ideologies:LIBERALISM Flashcards
What are the origins of liberal ideas?
- The roots of liberalism began in the Christian reformation, led by religious protestors, the founders of protestantism, argued that individuals did need to rely on priests, popes and other intermediaries, and christianity should take on a more individualistic character.
-Although the roots of liberalism are found in religion, it is the enlightenment period which extends these religious ideas into the political and secular world. Enlightenment put emphasis on reason over religion.
What was John Locke’s additions to liberalism?
- Father of liberalism
-Two treatises of government (1690)
-Locked denied the traditional medieval principle that the state was part of god’s creation. He disputed that monarchs had the ‘divine right’ to govern, and that the state was created by a celestial power. For the same reason, he rejected the notion that ordinary people were ‘subjects’ of the state, with an obligation to obey the monarch’s rulings. He argued that a legitimate state would be created by mankind’s interests and would arise only from the consent of those it would govern. This aligns itself with mechanistic theory, which argues that human beings are rational and can build a state that reflects their needs.
- Locke asserted that, prior to the state’s existence, there was a ‘natural’ society which served mankind’s interests reasonably well. Locke described this natural society as the state of nature, something used by him and conservative thinker Hobbs to justify their idea of the state.
- Along with this natural state, came with underpinning ‘natural rights’m (such as the right to property), ‘natural laws’ and ‘natural justice and was therefore not one that people wanted to leave for the autocratic monarchical absolutism that the 17th century was. The alternative ‘sate of law’ (or the modern state) was therefore designed to improve upon an essentially tolerable situation, by resolving disputes between individuals more efficiently than was the case under the state of nature.
-The state of law would be legitimate only if it respected natural rights and natural laws,ensuring that individuals living under formal laws were no worse off than in the state of nature. The state’s structures must therefore embody the natural rights and liberties that preceded it. Similarly Locke’s ideal state would always reflect the principle that its citizens had voluntarily consented to accept the state’s rulings, in return for the state improving their situation, social contract theory.
-Because of it s contractual nature the state would have to embody the principle of limited government (limited to governing within pre-agreed rules and always requiring the ongoing consent of the governed). The state’s limited character would be confirmed by its dispersal of power (i.e the separation and independence of the branches of government.)
The Core ideas of Liberalism: View of human nature: How are humans egotistical?
- From Locke onwards, liberals have argued that each human being is endowed with natural rights: eg: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of self-fulfilment. They also argued that human beings are fundamentally driven by egotistical individualism, that humans are naturally drawn to advancement of their own selfish interests. As a result, liberals believe that every individual seeks:
-Self-realisation: ensuring we discover our true and unique selves, free from the constraints and expectations of others, and societal convention.
-Self-determination: ensuring we are the masters of our won fate and that the realities if our lives can be attributed to out own efforts.
-Self-fulfilment: to ensure we have fully utilised our natural rights and made the most of our talents.
-Liberals argue that when these things are denied, human beings are let demoralised, de-energised and afflicted with the sense of a wasted life.
The Core ideas of Liberalism: View of human nature: How are humans rational?
Critics of liberalism suggest that such egotism makes for selfishness and endless conflict between individuals. Indeed, this gloomy view of egotism is conveyed by the work of key conservative thinker, Thomas Hobbes.
But liberal thinkers dispute this. According to both Locke and John Stuart Mill , we may be egotistical, but our behaviour is also rational and therefore respectful to others; guided usually by reason and logic rather than emotion and impulse.
In this way, our rationality allows us to realise that selfishness and disrespect for others can rebound to our disadvantage.
Put simply, if we do not respect others, in their pursuit of self-realisation, then others might not respect us - with the result that we ourselves could be left frustrated. As a result, liberals see human nature as fundamentally self-centred, but also thoughtful and empathetic, drawn to intelligent compromise and mutual understanding with others.
The Core ideas of Liberalism: View of human nature: How are humans progressive?
