What you think is a simplistic assertion is really a rhetorical thing that I see I didn’t write clearly enough: there are people who say that liberals will stifle creativity (because they don’t stress the individual); there are people who say that conservatives only want to wallow in the glorious past (because they are obsessed with tradition), etc. This is the fear each “side” of the spectrum has of the other.

My feeling is, neither is true. In particular, I think being truly liberal has everything to do with individuality; that a truly liberal outlook will celebrate entrepreneurship and individual excellence (as I like to think i do).

Sorry for the late reply, I just saw your comment today.

The piece is well-written but I’d like you to elaborate on some of the stands you’ve taken. The statement: “(A) functioning, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives, plus everything else in between” is very problematic. (I think Bhupinder has said well, what I would like to have said.)

And then you use this very statement to make simplistic assertions such as: “An entirely liberal society might stifle creativity and entrepreneurship; an entirely conservative one might wallow in the supposed glories of the past, outlawing kissing on the way.”

Pray, how would an entirely liberal society stifle creativity? (It seems to me that you are talking here of the bourgeois-democratic version of liberalism so even if does stifle creativity — as some people on the Left might claim — conservatism certainly won’t be the solution.)

I understand that you set out to write a medium length essay, a format in which some generalisations need to be made. But a clarification in the comments section would help.

I’d like to know is how the liberals and conservatives view “education”.
By which i mean the process of providing children/youth with skills that they can apply in real-life
—towards building valuable personal relationships and
—the pursuit of happiness and value.

How is this for a differentiation?

Conservatives have an answer for every questions (usally a tried-and-tested-and worked-didin’t-it answer which they beleive they should hold true lest it be defeated by actual eveidence)

Liberals have a question for every answer (as they introspect, dissect and re-question, never sure till they hear from every single stakeholder and issue)

Regards
Santanu Chari

Not true. In my experience discussing the idea what has figured equally is (more) political issues like the freedom of speech, or ideology, or the rise of religious nationalism, etc.

For me when I sat to write this, the task I set myself was, how can I raise the wider themes via the entry point of a small, simple example? That’s why this example. (Besides it had just happened and I was annoyed by it).

Anyways, coming to my main point I would think that having the freedom to ‘live your life as you want and leave others to their lives’ is something which needs to be sought *after* having the freedom for open discussions on such matters. To give an example, most people might agree that a couple ‘making out’ in public is a debatable act and may require some kind of censorship but few would agree that people discussing the possibility of it not being censored is in itself objectionable.

Take another example (this time from US). In 1990’s a college student named Andrew Martinez was expelled from U. Berkeley since he started attending classes in nude. The important point to note here is not whether he was considered right or wrong by the authorities/government but the fact that at the least the idea of someone being naked in public was not deemed downright wrong in the media or society at that point (and that remains true even now).

So my minimal definition of liberal society is where some act which involves consenting people (consenting to make love on a beach or to fly kite on their roof-top or cook sandwiches on roadside or whatever you like) and which doesn’t involve any other persons’ live is not ruled out without a sincere public debate.

hee. word verification is worry

Well put.

“a functioning, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives, plus everything else in between.”

You said it. The earlier this realisation comes, the better.

Kuffir, by structures I really meant “institutions” — the judiciary, parliament, bureaucracy, laws, universities; certainly then, also public transport systems etc. What people devise when they get together. And as opposed to the anarchy of every individual doing what they want to do.

Bhupinder, I’m a believer in introspection. It doesn’t always change your views, but it clarifies them. I don’t know what you mean by “functionalist”, though. Please expound on that! I’m intrigued. But that remark about a healthy society — put it this way. I mean it in the same way that I think democracy is best served both by a strong opposition and wide representation.

Perhaps this discussion is for another time, but I could not but help noticing the somewhat functionalist approach (“healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives”) in the essay.