Reading the Liberal Manifesto

Reading and commenting on the Liberal Manifesto - May 2025

Project Liberal has proclaimed the Liberal Manifesto as a major reference point of its ideology. Noted here that I am generally an enthusiastic supporter of the movement. Nevertheless, here I come with substantial critique.

Much of the manifesto is great. It clarifies the meaning of "liberal" and is doing a great job delineating the current political confrontation between liberalism and authoritarianism.

However, on first or second reading, I disagree with one section, titled: TRUTH EXISTS AND IT MATTERS, - especially on "one unifying truth" - where I see danger of committing liberalism to the philosophy of natural law. Also there are certain glaring omissions in the whole text.

The section in question reads:

We reject the vicious lie told by pseudo-intellectuals and
the conspiracy-deranged that academics, scientists, and
journalists are the enemy. We know well that our true foe
lies not in those dedicated to the pursuit of truth but
rather in those who seek to contort reality to further their
own agenda. We also strongly oppose the relativistic
notion that the world is not bound together by facts and
that all things are merely "matters of opinion." We believe
in one unifying truth and commit ourselves to its impartial
and rigorous pursuit, even when its nuances clash with our
preconceived notions.

This should be the place in the manifesto to relate the liberalism ideology to philosophy, but without committing it to any particular philosophical outlook. The manifesto seems to place the roots of liberalism in John Locke and Adam Smith (in separate quotes) - and their ideas about natural law with whom many can disagree - but JS Mill and his utilitarianism remain unmentioned.

There is no place where the phrase "free speech" is uttered - the quote from Frederick Douglass comes close. Free speech is actually championed by JS Mill (in 19th century) who would be defending expression of opinions that are not aimed at truth. His defense is based on consequentialist principles of good outcomes of human actions rather than on quest for "one unifying truth."

It is not that I want to use JS Mill's (or Bentham's) utilitarian philosophy as the basis of liberalism, but I want to defend the freedom of speech of the  knowledge workers - academics, scientists, journalists - and also filmmakers, artists, philosophers, spiritual leaders, etc - whose work serves us all in clarifying the mystery of our existence.

I do not oppose the "relativistic notion" mentioned above - but only the application in political undertakings of ideas not based on objective knowledge. That is so because I wish that the liberal system will also protect the many things that are "merely matters of opinion" - that is - principally leave them outside the reach of the state. Conversely, these flimsy "matters of opinion" should be disabled of direct impact on politics.

As it stands, the Liberal Manifesto seems to embrace the doctrine of natural law and even anathemize the many potential adherents who would disagree with the quest for the "one unifying truth." That would include the fans of JS Mill and Ludwig von Mises.

I would rewrite this section as:

Objective outlook and freedom of speech matter.

Liberal politics requires that we have an objective view of facts of the world and objective understanding of the rules and laws governing them. The liberal state will cultivate and prioritize pursuit of knowledge based on the rigors of science and engineering, business, economics, as well as objective studies in humanities - of the law, religion, history, literature and art. In other words, the liberal state prioritizes evidence-based knowledge and permits its application in political decision making. However, the liberal state should protect the "freedom of speech" - which also includes expression of ideas which do not require objectivity and do not demand direct political influence. Such protection applies even when such ideas exert substantial cultural influence or meet with widespread public disapproval because freedom of speech and expression is part of the general individual liberty.

Further omissions include the lack of mention of these important concepts:

• tolerance
• limited government

The support for tolerance for differing views and lifestyle choices should be strongly spoken for in the manifesto. This is the core of the liberalism of JS Mill.

Limited government should be mentioned as it is well within the natural law conception of the sources of individual freedom as well as part of the libertarian political outlook, closely related to liberalism. JS Mill's work also covers this idea being inspired by "continental" (!) work of Wilhelm von Humboldt on limits of state power. The liberal belief is that most problems human beings confront are best solved by their own initiative and without use of the coercive powers of the government.

At some point reading and re-reading I felt the need to protest the section titled - ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL. In my view it should be rewritten under the title - ALL PEOPLE HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. And so I was led to conclude that the whole manifesto should be modernized - making it a presumed beginning of Modern Liberalism.

A modernized Liberal Manifesto should include notions such as these:

• equality - people are not created equal - they are born and they are born unequal. But all humans have equal human rights - among them rights to life, property, action and thought - the "three liberties"
• human rights come from the dignity that human being possesses on account of his courage in confronting the world while being aware of his finite existence - this is existentialist rather than "natural law" perspective and is independent of religious belief
• all just (ethical) politics (and especially liberal politics) must defend and protect human rights.
• individual human rights are the foundation of ethical politics - along with their derivatives such as rights of human collectives.
• human rights derive from the dignity based on subjectivity: our self-awareness of the finitude of existence. Equality is based on our equal prospect of death and the courage of each individual to face the life given to him.
• tolerance for nonconforming ideas and conduct - JS Mill, Popper, Bergson??
• tolerance for nonconforming noetic activities (knowledge production): science, religion, art and media
• limited government of doing no harm, deferring to individual choice, - JS Mill and W von Humboldt, von Mises?
• status of truth: the goal of politics is NOT truth. The purpose - (τέλος - télos) - of politics is justice and peace
• the basis of positive political action (policy) is objective knowledge (aka truth)
• the basis of negative political action (resistance, protest) is subjective knowledge (aka desire)

I understand that the American success with forging a nation largely reflecting the liberal principles is making it difficult to depart from the founding ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries. That is why liberals tend to see themselves as classic liberals.

