Letter to the Editor
The American Enterprise
June 2005, sent 20 May 05
Great magazine; keep up the good work. Being a Christian who falls politically somewhere between "conservative" and "libertarian," I was intrigued by Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa's "Confessions of an Old-Fashioned Liberal." I have long pondered how and why the original "classical liberal" vision morphed into modern liberalism's push for intrusive big government. Was it inevitable or a reversible accident of history? I think Llosa provides a clue. His kind of liberals, he says, are "agnostics and supporters of separation between church and state and defenders of the decriminalization of abortion and gay marriage." Their basic precepts are "political democracy, the market economy, and the defense of individual interests over those of the state ... founded on private property and the rule of law." He acknowledges the importance of "ideas and culture" (not just economics, as the Marxists said) in differentiating civilization from barbarism. He warns of promoting only political or economic freedom, as both are needed, and beyond either, promotes "tolerance and respect for others, especially for those who think differently from ourselves, who practice other customs and worship another god or who are non-believers ... [which] awakened that natural distrust of power [by liberals]."
But what is the basis of these liberal precepts: private property, rule of law, democracy, the free market, individual liberties? Did they appear out of thin air, by accident? Is it coincidental that America, which he admits exhibits the closest approximation to his liberal vision of freedom, emerged from the Christian West, based upon Christian principles, founded in the minds of many 18th-century Americans as a Christian nation? If not, what will become of these precepts if their religious basis is obscured or even demonized by religion-mistrusting liberals like Llosa? Even the atheistic German philosopher Juergen Habermas admits that "Christianity alone is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy. To this day, we have no other options." Since the Enlightenment, liberals have been trying without success to rebase the Western fruits of Christianity on some other "neutral" basis (e.g. rationalism, empiricism, positivism, etc.). Meanwhile they brazenly proclaim their distrust of religion in general, Christianity in particular, the very source of these fruits so beloved by them. M. Stanton Evans in his book "The Theme is Freedom" nails this thesis.
It is easy to see why this must be so. Freed from Christ's commands to love God and others, why would we possibly want or need to treat them with true respect? Oh sure, we'd need for them to THINK we were doing that, in the interest of getting what we need and want, but the bottom line would be "what's in it for me?" Come to think of it, this DOES describe alot of behavior these days, but the point is it would be much worse without the restraining influence of people at least trying to follow Christ's example and to acknowledge and abide by God's objective moral laws.
In summary, Llosa's (and classical liberal or libertarian) ideals sound nice, but without a solid basis in Christian faith, they will (as they have in the past) eventually succumb to inherent human selfishness and will to power (Exhibit A is the degradation of "liberalism" from a freedom-loving philosophy to a movement endorsing the forcible redistribution of wealth, redesign of society and suppression of religion by means of an ever larger, more intrusive government in a top-down, bare-knuckle, merciless and unrestrained way).
Steven P. Sawyer
Wow, frmr date Sa 26 May 2007! This is probably a good place to note the passing of fellow S American writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez and add some comments from the 5-19-2014 issue of NR. 'The Week' says he did what most writers can't do; get millions of people to them. His novels, esp. '100yrs of Solitude' are among the most praised of our time. Lit is a matter of taste, and his 'magic realism' isn't for everyone. But character is less a matter of taste, nor should be: GGM was a friend and defender of the USSR and Communism elsewhere. He was a very great friend and defender of Fidel Castro, and a determined foe of Castro's enemies e.g. Cubans who want a free country. GGM was a Colombian who lived in Mexico. Sadly, in every generation there are people in free countries who support, perfume and love dictators who keep other countries unfree. 'Gabo' (as many called him) was perhaps the most prestigious person in all of Latin America. His prestige could've done great things for the Cuban people, and in particular the pol. prisoners. Instead, GGM lent his prestige to their jailers and torturers. He may've written prettily, but he did nasty things w/his life. Dead at 87. RIP. Later in the same issue, David Pryce-Jones writes 'Poet of Self-Pity' on GGM's baleful influence, saying he lived/died in Mexico City, and got a kingly funeral sendoff there. His native Colombia has been a mess for a long time, w/Marxist guerrillas battling right-wing paramilitary groups and drug cartels for nearly 50yrs. Cocaine is the country's chief source of income. Fear for his own safety led GGM to Mexico. His 'magic realism' won him the 1982 Nobel Prize and he was praised as 'the pioneer of a cultural renaissance in Latin America'. But lit. shows us that actions have consequences, causes have effects. All great writers have something to say about this inescapable fact of the human condition. Magic realism is the reverse, resting on the supposition that there are consequences w/o any need for action, and effects w/o causes. In one of his novels, a woman goes outside to hang her laundry and ascends physically to heaven. Many other examples. Suspension of normal cause-effect leaves reality at the mercy of whimsy. His writing is 'word spattering', the lit version of Jackson Pollock paintings. But there's something even worse; MR posits that pwrfl irrational forces are at work and people can do nothing about them. Events can't be forseen, behavior is unpredictable, defs of good, bad, right, wrong are variable. So ordinary people are NOT responsible for their lives, and can only feel sorry for themselves. His MR caught on because it plays into the self-pity brought on by pol. failure. Dictatorship has been the historic experience in Latin America. Unseating each has been a bloody, violent mess usually ending w/another one, leaving the people helpless. GGM wrote of Simon Bolivar, the prototype dictator, and many other elites appear in his fiction. Like many LA intellectuals he turned to Communism, to meet violence w/violence. He was a classic fellow traveler during the Cold War. He protested Gen. Pinochet of Chile (tho GGM's buddy Castro k. many more). This is MR in action; dictatorship is good for some, bad for others (inconsistent). The USA is depicted (of course) as a huge impersonal and irrational force in his fiction. It is simply brute power, and those helpless before it are left only w/self-pity. Bill Clinton of course admired GGM (as all 'blame America 1st'ers did). But DPJ says it doesn't have to be like that. In 1976, Mario Vargas Llosa met GGM on the street and punched him in the eye (blackening it). Unclear what the 2 LA future Nobel winners were quarrelling about. It may've been private, but they were ideological opposites; MVL ran for pres. in Peru, didn't win but made it clear actions have consequences, and there ARE peaceful ways to be rid of dictators and free of self-pity. MR is never going to get the job done.