Most liberal thinkers are also keen to argue that human nature is not set in stone. Instead, it is constantly progressing and developing through greater knowledge, an improved understanding of the world around us, and greater education. In short, human beings today are likely to be more rational, intelligent and respectful than they were in the past.
This idea is called developmental individualism and links strongly to the doctrine of ‘utility’ or ‘utilitarianism’ - a doctrine advanced by the radical philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and asserting that human beings are guided by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
The Core ideas of Liberalism: View of human nature: How are humans optimistic?
Given their belief in our rationality and improvability, liberals are clearly optimistic about the human condition and reject the idea of Original Sin - the Old Testament doctrine which insists that humanity is innately flawed and inclined to fail. From the writings of Locke onwards, liberalism has always challenged this bleak view, offering instead a more positive view of human nature.
Liberalism argues that human nature has the capacity to effect steady progress and increase human happiness. Liberals admit that life is not without difficulty. But they insist that, through rational discussion and informed debate, solutions will normally be found to problems that routinely arise.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of society: The natural society
John Rawls defined society as the peaceful, voluntary interaction of multiple individuals. However, liberals from Locke onwards have argued that society was not dependent upon the existence of a state. Owing to their belief that human nature is respectful and fundamentally decent, liberals argue that society predates the state - hence Locke’s reference to the ‘natural society’ and a mainly peaceful ‘state of nature’. Due to mankind’s rationality, this natural society was one which facilitated ‘natural rights’, ‘natural laws’ and ‘natural justice’ .
According to liberalism, life before the state was not ‘nasty, brutish and short’ (as conservative thinkers like Hobbes argued). Instead, liberals argue that pre-state life was agreeable and generally efficient, and not something we would have automatically wished to end.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of society: The individualistic society
Consistent with their ‘egotistical’ view of human nature, liberals state that a ‘legitimate’ society must be one where the maximum number of individuals can pursue self-realisation and self-determination. As such, it will be one where individuals are free from any barriers stemming from prejudice or discrimination. As John Stuart Mill emphasised during the mid-nineteenth century, the main job of liberal politicians was to create the conditions for such an individualistic society.
This notion was also articulated by Mary Wollstonecraft in 1790. Claiming that ‘natural rights’ applied to both men and women, she noted that such rights - particularly the right to property - were withheld from the women of eighteenth- century English society. Her demands that society be reformed were later echoed by Betty Friedan, who asserted that the patriarchal, male-dominated society conflicted with women’s quest for self-determination and was therefore at odds with liberal individualism.
In supporting individualism, liberal thinkers are especially concerned about individuals with minority or underrepresented characteristics. For example:
■ the cause of religious nonconformists in seventeenth-century England was championed by Locke.
■ women in eighteenth-century England, particularly those aspiring to property and education, were championed by Wollstonecraft.
■ women seeking professional careers in 1960s America were backed by Friedan.
■ more recently, those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual minorities (LGBTQ+) have been supported by writers like Shon Faye.
In all cases, liberals are keen to protect the individuals concerned against what Mill termed ‘dull conformity’ and ‘suffocating convention’.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of society: The tolerant society
Liberal support for minorities connects with liberalism’s commitment to a more tolerant society, without which universal self-realisation is impossible. As a result, liberals are fond of citing: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. This notion was to be developed in the mid-nineteenth century by John Stuart Mill, who insisted that the state should tolerate all actions and opinions unless they were shown to violate the ‘harm principle’ This principle states that individuals should be free to do and say anything that does not harm the liberty of other individuals.
Although liberalism has always placed importance on the value of the individual, liberal thinkers came to recognise that individuals do not necessarily seek tolerance in isolation from others. Instead, liberal thinkers like Thomas Hill Green accept that individuals will be drawn to, and rely on, societies that tolerate their individualism. Here again, there was a concern for individuals with minority causes and characteristics. However, while tolerance of minorities may seem a straightforward issue for liberalism and individualism it can raise serious problems. For example, to what extent should a liberal society tolerate minority positions that seem illiberal? And how should liberals respond if the agenda of one ‘discriminated-against’ minority clashes with another?
