Do attacks on Liberal Icons Herald Doom of Democracy?

[Peace and Love but Better]

We can't destroy these statues! The Founding Fathers represent democracy!

Democracy, of course, for straight, white, landowning men and nobody else. What upstanding, egalitarian individuals! They deserve to be revered and immortalized and anything else is an attack of freedom itself!

[New Tryphalia]

If only....democracy needs to be abolished. It's the god that failed. Whoever really thought that most people are wiser when put together? Have you seen how juries behave? Or lynch mobs, for that matter? Or church congregations? The more people you gather in one place, the more IQ points one should subtract. The IQ of any collective is inversely proportional to its size. Countries are far better off as "Father Knows Best States."

So, yes, a I'm a jaded, eternal pessimistic misanthrope. So sue me.

[Antipatros]

We can't destroy these statues! The Founding Fathers represent democracy!

Democracy, of course, for straight, white, landowning men and nobody else. What upstanding, egalitarian individuals! They deserve to be revered and immortalized and anything else is an attack of freedom itself!

We should not criticize the Pharaohs, because in their day they were considered to be divine.

Judging them through our modern lens or with our modern ideas is strictly forbidden.

[Peace and Love but Better]

We can't destroy these statues! The Founding Fathers represent democracy!

Democracy, of course, for straight, white, landowning men and nobody else. What upstanding, egalitarian individuals! They deserve to be revered and immortalized and anything else is an attack of freedom itself!

We should not criticize the Pharaohs, because in their day they were considered to be divine.

Judging them through our modern lens or with our modern ideas is strictly forbidden.

Indeed, indeed. Our forefathers were truly perfect, obviously.

[Baizou]

I'm not persuaded anyone "deserves" a statue, however significant their contributions to anything might be. If we are to honor someone, I'd rather see endowments for scholarships or low-income housing or a research lecture series or something, something that carries on the work creatively rather than flatly crystallizing them into one nationalistic moment.

As far as Thomas Jefferson goes, I personally preserve my energy and ire for present travesties and think that historians have spilled the appropriate amount of ink on the way his personal life utterly contradicted his political philosophy (and indeed how he tamped down the earlier radicalism of his political life in order to cling to his personal slave wealth). Nevertheless, when folks criticize a figure like Jefferson for keeping a slave basically as a concubine or for owning slaves at all, I don't think their point is that his contributions to democracy don't matter at all. It's more that his contributions to democracy matter so much that folks are willing to judge Jefferson by the standards he himself helped create. It's reasonable to critique the man who wrote "all men are created equal" for deciding that in his case, that wasn't true enough to warrant setting free the unpaid laborers who made his wallet fat and his life convenient. Sure, Jefferson contributed to ending the international trade of slaves into the United States (though only a mere three weeks before the British Empire abolished the Atlantic slave trade). But Jefferson also, upon realizing how much money he made on slavery, stopped talking about abolition and never set free the enslaved laborers of Monticello.

A mixed history, to be sure. But my point is not that the history is all grim or all pure. My point is that in cases like Jefferson's, people are judging him by the standards he set for himself.

[Cameroi]

deliberately destroying and seeking to destroy every thing that would make government useful to ordinary people does.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

When people in this thread say 'liberal', do they mean the Fox News version or the Communist version? As in, the 'loony left' or capitalist types?

[Dumb Ideologies]

It would be quite brilliant if it did, but alas it merely heralds the era of "self-hating democracy with minority-worshipping characteristics".

[Antipatros]

When people in this thread say 'liberal', do they mean the Fox News version or the Communist version? As in, the 'loony left' or capitalist types?

While reading the OP, I took it in a neutral, matter-of-fact sort of way. Liberalism is a real political philosophy, it doesn't have to be used as a sneer word. Jefferson is also definitely an influential liberal.

[Panjmeer]

Doesn´t doom democracy, but dooms objective thought - and alter democracy in the process (though not irreversably). It´s when woke goes rogue.

