and thus man centered rules. This has caused moral truth to take on a rather fluid definition, reducing it even further to the nothingness of the nihilist.

This is why in the application of your search for justice, you find none. Because there is no justice, there is nothing or no one to trust. Only by remaining inconsistent and adhering to a set of fluid principles and absolutes are you able to seek the ghost of hope in a liberal worldview. That is the tie that binds the large brush strokes together and marries your view of liberal principles with mine.

Jeff, as I pointed out in my previous comment, the post modern view of truth you describe is not liberal; it is not a liberal presupposition, it is not a liberal principle, it is not part of the liberal program. You are describing something which in essence comes from a perverted form of Marxism. If you're interested in how a liberal views the post-modern program I highly recommend you read "Fashionble Nonesense" by Alan Sokal - a liberal physicist who outdid any religious philosopher in confronting the post modern program. Sokal objected strongly to the notion that truth was a cultural creation - especially scientific truth - and made fools of the entire post-modern establishment.

As for your notion of liberalisms fluid truth, I think you're conflating "existential" with "universal". While it is perposterous to insist that "there are no absolute truths", it is quite correct to say "there are some non-absolute truths". 150 years ago it was true that "no person can leave Baltimore at noon and arrive in Washington, DC at 1:00 pm." That statement is false now. Here are a few other statements that were once true but are now false: "Jeff Price is an unmarried man", "Jay is a smoker", "No man has ever been in space", "There is no vaccine for the flu", "Yesterday was monday". Some truths ARE fluid, regardless of what you think your bible says.

As for equality between people, liberals do not believe in that either. How could we be liberal elitists AND believe in equality between people? That makes no sense.

Your point about moral truth is well taken, but again, you insist on the existence of the imaginary "liberal who believes in moral equivalance". There is no such beast. No liberal believes that any one person's moral code is just as good as any other; liberals believe that every person is morally bound to follow the law. Yes, liberals do believe that reason rather than religion is the source of law and this may bother some people. I suggest an examination of theocratic regimes would dispell that bother.

In short, your entire argument about liberals rests on an imaginary construction, and this is why I keep telling you your "principles" are flawed. I know you think you hold a deep insight into the "truth about liberalism", but you don't. I will continue to discourse with you on this subject until that belief is dispelled and you start having an accurate understanding of what the principles of liberalism are and what their application entails.

I should also point out that I'll continue to dialogue with you on any subject, even if this one goes away without any success on my part.

I applaud your willingness and commitment to correcting my understanding of liberal ideology. As to a claim of deep insight, I’m not entirely sure I have made one. Above all, these are principles that I have observed liberals generally adhering. In fact, I also believe I have demonstrated a willingness to adjust my observations when convinced of their need for adjustment.

Perhaps you can explain the dichotomy of existential and universal, as it seems to me that an existentialist would hold that their view is universal. In fact, that is something that anyone wishing to remain consistent with their worldview would attempt to do. The examples that you site are objective facts of observation for a specific period in time. I don’t believe that makes objective truth fluid, as those truths are still true for that time period.

Finally it would appear that our definition of reason is another divergent in our thought processes. For you, reason is that which the autonomous mind can discover and apply to the world as law thus creating morality. For me, morality comes from the very character of God which has been revealed in all creation which is the foundation of reason. In short, reason for you is man focused and for me it is God focused.

Let me draw a distinction here and say that this view is not wholly owned by liberal thinkers, but liberal principles have been my focus for the time being.

When I first read your "Liberal Principle #1", my gut reaction was "Here's another conservative insisting that I'm an atheist." So I read some more, and I thought some more.

As a christian liberal, I find it hard not to get offended at the claim that I don't believe in God's influence on the world. Once upon a time, I was more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but the recent political climate has led to a lot of polarization, and with the most vocal christian groups taking one side, there's a big pull to mark religion and liberalism as mutually exclusive (and I think one of the worst things the left has done is to fail to really address this. They hang back and tacitly let themselves be labled atheists, rather than pointing out that many of the values of the left *are* the traditional christian values, and that most of the very vocal conservative christian groups are practicing a *perversion* of traditional christian values).

So I disagree that it's a liberal principle that "A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not." What I will concede is that liberals believe we should not presume to know why, how, or when God is going to take an active hand in human affairs. And as a side effect, whether or not god exerts influence in the world today, we must not legislate in such a way as to *rely* on divine intervention. In other words, the omnipresence of God is not an excuse to not do whatever we can ourselves (And I know a lot of religious conservatives who *do* view it that way, especially with respect to our treatment of the poor -- they conclude "The government shouldn't help them; we'll let God take care of them."). The world behaves *as if* God is not taking an active interest, because a universe that needs constant divine intervention to keep working is a pretty poor design -- and God doesn't seem like the sort of God who'd half-ass the creation of the universe. But this is not to say that God *doesn't* constantly intervene, only that His interventions are such that -- to those who do not believe (and I will not say "those who choose not to believe", because I believe faith is a gift from God) -- it doesn't look like He did anything.

So yes, liberals believe there is divine justice, there is divine trust. What troubles us is the propensity for folks on the other side to try to appoint themselves *instruments* of it. To other liberals, this might well have something to do with their belive that those people don't actually have a handle on God's will. To *this* liberal, it bothers me because, to me, it reflects a *lack* of faith. When folks on the right want to force "christian" morality on people, want to act as the instrument of divine justice, what it says to me is that they *don't* believe: they're *afraid*. If they really trusted God, they wouldn't need to do His work for him.

But that's just me.

Ross,

You make some very good observations and I appreciate your contribution to this conversation. I agree that the current political climate and polarization is sad to see when the ultimate goal is supposed to be unity. I’ll even go as far as to say that “just let God take care of the poor” is certainly a perversion of traditional Christian values.

What I find curious about your observations is the dichotomy of these two ideas, “liberals believe we should not presume to know why, how, or when God is going to take an active hand” and “a universe that needs constant divine intervention to keep working is a pretty poor design”. On one hand you admit to your finite knowledge of God and on the other espouse wisdom regarding creation that could only come from your finite mind.

I whole heartedly agree that saving faith in the knowledge of God is only by His divine graces and thus a free-will offering or the gift of propitiation (covering of our sins and standing blameless before Him) and everlasting life. How beautiful it is to stand firm on those promises – no matter how wretched a sinner we are. And it is because of this gift and the new creation we are made in the image of Christ that we become integral parts of the Body. This is why a deep loving faith and trust in the God of creation is exactly what leads to us doing His work with Him.

One last thing. You’re right – we’re afraid. We are all afraid of an unknown future and where our country is headed or isn’t headed. We are afraid that if we don’t act – our faith is dead. “[F]aith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17), and the inverse is true as well; actions without faith are just as dead.