The Imperialism of Liberal Reason

“The ambition of the liberal political philosopher,” writes Paul Kahn (Putting Liberalism in its Place, 120), is to find that set of arguments that is so compelling that every individual, not corrupted by the illogic of interest, would necessarily affirm those reasons as his own.” Because it assumes the mantle of reason, it has “its own imperial ambitions” and can conceive of “no legitimate opposition because it has preempted the entire domain of public values by making an exhaustive claim to reason.” What is outside liberalism isn’t reason, but irrationality, most especially the irrationality of faith. 

If you doubt it, check again Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Windsor: What rational reason could anyone have to oppose homosexual practice?

In claiming the realm of reason, liberalism also claims the realm of public space, which is precisely the space that is ruled by the rules of reason, which liberalism has laid down: “The public/private distinction . . . is neither spatial nor material; it rests on a prior division of the reasonable and unreasonable” (122). The realm of reason is also the realm of will, of choice. In private life, liberalism permits imposed life-styles; not in public.

But liberal reason is restless: “every conception of liberalism . . . is vulnerable to the argument that reason can go still further, that is, that it has conceded too broad a domain to the private,” the irrational and unwilled, which are essentially the same: “Choices made under circumstances of coercion or false belief are not deserving of respect.” On reflection, though, it is not at all clear which choices are freely made and which are coerced or nudged. So, liberal reason has a special urgency in its imperialism: “Every choice can be seen as a product of a particular context that is itself unchosen; every choice will have some harmful effect on an unwilling other. Reason can endlessly pursue both of these claims,” and slowly, surely gobble up whatever remains of the private realm of irrationality.

That parents come under suspicion for teaching religious “myths” to their children isn’t a defect in liberalism. It’s the inherent imperialism of liberal reason coming to expression.