[Vassenor]

Doesn´t doom democracy, but dooms objective thought - and alter democracy in the process (though not irreversably). It´s when woke goes rogue.

And declaring that historical figures must never be criticised certainly doesn’t doom objective thought.

[Esalia]

Oh no, statues are being torn down! This must herald the end of liberal democracy for... some reason!

There's some pretty good issues to point at as heralding doom for liberal democracy. The toppling of statues is not one of them.

[Forsher]

Infantile hero worship of the kind defended by the OP is the reason why American Democracy failed, not the cause of it.

[Qhevak]

Thomas Jefferson is not lauded or celebrated for keeping slaves or having sexual intercourse with them, a terrible practice that was widespread throughout much of the colonial South. He is venerated, however, for being a liberal icon. His status as a slave owner is peripheral. Of course, it is a stain on his legacy, but does not make him unworthy of praise.

Jeffrey Epstein is not lauded or celebrated for keeping slaves or having sexual intercourse with them, a terrible practice that was widespread throughout much of the global bourgeoisie. He is venerated, however, for being a liberal icon. His status as a slave owner is peripheral. Of course, it is a stain on his legacy, but does not make him unworthy of praise.

[Esalia]

Doesn´t doom democracy, but dooms objective thought - and alter democracy in the process (though not irreversably). It´s when woke goes rogue.

If anything, it's this suggestion that "reassessing liberal icons and deciding that 'maybe these people don't really deserve statues'" is dooming democracy that's actually dooming objective thought.

It means that we cannot reassess historical figures we honour through statues and determine whether their contributions outweigh their evil acts because if we do and decide they don't deserve a statue, it dooms our democracy.

That stifles objective thought far more than toppling some statues will.

[Dakini]

I think that white supremacy and the rise of outright fascism is more likely to doom democracy than anything else.


Also, how is Churchill a liberal? He was in the Conservative party and basically committed genocide.

[Unified Communist Councils]

The idolization of any individual breeds close-minded thoughts but the real threat posed to democracy is how idolatry inspires supporters/fans/followers of idols to rationalize a perceived purity of the idol.

[Resilient Acceleration]

I mean it depends on what things that icon is being used to represent. My country's founding father is a dictatorial megalomaniac with 9 wives whose raw incompetence obliterated the economy and nearly plunged the country into civil war. But we still venerate him not as the representation of polygamy or economic misery, but as the representation of the struggle for independence and national unity despite differences - things that everyone agrees to be "good". If one is to venerate an icon, the things being represented by the icon must be made clear and should be the focus of the celebration, not the icon itself.

[The V I C]

Doesn´t doom democracy, but dooms objective thought - and alter democracy in the process (though not irreversably). It´s when woke goes rogue.

The real objective thought is not being cowed into submission to a dead man who you don't respect. I notice alot of the people who want his statues gone are black. Perhaps there's a reason they don't like him. Perhaps it's because he wouldn't have liked them all that much. Perhaps it's that he molested a young woman of color.

[Vikanias]

Coming here a second time.


First off no historical figure is perfect and pretending they are is just hypocrisy. Some say that a historical figure who aligns with their ideology is perfect in every way and did nothing wrong. Which is expected in this polarized modern world where everyone who isn’t you or your group is the great evil. So let’s start with some historical figures shall we?

Stalin: Stalin is most famous for being the leader of the USSR and his crimes are plentiful. The Holodomor (Tankies will deny) the GULAG System which forced labour onto anyone Stalin felt the need to punish or his political rivals. Some 3.7 million Soviet citizens were sent to the GULAG’s. Almost 800’000 of them were shot. The great purge which showed Stalin’s paranoia and many competent soviet Generals and leaders were killed or sent off to the GULAG. Causing the disaster in the Winter War against Finland and Operation Barbarossa.



Churchill: The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. Who were they? Were they supporters of Nazism? No, they were in fact anti-Nazis. The Bengal famine of 1943 which led to the death of 4 million Indians

[Ifreann]

I find it very strange to try and give credit for all social and political progress in the last 250 years to a man who wrote down some words he didn't really believe in an effort to lower his tax bill.

