Why Secular Liberalism is Doomed

I constantly encounter condemnations of Fundamentalism, and I will admit that Fundamentalism, in many forms, is easy to critique.  I don't abide with Young Earth Creationism, or a lot of other beliefs that I find silly, but fundamentalists of certain stripes take very seriously.  Yet I cannot look at Fundamentalism without appreciation, for I believe that the Fundamentalists will inherit the Earth.  Thus, Fundamentalism, in whatever form, is marked by vitality, zeal, discipline, and sacrifice for something higher.

In contrast, while my worldview is probably closer to Secular Liberalism, I think this worldview is much more worthy of criticism, because it is killing itself off and bequeathing the Earth to the Fundamentalists, which strikes me as a practical matter as stupid, despite the subtleties of it's syllogisms.  Any social order which seeks to survive must inspire certainty in its adherents, and Secular Liberalism, despite its claims of moral relativism, is just as intolerant and repressive of its enemies as any Fundamentalism, so certainty and a willingness to act against others to preserve itself are present.  However, Secular Liberalism fails because it cannot, by nature, inspire people to sustained sacrifice on behalf of the social order.  It does not inspire people to make more babies.  It does not inspire people to remain sober.  It does not inspire people to remain in difficult marriages.  It does not inspire people to remain in difficult employment situations.  It does not inspire people to fight for their country.

To sacrifice yourself requires the love of something greater than yourself, something so great you are willing to trade your life or well-being in the name of that greater love.  Certainly, Communism was a secular liberal system if there ever was one, but Communist zeal really burned out by Stalin's rise.  Stalin appealed to the sanctity of the Motherland to inspire his people to resist the Nazi invasion, not the Communist Revolution.  This is not to deny that a handful of people may be willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of equality for all humanity, but most people are unmoved by bloodless abstractions.

Any social order that can replicate itself through time must not only be intolerant (as Secular Liberals invariably are in fact, whether the "politically correct" left or the "Islamaphobic" Dawkins right), but any social order that can replicate itself in time must also inspire sacrifice.  The inversion of sacrifice in Secular Liberalism is manifest in its commitment to egalitarianism.  What we find under Secular Liberal egalitarian rhetoric is "gimme equality".  That is to say, the believer does not intend to surrender something to the other, the believer demands something from the other.  Further, equality is in the eyes of the beholder, so you end up with a political culture in which various groups attempt to mug each other in the name of "equality".

Let's take a concrete example.  In general, men tend to more extreme outcomes then women.  I don't know if this has always been true, or if it is genetic, or whatever, but you can look on death row, and you can look at the Boardroom of a Fortune 500 company and find men.  Men are disproportionately represented at the extreme bottom, or at the extreme top.  Thus, under "gimme equality", a woman looking at this situation will compile credible statistics about how men are disproportionately represented at the top, and women are kept down.  In contrast, a man looking at this situation will compile credible statistics about how men are disproportionately represented at the bottom, and how women (or "feminism") is keeping the men down.  They will then dispute, because they both know that they are entitled to something, they both have credible facts that they can point to, and will both claim how they lack rights, and they will never see each others' point of view.  Obviously, someone will win in the political process, but the resentments will not disappear.  Neither will be particularly grateful to the existing social order, because they will either obtain what they are "owed" by society, or they will be denied what they are lawfully "due" from society.  (Note: this "equality" is totally vacuous, as either side can win the political battle and claim a victory for equality.)

A house divided against itself cannot stand.  In contrast, if a person views their individual existence as part of a higher order, consisting of a family, a community, a religious community, and a nation, then the person has a particular role defined by their communities, and has particular and reciprocal duties.  This person is willing to gladly sacrifice, because they identify with something greater than themselves.  The person, in their self understanding, belongs to something greater than their particular existence or their particular privileges.  Because Fundamentalism does a better job of integrating individuals into families and communities, individuals are ready and willing and able to do what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the community.  Any sustainable social order must be rooted in communitarianism and holism.  From this point of view, what we often call "freedom" largely amounts to "alienation".