On GZ Mosque, Obama and Ghettos: The Challenge of Difference in a Liberal Society

I have been engaging in email exchange with Eric Dondero, Publisher, LibertarianRepublican.net. Yesterday, I posted a blog showing our back and forth conversation (http://libertyandcapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-engagement-futile-progressive-and.html )

I’m not sure I’d call it a respectful conversation yet, but it is at least a conversation between people who fundamentally disagree with each other. I for one welcome engaging Eric and other libertarians directly.

I wanted to pick up on Eric’s last email to me:

From: Eric Dondero
To: Howard Schwartz
Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 11:46:43 AM
Subject: Re: Howard, Liberty is all about Individual Rights
Yes, you may quote anything I said, but not as Anonymous. As Eric Dondero, Publisher, LibertarianRepublican.net

And most certainly do quote my comments about pro-life and marijuana.

I think we are dangerously close to Civil War in this country. Obama's actions yesterday with the GZ Mosque have royally pissed a lot of people off. This guy truly hates America. I mean there's no dancing around it any more for liberals. I'd have a lot more respect for your side if you just admitted that yes, our guy Obama, does really hate America, hates Americans, and wants to see this Nation destroyed.

Why is it so hard for your side to come clean on that? Just admit it for gosh darn's sake.

Again, the only "compromise" I see is through private property rights. You all set up a bunch of Kibutzes for your collectivist strategies, isolate yourselves, and leave the rest of us real Americans the hell alone.

Problem is liberals don't want to do that. They want to jam their communism down the throats of the rest of us.


My reply:

Eric,
There are several points I would like to respond to in this email. Each of them probably deserve their own blog.

Your comment:
Obama “truly hates America”….Why is it so hard for your side to come clean on that? Just admit it for gosh darn's sake.

My response:
I completely disagree. And the issue I think is whether someone you fundamentally disagree with necessary “hates America”. I fundamentally disagree with you but I think you love America. We just have very different visions of what America is. The fact that you have a very different vision than me doesn’t mean you hate America. Nor does it mean I hate America. The same is true of Obama. He loves America just like you do. Only he has a different vision of America than do you. My vision happens to be much closer to his.

In fact, I guess, a vision of freedom is ultimately about how we live in the same country with people who make us feel hate and who have fundamentally different views.

Your comment:
Obama's actions yesterday with the GZ Mosque have royally pissed a lot of people off.

My response:
I can understand why many people feel very vulnerable and emotional over a mosque close to ground zero. Many Americans still associate any form of Islam with the attack on America. But I believe there are various forms of Islam. There are militant forms of Islam that are trying to destroy America and that feed the ideology of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, among other militant Islamic groups. But I also believe there are more moderate, ethically oriented forms of Islam as well. Religion definitely has the capacity to produce intolerance and hate. But that is true, not just of Islam, but of Christianity and Judaism too. Take the Christian crusades in the middle ages and the number of Jews and witches burned at the stake. Christianity had its violent side as well until the enlightenment in the seventeenth century when thinking about the nature of religion fundamentally changed. The idea of liberty, incidentally, was born in the same period and I would argue was closely tied in to a new understanding of religion that made it more tolerant. I would agree that Islam needs that kind of encounter with enlightenment, but I worry as much about fundamentalist Jews and Christians as about fundamentalist Muslims. In my view, there are only two forms of religion in the world, those who are fundamentalists and those who are not.

So back to the GZ Mosque. I can see why the Mosque being built near ground zero is painful to so many people. But I also believe that enlightened and reflective Muslims can be a part of America just like Christians and Jews. Yes, I am a Jew and have special sensitivity to minority people’s and religions because of the history of my own people.


Your comment:
Again, the only "compromise" I see is through private property rights. You all set up a bunch of Kibutzes for your collectivist strategies, isolate yourselves, and leave the rest of us real Americans the hell alone.

Problem is liberals don't want to do that. They want to jam their communism down the throats of the rest of us.

My reply:
Hmmmm….I hope the statement about Kibutzes is not intended to be anti-Semitic. I am in fact a Jew and the reference to putting us in kibbutzim (plural for Kibutz) can stir up anti-Semitic fears of ghettos in Europe. I’m going to assume you didn’t want me to feel you were saying that because accusations like that they don’t get us anywhere. I’ll assume you mean that you want to put liberals into their own political communities but not allow them to vote and therefore impose their views on libertarians.

But how is that a liberal society, Eric? Are you saying that all non-libertarians should not be able to vote? Isn’t that the opposite of liberty? Isn’t liberty by definition the running of government by the people and isn’t the structure of the legislative branches to enable diverse viewpoints to express themselves and ultimately come to resolution. Isn’t this the vision of the founders? How do you reconcile your with freedom of speech? I get it that you feel that your liberty is being compromised when liberals win the election and get to impose more taxes than you like, or want to support seat-belt rules, or limit guns, or impose non-smoking rules. You feel like the Communists or Socialists have taken over.

The real question, Eric, is how should a liberal society define where the boundary between individual rights and government. You assume liberals are embracing Communism because we want to enforce more taxes than you like, we want to support seat belt rules, and non-smoking rules, and have regulations on the oil companies and the financial markets. But there is a huge spectrum, in my view at least, between libertarian views and Communism. There can be many regulations in a society without it being Communist or Socialist. Indeed, I would argue that the notion that government should regulate society was at the heart of the liberal vision defined by John Locke and other early advocates of natural rights. What differentiates regulation from Communism or Socialism is the right of representation. The rules imposed by government grow out of a political process that allows Americans to weigh in through voting. It is through representation that the founders believed ensured that taxes and regulations would be by the people.

I am sometimes as frustrated as you by the outcome of the political process. When Republicans are in office I also feel they shove down our throats policies that I find offensive. When George Bush led us into war with Iraq, my money was spent on a war that I could not understand or defend. And when Republicans or Libertarians defend the lack of regulations that can lead to disastrous oil spills such as we recently saw in the Gulf, or lack of regulations that in my view generated the housing market bubble burst and the ultimate economic melt-down, I too feel sickened and angry.

But it seems inevitable that in a liberal society some group or groups always feel that the majority are imposing their views on the minority (within the limits set by the Constitution and the court). Is that not what representation is ultimately about. One side winning and another losing.

I don’t yet want to go as far as you and imagine putting Republicans or Libertarians into Kibbutzim or Ghettos. Ultimately, of course, if both sides feel passionate enough, the political process could simply break down. We could end up in Civil War (I hope not!). Perhaps we will have to divide America into Liberal and Libertarian States. I live in California so I’m safe I guess. But then it is going back to the days before the Constitution of 1787 when each state was its own autonomous political unit. And if we do that, then America as a country will not be able to act as a unit and will lose the dominance in the world and be more like Europe a bunch of countries that have an alliance. Perhaps that is the inevitable outcome, and perhaps the consequences will be good for the world. Otherwise, we have to learn to live together.