Comments on Sohrab Ahmari's "Illiberalism: The Worldwide Crisis"

Probably Sohrab Ahmari is one of the more lucid geopolitical analysts today. His recent article "Illiberalism: The Worldwide Crisis" posted in Commentary Magazine prompts me to think that, in spite of humanity's long-term gains in freedom, nutrition, health, education and poverty reduction thanks to many of the positive aspects associated with modern rational thinking, organizing and ethos, there really seems to be a temporary worldwide ascendancy of semi-fascist "strong men" challenging liberal democratic principles according to their local or regional contexts. This may actually be an important civilizational challenge that current and upcoming democratic leaders must face.

As liberal democrats are becoming postmodern they question some modern values, their zeal to fight injustice tempers down and many tend to become weak defenders of liberal democracy and values such as of tolerance, plurality, equality before the law and freedom. They begin to embrace different "others" some of whom may not share the same liberal values of tolerance, plurality, equality before the law and freedom with responsibility. And by not defending the best of modern values their system (and our system) may be in peril.  And along with this, the creative transition into a more inclusive but sanely coherent and functional stage could also be in peril. 

During the transition to healthier, more evolved and integrative political and economic systems we truly need to save the best of previous stages and, in terms of liberal democracy, we are referring to crucial ethical principles, discoveries, methods and applications proper to the cultural-political developmental stage normally referred to as “modernity.”  

The combination of an excessive postmodern, relativist opening to everyone’s values and ideas and the weakening of the assertion of modern values in the midst of flagging modern institutions is naturally taken advantage by pre-modern conservatives ("pre-modern" mostly in terms of SENTIMENT), a situation backlashing against liberal democracy. For instance in these goings-on we may see “outsider” candidates that may be thought of in many ways as “conservative” but who (like Donald Trump) may now challenge the "rigged" system “breaking the mold” by presenting themselves against the way powerful businesses have been influencing the political system.

But, within a postmodern reaction to the decadence of what were somewhat more exemplary modern institutions once more aligned with actual modern liberal standards, we may also see candidates like Bernie Sanders "breaking the mold." In fact, according to the Integral Theory-based analyst Jeff Salzmann ( visit www.dailyevolver.com), Sanders is moving American culture forward by introducing a postmodern political sense into a context in which different political voices co-exist while each basically representing different stages of consciousness with their own premises, methods, ideological clusters, solutions and values (stages often referred to in Integral Theory parlance as "amber-mythic," "modern-rational," "postmodern-egalitarian" and an incipient "integral"). Understanding this factor that indicates that we live in different interpretive worlds is crucial to understanding no only politics in the U.S. but in all other nation-states, geopolitically and (even if this still sounds apocryphal or taboo to many)…exopolitically.     

In the U.S. (and applicable both to Democratic Party candidates and to Republican Party candidates),  there have indeed been too many years in which large corporations, industries and their special interest lobbies have consistently given large donations and made very strong efforts to influence legislature. Moreover, under this situation (and also due to the current geopolitical context filled with great challenges such as terrorism, including decentralized terrorism), and to look strong, credible and realistic, the “left” has become more like the “right” used to be a few decades ago. 

The situation is compounded because quite frequently liberal democracy is confused with the current permissivity toward large corporations and their association with neoliberal financialization (a distortion of capitalism) which leads to the formation of great inequalities, mafias and oligopolies. Clearly, these last two activities were not part of Adam Smith's original ideas, nor of his proposals. Adam Smith also fought for social justice and this is quite often not being carefully understood.

  

The situation is also compounded by the fact that each person operating from a pre-integrative psychological stage believes that his or her way of thinking is exclusively the best one. Even highly educated, modern, “rational” individuals may think that in an overbearing, dogmatic and unreasonable sense…that everyone else is way too irrational. And many pre-modern individuals valuing structure, authority and power may passionately attempt to utilize democracy (or any other means) in order to change society and/or to self-aggrandize. The latter may even temporarily motivate traditionalists and conservatives but actually represent not a pre-modern but a pre-traditionalist and pre-modern sentiment and way of understanding things (what in Integral Theory is called a "red" altitude) in which positive conservative values such as humility, faith, tradition and service to the common good may not be priority but which instead may be subservient to raw power and the authorities that hold that power.

Regarding sentiments that orient will, decision-making and action, individuals adopt the local cultural ideologies they know and feel more comfortable with (ideologies informing and re-enforcing their self-identities) inasmuch as these coincide with a particular level of reality-interpretation and development they are primarily situated in. This applies to all of us whichever interpretive levels of consciousness we may be in. 

And their self-identities are part of this. So they currently attempt to utilize these ideologies (which at “pre-integral” levels turn into doctrines) in order to attempt to re-establish meaningful personal and social order in a complex world in turmoil, a world with fewer culturally shared certainties and – as mentioned - they do it by amalgamating particular traditional ideas and values mostly according to their local cultural contexts. Then they try to impose a gut-based direction on the whole of society inciting gut-level, frustrated populations that psychologically-speaking require to follow powerful authority figures with simple, dichotomous answers. Once they control a political system they repress other 'voices', freedom of thought, liberty, often combining economic and political power with a highly nationalist, religious or ethnic narrative. 

This situation may be an opportunity for creative cultural individuals (shifting from a modern, late-modern and/or postmodern vision into integralism) to rise to the challenge and respond, proposing viable new political systems, beyond "left wing vs right" and other such stagnant discourses but its happening first requires acknowledging the situation. We also need to understand that behind a clash of ideas and civilizations there truly may be a clash of levels of consciousness, of the capacity to conceive and interpret reality and how those capacities attach to distinct ideologies.