These have long been tricky issues for liberals; and their usual response has been to argue that greater ‘enlightenment’ will produce greater, all-round tolerance and consensus.
Intolerance and general opposition to liberal ideas are often assumed by liberals to stem from ignorance or misunderstanding. For this reason, Mill’s faith in consensus via education remains crucial to the liberal project, providing the means through which the interests of society’s minorities can be reconciled - both to society’s majority interests and to the interests of other minorities.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the economy: Defence of private property:
At the heart of economic liberalism lies an unswerving belief in the private ownership of property. Given the liberal view of human nature and society, this should not be surprising.
As John Locke emphasised, property is a ‘natural right’ which predates the existence of any state. Later, liberal thinkers like John Stuart Mill also argued that property facilitated individualism incentivising individual enterprise, reflecting each individual’s preferences and providing a sense of independence.
In short, property is seen by liberals as a crucial vehicle for self-realisation and self-determination. Furthermore, as Locke pointed out, when property is owned by a multitude of individuals, this offers further protection against concentrated power and overbearing rulers who threaten natural rights.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the economy: Defence of capitalism and inequality:
An obvious effect of liberalism’s support for private property is its enthusiasm for capitalism. Ever since the original liberal economist, Adam Smith , extolled free trade and free markets in the late eighteenth century, liberalism has been strongly associated with private enterprise and private ownership of the economy.
As with its approach to society, liberalism’s support for a capitalist economy is strongly linked to its upbeat view of human nature. In making the case for free-market economics, for example, Adam Smith optimistically asserted that, if obstacles to free trade were swept away, and if individuals were allowed to trade freely, the ‘invisible hand’ of market forces would eventually enrich both individuals and nations.
Although capitalism produces inequality of outcome, lliberals defend this on two grounds. First, economic liberals at the UK’s Adam Smith Institute, for example, assert that individual wealth and individual economic success, will eventually ‘trickle down’ to the majority in society. Secondly, they endorse Mill’s view that unequal outcomes are consistent with a ‘meritocratic’ society - one that encourages individualism, and which rewards those who have earned their advantages. However, as John Rawls argued, liberals should only defend inequality of outcome if it is accompanied by equality of opportunity.
As we shall see when we examine different types of liberalism later in this chapter, liberals disagree about which type of capitalism is best for liberty and prosperity. Liberals in the nineteenth century, such as Mill, commended laissez-faire capitalism, whereas liberals in the mid- to late twentieth century, such as Rawls, tended to favour Keynesian capitalism. Such differences relate to the nature and objectives of a liberal state
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: FOUNDATIONS: rejection of anarchism.
Liberalism is not the only ideology to promote individualism: the idea is also found among some strands of anarchism, such as anarcho-capitalism, which argue that the state should be abolished in the interests of individual freedom.
What makes liberalism distinctive is its belief that self-realisation, self-determination and self-fulfilment are all best served by the existence of a state, rather than leaving individuals in a condition of anarchy (where formal laws and authority are absent).
However, given John Locke’s emphasis on ‘natural rights’, and the related belief that society predates the state, liberals do not accept that any kind of state is preferable to anarchy. Instead, they insist that the state must meet certain conditions so that individuals are not left worse off than they were in the state of nature.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: FOUNDATIONS: Rejection of of pre-enlightenment states:
Liberals dismiss the kind of states common in the pre- Enlightenment era because liberals believe in consent and social contracts. Medieval states were invariably marked by:
■Divine right of kings: the doctrine that the monarch’s power had been conferred by God and to question it was effectively blasphemous.
■Monarchical absolutism: where power rested almost exclusively with a king or queen.
■ Arbitrary power: where the monarch exercised power randomly, unrestrained by any clear code of governance.
■ Hereditary power: where power was exercised by those who happened to inherit it, rather than those who demonstrated their ability to use it rationally.
