Zipppy and Franklin have been having it out in the discussion thread here.
Representative quote from Franklin:
Zippy, I support your right to live without freedom if that is what you prefer. I support the right of people to live under whatever kind of culture they want. If you want a king, fine. If you want communism, fine. Just don’t impose your culture on me. The real difference between traditionalism and liberalism is that there are many different traditions and real traditionalism recognizes this and respects the rights of people to organize themselves around their own traditions.
Representative quote from Zippy:
It isn’t just my theoretical understanding of liberalism that makes “live and let live” classical liberalism (which you oddly label “traditionalism”) seem utopian and counterfactual. The actual track record of liberalism in the real world suggests otherwise too.
The modern condition is uncanny, and therefore accurate comparisons with the past can be difficult to make. In the past, man was less free in many ways, and more free in many ways. The modern man is—with certain glaring exceptions noted—more free in the non-physical realm, where he can generally choose his own epistemology, his own ethics and even his own metaphysics without lifting any eyebrows, but he cannot choose to install incandescent lightbulbs, to develop his land, or to hire whomever he wants. And, most importantly, he is not free to live well on account of living in a properly-ordered society.
Liberalism offers freedom, and it delivers a lot of it, but it fails to deliver what man needs most: order.
I side more with Zippy than with Franklin. A great nation needs a great purpose, not just a “live and let live” spirit. Moreover, tradition is to be valued because it connects us with truth, not just because it is our way.
Ironically, we generally see more tolerance in traditional societies. A king demanded of his subjects only that they honor him in public, pay their taxes, and allow their sons to serve in his army. Other than that, he mostly left them alone. The modern state manages our lives in a myriad of mostly-petty ways. It is tolerant in theory but intrusive (sometimes disastrously so) in practice. The traditional state is formally intolerant of heresy, treason and dishonor, but mostly tolerant in practice.
Take Christianity. The man who is “intolerant” in the sense that he know that the God of the Bible is the only true God and that all men need faith in Christ in order to be saved from God’s wrath is in practice quite tolerant of real world people because his faith gives him a spiritual certainty that enables him to live in peace with others. His secular opposite, the diversity activist, has no spiritual peace, so he makes constant low-level war on those who don’t practice his faith.
In this, the allegedly-intolerant Christian, whose God commands all men everywhere to repent, is made more tolerant by his participation in a grand enterprise. By loving his people and celebrating their honor, as the man of old did, he makes himself a better friend of those who differ from him, and he makes himself more able to reach Franklin’s ideal of separate peoples living their separate traditions in mutual peace.