This analysis hits the bullseye—yet arriving at this conclusion requires a departure from intuitive reasoning. Surely, "leftist types illiberals" often would characterize themselves as liberals, and moreover frequently occupy roles within institutions traditionally seen as bastions of liberty. These factors create cognitive barriers to easily identifying them as illiberals. Moreover, when critiquing these illiberal stances, it's more convenient to resort to boilerplate battle cries, invoking instances of "hypocrisy" and "double standards," rather than engaging with the nuanced analysis you've presented—which, arguably, constitutes an equally potent criticism.
However, I would question the assumption that authentic liberalism entails a refusal to differentiate between good things and bad things. In my view, liberals can hold convictions with a similar level of confidence as illiberals. The crucial differentiation is that they resist succumbing to the allure of absolute certainty; even when highly confident, liberals can acknowledge the intrinsic value in permitting the expression of unfavorable ideas, motivated by factors like the potential for self-correction, averting the transformation of sound ideas into unquestioned dogma, and more. To me, the more significant contrast between liberals and illiberals then appears to revolve around a matter of intellectual humility versus intellectual arrogance... I remain curious to read your future post on liberalism!
This analysis hits the bullseye—yet arriving at this conclusion requires a departure from intuitive reasoning. Surely, "leftist types illiberals" often would characterize themselves as liberals, and moreover frequently occupy roles within institutions traditionally seen as bastions of liberty. These factors create cognitive barriers to easily identifying them as illiberals. Moreover, when critiquing these illiberal stances, it's more convenient to resort to boilerplate battle cries, invoking instances of "hypocrisy" and "double standards," rather than engaging with the nuanced analysis you've presented—which, arguably, constitutes an equally potent criticism.
However, I would question the assumption that authentic liberalism entails a refusal to differentiate between good things and bad things. In my view, liberals can hold convictions with a similar level of confidence as illiberals. The crucial differentiation is that they resist succumbing to the allure of absolute certainty; even when highly confident, liberals can acknowledge the intrinsic value in permitting the expression of unfavorable ideas, motivated by factors like the potential for self-correction, averting the transformation of sound ideas into unquestioned dogma, and more. To me, the more significant contrast between liberals and illiberals then appears to revolve around a matter of intellectual humility versus intellectual arrogance... I remain curious to read your future post on liberalism!