You’ve stirred my thoughts! What this piece helps me name is how much of our political and moral struggle is actually psychological.
Humans are complex, contradictory creatures who nonetheless crave coherence. We want frameworks that tell us who is right, what is safe, and where the boundaries lie. That desire is not a flaw—it is part of how we survive. But when uncertainty rises, that desire can quietly harden into something else: a longing for control disguised as moral clarity.
What I find compelling here is the insistence that liberalism does not attempt to cure human messiness. It accepts it. It offers a structure that allows disagreement, error, and revision without immediately translating discomfort into domination. That is a demanding posture. It requires restraint, patience, and a willingness to live without final answers.
As someone shaped by systems that promised certainty in exchange for obedience, I’m increasingly aware of how easily my own thinking gravitates toward neat lines—this idea is dangerous, that one must be banned, this group must be stopped before harm occurs. Sometimes those instincts come from care. Other times, they come from anxiety about ambiguity and loss of control. Learning to tell the difference feels like real political work.
What stands out to me is the reminder that authoritarianism rarely announces itself as cruelty. It presents itself as protection, order, and moral seriousness. The temptation is to believe that this time coercion will solve the problem, that this silencing will prevent future harm. History—and psychology—suggest otherwise.
The challenge, then, is not to abandon ethical clarity, but to resist turning it into totalizing narratives that deny human complexity. Thinking well in public requires tolerating uncertainty, opposing harm without flattening dissent, and holding principles steady without reaching for domination as a shortcut.
That may be less satisfying than certainty—but it is far more honest, and far more humane.
Yes! I think that’s something I have really come to appreciate in the last year. So much of what we believe to be conclusions drawn from serious thought is, in fact, a matter of our collective psychology as humans and so many differences that we have and believe to results of evaluating ideas comes down to hardwired personality traits. I don’t think appreciating that need make us deterministic. If we accept that such a thing as ‘human nature’ exists, we can avoid doing things that trigger its worst impulses - e.g., positing that black and white people are entirely separate tribes with different knowledges, values and experiences and with interests in conflict and then thinking this will help a species of tribalistic ape overcome racism. If we accept that many of our political inclinations are rooted in personality traits, we can think “I’m likely to be biased in this direction” and “People with different personality traits will not be convinced by this and will make this objection. How do we find common ground there?”
The single most beautiful and important statement in the US constitution in my opinion is, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union”. Not a perfect union but a more perfect one we’re always supposed to be making it more perfect as we learn more from each other.
With that said I think one of the most dangerous flaws of liberalism that has been exposed is the paradox of tolerance which says that as we liberals attempt to tolerate others and their ideas we end up tolerating ideas and actions which are not compatible with liberalism. These ideas often come from those who are opposed to liberalism and are attempting to tear it down by including these ideas in the marketplace we’re beginning the destruction of our system. We are not actually required to tolerate the ideas of those who are opposed to our system and society, those who refuse to play by the inherent rules of liberalism do not enjoy the protections of liberalism and do not have to be included in the debate. We must protect the system first then tolerate others ideas once we have ensured they are committed to the rules and values of liberalism before we give them the protections and freedoms of shaping the conversation. I think this is key as we move forward in shaping the 3rd American republic once we have thrown off our tyrant! ✊✌️🫶
Very thought-provoking, as usual. Reality is messy. Yes. Often there is no line. Yes. It seems to depend partly on what level of society we are talking about. If my family home environment has established specific ‘rules’ and/or expectations over time which all who live there agree makes that environment more pleasant - e.g. something as simple as removing one’s shoes at the threshold - it would surely be reasonable to expect any visitors to respect and abide by those clear, unmessy rules - those ‘lines’. Likewise, it would surely be right for us to be expected to respect and abide by any clear, unmessy rules - ´lines’ - which we encountered when visiting the home environment of others. Unfortunately, this sort of mutual understanding and respect does not seem to be easily scalable to the level of the nation state, let alone to the scale of multi-state entities like the EU, despite the still (?) widely quoted ´When in Rome, do as the Romans’ proverb. A perception that this proverb’s call for mutual cultural sensitivity and respect has been violated often seems to lie at the root of current concerns regarding immigration, particularly from non-European/non-Western places.
