So, what is it? Jim Donald interprets:The only way in which it can be said that all men are created equal is in that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. Liberalism is a jealous god and will not have the actual God come before it. Liberalism exhalts the desires of the free and equal superman, self-created through his own reason and will. No desire is qualitatively better than another, and all supermen should be free to pursue their desires, unless that desire be for the Good. There will be no talk of the Good. The Good is freedom to pursue a desire. It is absolutely not any particular Good. To posit the existence of the Good implies that not all desires are equal. It is to say that some desires are better than others, and that there is an end to which all rightly ordered desires should aim. This will not do at all.The fundamental realization of the Dark Enlightenment is that all men are not created equal, not individual men, nor the various groups and categories of men, nor are women equal to men, that these beliefs and others like them are religious beliefs, that society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism, but this is a new religion, an evil religion, and, if you are a Christian, a demonic religion.
The Dark Enlightenment does not propose that leftism went wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, but that it was fundamentally and terribly wrong a couple of centuries ago, and we have been heading to hell in a handbasket ever since at a rapidly increasing rate – that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state, that it is another good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.
Of course it's impossible for human beings to live like this for an extendend length of time. Liberalism disclaims making any authoritative discriminations between the Good and what is not good, but in practice it must. All desires are equal and everyone should be equally free to pursue them, but only within the defined limits of liberalism. It is not acceptable, in this view, to fight for the defense of marriage against the onslaught of homosexual activists and their heterosexual enablers. Marriage, as it is traditionally understood, places limits on the desires of the free and equal superman, namely he must be married to one woman and forsake all others. We weakened it through no-fault divorce laws. Homosexuals only seek to administer the coup de grace.
Right-liberals are the worst enablers of left-liberalism. They hem and haw and obstruct and argue against something for a generation, but when left-liberals hold their ground - and they always do - eventually right-liberals come to accept it and then lecture the Dark Enlightenment types that they have to get with the program and stop being so divisive over a settled issue. Ironically, this ends up thwarting the right-liberals desire to be taken seriously by left-liberals because the left-liberals interpret their intransigence as based on emotionalism or bigotry. And who can blame them for thinking so? Right-liberals can be good about criticizing the consequences of liberalism but they will never, ever challenge liberalism itself.
I used to read National Review regularly when I was first coming into my political consciousness. I can't recall the last time I clicked on their site. All of the best stuff is coming from those conservatives they have dramatically drummed out of the movement, i.e. Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire. As the Republicans continue their slow decline into demographic irrelevancy, it might occur to them that Pat and the Derb were right all along.