Why is liberalism so artistically sterile? Both the radical left and the radical right have made massive contributions to art and literature but one would be hard-pressed to name even one liberal writer of note. In my experience liberals mostly consume radical left-wing art while still maintaining that the society which leftists envision is untenable and staying true to their milquetoast normie worldview

>>24471056 (OP)
>liberal writer of note

>>24471058
He's hardly a liberal even by today's standards, he wanted the world to become one huge gay hippie commune with free love and no ownership. In his times he was viewed as a radical

>>24471068
Nvm, I thought you were using 'liberal' in some sort of objective sense, but it seems like instead you just mean anything that conforms to the standard beliefs of the day? If so, Dickens is I think a good example.

>>24471070
>
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually conflicting views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]:11

>>24471076
I'm pretty sure Whitman believed in all of this. Even if he maybe dreamt of some ideal, communistic world, he still fully embraced democracy and praised America for it.

>>24471056 (OP)
American detected. Wagner was a liberal, nationalists were liberals. You can't just apply modern definitions of political positions to the 19th century and then wonder why you can't find good representatives.

Didn't Borges and Nabokov call themselves liberals?