You’ve stirred my thoughts! What this piece helps me name is how much of our political and moral struggle is actually psychological.
Humans are complex, contradictory creatures who nonetheless crave coherence. We want frameworks that tell us who is right, what is safe, and where the boundaries lie. That desire is not a flaw—it is part of how we survive. But when uncertainty rises, that desire can quietly harden into something else: a longing for control disguised as moral clarity.
What I find compelling here is the insistence that liberalism does not attempt to cure human messiness. It accepts it. It offers a structure that allows disagreement, error, and revision without immediately translating discomfort into domination. That is a demanding posture. It requires restraint, patience, and a willingness to live without final answers.
As someone shaped by systems that promised certainty in exchange for obedience, I’m increasingly aware of how easily my own thinking gravitates toward neat lines—this idea is dangerous, that one must be banned, this group must be stopped before harm occurs. Sometimes those instincts come from care. Other times, they come from anxiety about ambiguity and loss of control. Learning to tell the difference feels like real political work.
What stands out to me is the reminder that authoritarianism rarely announces itself as cruelty. It presents itself as protection, order, and moral seriousness. The temptation is to believe that this time coercion will solve the problem, that this silencing will prevent future harm. History—and psychology—suggest otherwise.
The challenge, then, is not to abandon ethical clarity, but to resist turning it into totalizing narratives that deny human complexity. Thinking well in public requires tolerating uncertainty, opposing harm without flattening dissent, and holding principles steady without reaching for domination as a shortcut.
That may be less satisfying than certainty—but it is far more honest, and far more humane.
Yes! I think that’s something I have really come to appreciate in the last year. So much of what we believe to be conclusions drawn from serious thought is, in fact, a matter of our collective psychology as humans and so many differences that we have and believe to results of evaluating ideas comes down to hardwired personality traits. I don’t think appreciating that need make us deterministic. If we accept that such a thing as ‘human nature’ exists, we can avoid doing things that trigger its worst impulses - e.g., positing that black and white people are entirely separate tribes with different knowledges, values and experiences and with interests in conflict and then thinking this will help a species of tribalistic ape overcome racism. If we accept that many of our political inclinations are rooted in personality traits, we can think “I’m likely to be biased in this direction” and “People with different personality traits will not be convinced by this and will make this objection. How do we find common ground there?”
The single most beautiful and important statement in the US constitution in my opinion is, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union”. Not a perfect union but a more perfect one we’re always supposed to be making it more perfect as we learn more from each other.
With that said I think one of the most dangerous flaws of liberalism that has been exposed is the paradox of tolerance which says that as we liberals attempt to tolerate others and their ideas we end up tolerating ideas and actions which are not compatible with liberalism. These ideas often come from those who are opposed to liberalism and are attempting to tear it down by including these ideas in the marketplace we’re beginning the destruction of our system. We are not actually required to tolerate the ideas of those who are opposed to our system and society, those who refuse to play by the inherent rules of liberalism do not enjoy the protections of liberalism and do not have to be included in the debate. We must protect the system first then tolerate others ideas once we have ensured they are committed to the rules and values of liberalism before we give them the protections and freedoms of shaping the conversation. I think this is key as we move forward in shaping the 3rd American republic once we have thrown off our tyrant! ✊✌️🫶
Very thought-provoking, as usual. Reality is messy. Yes. Often there is no line. Yes. It seems to depend partly on what level of society we are talking about. If my family home environment has established specific ‘rules’ and/or expectations over time which all who live there agree makes that environment more pleasant - e.g. something as simple as removing one’s shoes at the threshold - it would surely be reasonable to expect any visitors to respect and abide by those clear, unmessy rules - those ‘lines’. Likewise, it would surely be right for us to be expected to respect and abide by any clear, unmessy rules - ´lines’ - which we encountered when visiting the home environment of others. Unfortunately, this sort of mutual understanding and respect does not seem to be easily scalable to the level of the nation state, let alone to the scale of multi-state entities like the EU, despite the still (?) widely quoted ´When in Rome, do as the Romans’ proverb. A perception that this proverb’s call for mutual cultural sensitivity and respect has been violated often seems to lie at the root of current concerns regarding immigration, particularly from non-European/non-Western places.
I became a paid subscriber as a result of this piece. Great work, Helen.
Thank you, Phil!