[-Ra-]

Doesn´t doom democracy, but dooms objective thought - and alter democracy in the process (though not irreversably). It´s when woke goes rogue.

And declaring that historical figures must never be criticised certainly doesn’t doom objective thought.

Strawman. There is a difference between criticising Jefferson and attempting to efface his liberal legacy, which is part of a broader attack on liberal ideals and liberal democracy as a whole.

I don't know why some people seem to believe that if you put up a statue of someone, you must think that they are a perfect human. We aren't idolaters. Adults are normally educated to see nuance in people.

I find it very strange to try and give credit for all social and political progress in the last 250 years to a man who wrote down some words he didn't really believe in an effort to lower his tax bill.

I mean, he did believe in them. And it really does not matter what he personally thought, certainly not as much as the words he put on paper.

[Vassenor]

And declaring that historical figures must never be criticised certainly doesn’t doom objective thought.

Strawman. There is a difference between criticising Jefferson and attempting to efface his liberal legacy, which is part of a broader attack on liberal ideals and liberal democracy as a whole.

I don't know why some people seem to believe that if you put up a statue of someone, you must think that they are a perfect human. We aren't idolaters. Adults are normally educated to see nuance in people.

I find it very strange to try and give credit for all social and political progress in the last 250 years to a man who wrote down some words he didn't really believe in an effort to lower his tax bill.

I mean, he did believe in them. And it really does not matter what he personally thought, certainly not as much as the words he put on paper.

Oh right, are we still doing the whole "removing statues sends the subject down the memory hole" thing as though no other record of his existence survives?

[The Holy Therns]

And declaring that historical figures must never be criticised certainly doesn’t doom objective thought.

Strawman. There is a difference between criticising Jefferson and attempting to efface his liberal legacy, which is part of a broader attack on liberal ideals and liberal democracy as a whole.

I don't know why some people seem to believe that if you put up a statue of someone, you must think that they are a perfect human. We aren't idolaters. Adults are normally educated to see nuance in people.

I find it very strange to try and give credit for all social and political progress in the last 250 years to a man who wrote down some words he didn't really believe in an effort to lower his tax bill.

I mean, he did believe in them. And it really does not matter what he personally thought, certainly not as much as the words he put on paper.

He still wrote those even if statues of him are removed. That doesn't somehow get erased out of history because there's no stone formation to worship about it.

[-Ra-]

Strawman. There is a difference between criticising Jefferson and attempting to efface his liberal legacy, which is part of a broader attack on liberal ideals and liberal democracy as a whole.

I don't know why some people seem to believe that if you put up a statue of someone, you must think that they are a perfect human. We aren't idolaters. Adults are normally educated to see nuance in people.


I mean, he did believe in them. And it really does not matter what he personally thought, certainly not as much as the words he put on paper.

Oh right, are we still doing the whole "removing statues sends the subject down the memory hole" thing as though no other record of his existence survives?

You are arguing against an argument I never made. Of course Thomas Jefferson and his legacy still exist even if there are no more statues to him. The left is not so powerful enough to do away with the democracy, religious freedom, or republicanism that Jefferson enshrined.

However, the removal of Jefferson's statues is clearly intended not only to deny Jefferson the credit he deserves in enshrining the aforementioned democratic principles, but also represents a rebuke of those principles themselves. It isn't much in itself but it represents a worrying trend of people turning away from a liberal past and towards authoritarianism on both the right and the left and that's something I will not abide.

In liberal societies it is a cultural duty that we instill the values that men like Jefferson enshrined into civic life, that we pass them on to our children, and that we keep them as sacred in our politics. Statues of men like Jefferson exist in public spaces to remind us of the struggles that previous generations suffered in order to realise these values, and as celebrations of democracy and liberalism. To destroy a statue of Jefferson is to sever a link to the past and to rebuke a man without whose contribution democracy may not have taken root in the world.