However, much has taken place in human ideas since the time of American founding and classic liberalism is insufficient or inappropriate. It would be hard to defend liberal ideology in debate with other competing America ideologies like Christian conservatism or left-wing liberalism where there is either an awkward shared archaic foundation or a missing element of modern thinking.

In my view, many newer ideas should be incorporated into the Modern Liberalism - as indicated briefly above. It is time to move liberalism into modernity.

Trump changing sides

Situation has changed since my last "Trump calm" post before his inauguration.
 

I am outraged and embarrassed by the conduct of the US foreign policy under President Trump - mainly in regard to alliance with European countries and war in Ukraine. Here is my letter to Alaska Republican senators who might inject some reason into the White House process.

Honorable Senator,
I am extremely disturbed by the twists and turns recently taken by President Trump in the direction of US foreign policy. He is leading our country toward very horrible and dishonorable outcomes where we forsake long-term friends and allies with whom we share ideological liberal outlook for alliances with unsavory dictatorships bent on increasing the radius of their domination and bullying.

The disturbing events started rolling out of the White House the weekend of the Munich Security Conference. While I agreed with JD Vance's frank criticism of European repressive handling of freedom of speech, I could not stomach the repudiation of benefits of the NATO alliance that started emanating from White House and Trumpist events (CPAC) afterwards. While Europeans have their problems, they share the liberal outlook that is foundational to the US political freedom and they can process criticisms and address their problems in the way we, Americans, would.

Europe understands the danger of Russian imperialism well because of its history of imposing itself on Western Europe since the times of Napoleon. Russia was stopped briefly during the Crimean war in 1850s by Britain and France acting jointly. The door to further Russian expansion in Europe was thrown open once again by decisions of US President Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta in 1945 by allowing for the Soviet Russia sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Now, Europe is much more united than at the time of WWII and has created the European Union - a political alliance of liberal countries.
Russia has the ambition of dismembering the EU and dominating major portions of it, just like the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe. Russia is an illiberal monster of political entity that is a threat to Europe - and to America too, although to lesser degree. Europe must act now to deal with this threat. The opportunity is that Russia blundered into the invasion of Ukraine and can be defeated by increasing the support to the invaded country. This is both ethical and politically effective. Russia can be brought to negotiations as a defeated power.

At this point the US president undercuts the effort of Europe and Ukraine by siding with Russia and throwing them a lifeline. Unconscionably, the US President makes excuses for Russian aggression. This is deeply unethical and drives the US away from its NATO partners and toward a treacherous political cooperation with Russia - bordering on an alliance. This may lead not only to disintegration of NATO, which means losing the loyalty and support of Europeans, but even toward a perception of the US as the adversary to Europe. This is all appalling and dangerous.

I ask you, Senators, to take necessary action in US Congress to prevent President Trump from following through with his pro-Russian folly. This is a course of action which was not implied, or discussed, in his campaign and is not well thought through as a strategic geopolitical change of course for America. Even if such change were somehow advantageous to the US, we would have to grapple with the ethical ramifications of allying with a deformed version of imperial Russia against liberal Europe.

I am a resident of the state of Washington, but wish to appeal to Republican lawmakers who might have more influence on President Trump. Especially, the Alaska congressional delegation might be sensitive to the issue of US stance vis-à-vis Russia. Being a native to Poland, and naturalized American, this issue touches me deeply.

Trump Comes Back

Thesis: Trump's second ascension to US presidency, and even Trump's persona, all seem quite reasonable after the excesses of the Biden administration.

After the election in 2020, we all thought that we have seen the end to the anomalous Trump presidency. Especially, after the lawsuits and the failed "coup" or "insurrection" of January 6. On January 20 2021, Trump walked out of the White House quite unceremoniously and was gone.

Now we have a surprising come back - and it feels surprisingly normal and sane. Why?

The first Trump elevation to the office of president was met with hysterical protests from the left. The Women's march using the pink "pussy hat" as its main token reminiscent of the revolutionary bonnets of the French Revolution was the opening salvo of the "resistance." The opposition Democratic party had then unfurled its Leftist phalanx as its main force. Their vocabulary included accusations of fascism, nazism, misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. Trump administration was accused by them of damaging democracy in America and its constitutional order. The inconsistency there was that Leftism is actually desirous of specifically that - of dismantling and destroying the free-market capitalism supported by the liberal order.