By making use of concepts from Ken Wilber's Integral Theory (an evolving post postmodern, meta integrative theory), I think that this situation may in part be related with the fact that orthodox modern liberal politics is also not quite rising to the challenge presented by an unprecedented level of systemic complexity, a very different world from what it was at the time when liberal democracies first took hold to challenge kingdoms, empires, colonial systems and other previous autocracies.

Now it seems that most liberal democratic leaders haven't yet embraced their own necessary evolution, rising toward their own shift into a more nuanced, meta systemic and integrative conceptual and identity-based stage. On the contrary, in their current evolving process of shifting from a decidedly modern stance to a modernity-questioning late-modern or postmodern stance (a necessary intermediate stage), influential liberal democratic voices may have become too "politically correct" and shy (not clearly leading a defense of liberal democracy) therefore empowering and allowing highly opinionated, authoritarian, self-centered individuals with pre-modern sentiments to become much more influential toward contemporary retrograde solutions. They resonate with the feelings of large pre-modern population segments by simply promising a resurgence of the (imaginary and partially real) "glories of old days," exacerbating pre-modern nationalist, ethnic and religious identities in the U.S. and in different countries in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Ahmari not only comments about the current situation in the U.S.  a country undergoing a phenomenon which may be called "Trumpism." In his article he also mentions variations on the same theme taking place right now in countries like France, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, Kenia, Austria, Russia, the United Kingdom, Spain, Turkey, and Italy; with countries like Iran already well-established in the nationalist and-or religious repression of democratic choices. Let's not forget that there are also serious setbacks in many Arab countries that in 2010-2011 underwent "Arab Spring" initiatives. 

Many nationalist resurgence-promising (albeit sui generis as per their local contexts) neo fascist "strong men" may have learned cynical strategies under the aegis of Machiavellian and "Realist" international political practices and schools that represent a limited modern-materialist-rationalist-win-lose type of logic that has been historically unable to spread the ideals of liberal democracy in a sufficiently convincing manner because it "rationally" emphasizes personal or local national well-being, even at the expense of others. Thus, people feel an incongruence and hypocrisy about how these "realpolitiks" combine with liberal democratic ideals.  

Besides that, the poor examples set by oligopolies gradually taking over healthy democratic processes since the 1980's would have promoted further cynicism in aspiring world leaders. Theirs is a pre-modern politics of taking advantage modern democratic systems through sentiments, economic stagnation, security fears and a lack of clearly heard liberal democratic options. Theirs is a pre-rational Nietzschean call to power (complementing a need to believe) in the midst of too much information that cannot be sorted out without a minimum level of integrative consciousness, cognition, ethics using an adequate meta theoretical framework.

And this happens along with an emotional lack of certainties; a call to the "will to power" offered to pre-modern and borderline modern individuals (in terms of identities, their accepted narratives, cosmologies and sentiment), a call to power offered before a new set of complexities to which the current liberal democratic leaders and their institutional and ideological foundations must adapt and rise in order to meet the challenge.

There is a challenge to the continued advancement of civilization, a civilization that should reconstruct itself in a less dichotomous and hurtful manner. Modern liberal democratic thinkers and political leaders must evolve and rise to the challenge presented by today's hyper complex world for which new fascist leaders using democratic processes are on the rise with local variations in most regions of the world. They must clearly defend the principles of liberal democracy and also evolve to co-create even more democratic post postmodern, integrative political systems capable of meeting today's demands, offering viable options that replace setbacks into pre-modern solutions.

There really seems to be a civilization crisis when the principles of democracy are being challenged (before the indifference and "zombification" of many) by a resurgence of politically-motivated pre-modern sentiments and leaders using democratic means to reach powerful positions from which they can change everything. We need to expand our range of ideas to save modernity which is necessary to reach the next more wholesome stage. And we also need to go beyond current modernity without destroying it. We really need to evolve and build a "complex" and "integrative" modernity, save civilization's progress and even include healthy, constructive wisdoms from non-western and non-modern origins wrongfully also suppressed by modern bigotry.

Perhaps modern cultural leaders and politicians going into their postmodern phase have to keep in mind seriously defending basic liberal principles without which they would not have the freedoms to think and to question some of their own previous certainties.

Perhaps emerging, post postmodern integrative thinkers also need to emphasize a bit more the "include" aspect of their integrative guideline to "transcend and include," in order to harmonize with universally compatible wisdoms and discoveries made within various cultures in pre-modern stages; wisdoms and discoveries that have also been offhandedly denied by many modern scientists and other modern and postmodern thinkers. We REALLY need to expand our range of ideas.........carefully and comprehensively.

There may be a clash not only of civilizations but of many competing cultural ideas forming identities which in today's world of multiple available options may be substantially linked to psychological preferences, even perhaps to "levels of consciousness" in the sense of what individuals can naturally feel comfortable with or predisposed and capable of mentally and emotionally embracing and processing. Again, in this situation, the importance of sentiment is crucial.   

The emergence of an integral education, integral values and leaders with integral sentiments, integral self-identities and coherently inclusive, integral theoretical explanations would offer solution to sanely transcend modernity avoiding regressions to previous stages of intolerance. This would take place partially because, within an integral mode of being, the healthiest contributions originating in previous stages of development are accepted and incorporated. This would calm down the ambivalence of many individuals needing clear structure.

But to be able to constructively overcome institutional decadence and, for the minds not only of pre modern but of pre traditional individuals not to fall into an "anything goes if you can get away with it" attitude that mistakes postmodern questioning of rigid certainties for absolutist self-assertion, I think that a very active cultural promotion needs to be seriously undertaken, one still inclusive of modern civic and ethical values while the sanest core of liberal democracy and modernity is also clearly defended. 

A link to Ahmari's excellent essay which inspired my comments is: 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/illiberalism-worldwide-crisis/