Irony and Liberalism
Today, while waiting for the another Democratic sub-advisor to make his or her next stupid or insensitive public gaffe–oh, whoops–I found my interest piqued by this post from Harry Brighouse at Crooked Timber. Without going too much into the meat of it, I can tell you that the post is a response to a response to an essay in which Simon Blackburn writes:
We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds.
Brighouse (like Lindsey, his immediate respondee) wants to defend his ability to have a “thicker sense” of respect for people whose beliefs he does not share. It’s a thoughtful argument, conducted with a seriousness appropriate to one of the most important questions about liberal society.
But what struck me reading the passage today, with thoughts of irony riding high in my mind, was just how much the whole line of thinking depends on words like “sincerity” and “honesty” and “good will.” An example, from Brighouse:
It is possible to respect someone’s holding of a false belief if you believe that the person is someone of good will, and who has deliberated carefully, and honestly holds the belief given their non-irresponsible reflection on that deliberation and their personal experience.
Which raises a question that I’ll pose in the form of a quasi-syllogism: if the ability to respect a person who holds beliefs that we feel, believe, and/or know to be false is one of the necessary conditions of a liberal society; and if that ability requires that the holders of those beliefs be people of sincerity, honesty, and good will; then what is the place (if any) of irony in a liberal polity?