The four years of Trump - 2017-2020 - were the years of media lies about Trump. To be sure, Trump did lie too - and he broke the law almost every day. The Trump watch during his presidency was an entertaining discussion of the constitutionality and legality of Trump's daily actions. Nevertheless, the main stream media were on a mission of framing anything said or done by Trump or his presumed supporters in a negative, biased and contorted way. The chief example is the clip where Trump utters the words "very fine people" in a press conference. He took pains to explain that he did not consider Nazis to be "very fine people" whereas the media took all measures to proclaim that he asserted the abhorrent opposite. This media lie originated in August 2017 and was still used in attacks on Trump before his election last year - by none other than Barack Obama.

Similar media support extended to the Leftist ideologies - now embraced by the Democratic party - which are a long list of novel social ideas such as equity, antiracism, social justice, trans ideology, defunding the police, - and to new social grievances such as white supremacy, toxic masculinity, relitigating legacy of slavery, etc.

The 2020 election of replacements for Trump was encumbered with additional two big problems which became fodder for the anti-Trump media. One was the Covid-19 pandemic that required genuinely authoritative actions from all levels of government. The other was the death of an arrestee in police custody that was framed by the media as racist police brutality and effectively murder. Trump's administration could hardly avoid being criticized for any decisions regarding Covid - including travel restrictions, restrictions on public gatherings and business - which were made with limited knowledge. Much was left to be decided by local authorities - mostly on the basis of guidance coming in from the CDC which is a federal agency staffed with career medical technologists hired long before Trump's first term. Any ideas about dealing with Covid coming from other sources than the CDC were ridiculed in the media - to remind you of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine which became toxic words even when recommended by doctors actually treating patients. Also any talk about methods of boosting autoimmune system using standard vitamin supplements and sharing experience treating Covid patients became toxic. The so-called "murder" of a black man in police custody in Minneapolis gave impulse to protests and riots boosting the BLM "Black Lives Matter" movement. Due to Leftist media activism and framing BLM became a world-wide movement.

The Biden administration emerged in the fog of 2020. Many constitutionalist anti-Trumpers, myself included, reluctantly preferred a second Trump term. I thought that Trump would be needed to stem the tide of Leftism that gained support with the Democratic party during 4-year anti-Trump campaign - especially in the last year burdened with the pandemic and BLM riots. But then I could not articulate how that would happen. How would Trump be a bulwark against Leftism if all they see in him is just the antithesis of all their insane ideas? Now I understand that back in 2020 Trump, elected for second term, would only enrage the Left. Biden sedated them.

Now I think the other anti-Trumpers were right back in 2020 that the Democrats taking the helm of power in the US would stem the tide of Leftism. Unexpectedly to me, they had a sedative effect on the Left. The Leftists got the message that the adults were in control and they could return to their typical cheering for the government or nonsensical protests for "climate justice." The old man was at the wheel of the car and the children could safely sleep in the back seat. Not surprisingly "patriarchy" has a calming effect. It was not immediate, it was not about damming the tide but draining it gradually. By the end of 2024 the Leftist energy is drained as much as is Biden's life energy. The Left handcuffed itself to the arm of an expiring man and went down with the blessings of an unremarkable woman who could only champion "abortion access" as the only surviving item of their agenda.

Trump's strength is in his popular support and his ability to commandeer the Republican party but his return is prepared by his opponents who proved to be feeble after all. The politically motivated lawsuits, the media portrayals of "convicted felon", "literally Hitler", "democracy is on the ballot" - all to no avail. He even "resisted" assassination attempts.

In the election of 2024 I thought we had two very bad candidates. Both Trump and Kamala Harris were not the caliber of person who should be the chief executive of the US. Kamala Harris seemed to be in her place as an accidental politician. Her career is one of advancing upwards opportunistically. Trump is a businessman seeking deals and profits - not a material for a politician who should care to support the country's institutions. My pals at ProjectLiberal were rooting for Kamala while preparing to strongly criticize her eventual presidency for any expected anti-liberal (typically Leftist) policies and decisions. Now they ought to go back to anti-Trumpism - and check Trump for illiberal policies. Not an easy switch.

I am finding myself relieved that Trump will take the helm. I do not fear for the integrity of US institutions under Trump. I think we will see a very active executive, operating within constitutional limits but venturing into new terrain. We have seen a preview in the foreign policy area - with proposals of territorial expansion of the US toward the Arctic. This, the looming use of tariffs in international trade, immigration policy, are definitely prerogatives of the presidency, but ones which can have a big impact on the country.

There is calm on Left - the Biden sedative still in effect. I suppose also the sense of Trump being the inevitability.