A muscular liberalism
On fast trains, voting, and why nobody should apologize for boldly asserting individual rights as the right way to do things
A columnist for The Economist has furnished a gentle warning to those tempted by some of the superficial successes of China's authoritarian state: "Nifty infrastructure is good for growth. But hangdog democrats are wrong to think that autocracies have cracked the code of economic dynamism".
■ Forced to make a choice between the two, it's more important to have liberal values without democracy than to have democracy without liberal values. But the idea that they can be cleaved from one another is farcical: Democratic processes are what secure liberal values in place, by ensuring that those who abuse those values can always be tossed from office.
■ It should never come as a surprise to see an undemocratic state building conspicuous projects: They tend to have unchecked access to financial and other resources, aren't bound by the need to persuade voters of the value of a project before the fact, and rely on highly visible project results in order to secure what little consent they actually try to seek from the public. If you can spend lavishly without facing a tax revolt, don't need to win a referendum, and want to look like you're delivering the goods, then you're probably going to build some big things.
■ Pitted against rivals like this, liberalism can't be afraid to be a little bit muscular. Not overbearing, closed-minded, or pushy, but willing to stand up for principle, confident that character really is destiny, just as much for the culture as for the individual. There should be great self-confidence that not only are liberal values like freedom of thought and the dignity of the individual worth protecting on their intrinsic value alone, but that they are also very good sources of the material things well worth having. They are worth promoting from within and protecting from without.