'Liberal Intolerance,' Egalitarianism and Proportionalism
3 October 2004

Re:
FrontPage magazine.com :: How to Oppose Liberal Intolerance by Lawrence Auster.

Auster attributes "liberal intolerance" to an underlying egalitarian ideology, but I take a different view. In spite of a fair amount of fuzzy egalitarian rhetoric coming from university administrators, etc., the operational doctrine of much of the left is proportionalism, which is the belief that the representation of members of various groups ("minorities, gays and women") in the better positions in our society should be according to their proportions in society at large. Both doctrines use terms such as fairness, justice, etc. But proportionalism allows large differences in income, e.g., a lecturer or graduate assistant might make only 3 or 4 percent of the half million dollars per year made by a university president. Still, the president is widely hailed as fighter for social progress and can extemporaneously declaim, without smirking, against the evils of inequality.

The proportionalist doctrines are used to justify not only "intolerance" of differing views, but also outright discrimination. We can see this in the recommendations of numerous "Status of Women On Campus (or In Engineering or In the Sciences)" commissions. They always add up to: Hire more women!

The people on hiring committees who implement this imperative seem all to be hooked up into some mysterious estrogenous network. Thus, we have egalitarian rhetoric, proportionalism as a practical philosophy and cronyism as a result. The white males who thrive in such an environment are necessarily ones who utter all the usual shibboleths, and who would never challenge the underlying doctrines or mechanisms.

Auster's final statement is: "If we are effectively to oppose modern liberalism with its destructive double standards, we must oppose it on principle." That might not be enough. If some motley aggregation of utopian types wishes to attempt to construct a proportionalist society on their own property with their own resources, I really don't care. My objection is to people who are pushing egalitarian or proportionalist agendas for the transformation of the society I live in.

I say "No!" for two reasons. One, it won't work. I don't believe it is intended to work. It is a concept that gets discarded whenever it is of no use to the powerful cliques that find leverage in it in many situations. Males are now noticibly "under-represented" in many student bodies, but the professional proportionalistas do not complain. Nor do they complain about the "under-representation" of non-Jewish white people. This is the second reason I oppose "modern liberalism." It is an attack on me, on my people, on my territory and on my traditions. I stopped believing the "better society where we can all get along" stuff a long time ago.

I don't think we can abolish identity politics. That means we must play it. That means we must know who we are and act accordingly.

 
Copyright © 2004

If you wish to link to this article, try copying and pasting:

<a href="http://m3peeps.org/blog/liep.htm">'Liberal Intolerance,' Egalitarianism and Proportionalism</a>

[Go to index for Web Log, Volume One]

[Go to m3peeps.org home page]