Early liberals, like Locke, argued that such states were both morally illegitimate, in that they were unlikely to respect natural rights, and intellectually illegitimate, in that they were an affront to mankind’s rationality and cognitive potential.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: FOUNDATIONS: the contractual state:
By contrast, liberals support what Locke termed ‘government by consent’ - or, more specifically, the consent of the governed.
Locke insisted that the state has legitimacy only if those under its jurisdiction agree to be under its jurisdiction. This idea has a profound effect on the relationship between politicians and people. Far from being the ‘subjects’ of the state, as the traditional state asserted, the people under the liberal state become its ‘citizens’, with ultimate control over those who govern. As Locke maintained, ‘government should always be the
The notion of ‘government by consent’ is closely linked to that of ‘government by contract’ - or what Locke and other Enlightenment theorists dubbed a social contract.
This indicates that the state should be a deal between government and governed, where the governed defer to the government only if the state guarantees certain outcomes (e.g. the protection of natural rights).
As we have seen, liberals believe that the ‘natural society’ or ‘state of nature’ is not necessarily undesirable. Therefore, individuals will only contract out of the ‘state of nature’ and contract into a formal state if they are promised advantages in return. Furthermore, if those advantages stop, citizens are entitled to declare the state illegitimate, cancel the ‘contract’ between the government and governed and return to the ‘state of nature’. As the American Declaration of Independence declared in 1776, when a government becomes tyrannical, ‘it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: OBJECTIVES: promotion of natural rights
The main objective of a liberal state is to improve upon rights that individuals enjoyed in the state of nature notably the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of self-fulfilment. Again, this was famously embodied by both the US Constitution and the American Declaration of Independence that preceded it.
Furthermore, if the state is structured in a certain way, it can allow individuals to enjoy their natural rights more easily than in the state of nature. As Locke conceded, the state of nature would still involve occasional clashes of self-interest (over entitlement to uncultivated land, for example), with such clashes only being resolved after informal - yet lengthy - quests for compromise. By contrast, the liberal state would offer faster and fairer methods of resolution, such as through impartial courts, allowing individuals more swiftly to resume the exercise of their natural rights.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: OBJECTIVES: equal opportunities unequal outcomes
Given liberalism’s belief that every individual is born equal with equal natural rights, it is logical for the liberal state to ensure that individuals are treated equally. Indeed, one of the chief justifications for a liberal state is its capacity to provide everyone with equal opportunities for self-fulfilment. The liberal state will not be static in this respect. As T.H. Green and John Rawls argued, the liberal state must evolve to counter new threats to individual liberty.
It is important to note, however, that liberal states (unlike most socialist states) will be far less concerned about equality of outcome - an obvious side-effect of liberalism’s support for private property and capitalism. Once again, liberals like Rawls argue that, while equality of opportunity should be pursued, inequality of outcome is the inevitable and desirable consequence of individual diversity. Consequently, the liberal state will strive to enable equal opportunity while allowing a meritocratic inequality of outcome, one that rewards individual effort and achievement rather than hereditary advantages.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: OBJECTIVES: promotion of tolerance.
As indicated earlier, liberals wish to see a society that values tolerance. Consequently, the liberal state aims to promote tolerance through its laws and institutions - for example, by making illegal blatant forms of intolerance regarding freedom of speech and religion.
Classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill claimed that education was another vital way in which greater tolerance could be encouraged.
But it was ‘modern’ liberals like T.H. Green who argued that only the state could ensure the universal education required by a tolerant society.
During the twentieth century, liberals such as Betty Friedan argued that the state’s role in promoting tolerance should be extended further, so as to illegalise racial and sexual discrimination.
Friedan also believed that a more tolerant society could be ‘psychologically embedded’ by the state, via bureaucratic agencies with an ‘educational’ function (such as the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission).
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: a representative state
Consistent with Locke’s assertion that the state derives its power from its citizens, rather than the divine right of kings, it is important for a liberal state to be reliably representative of the citizens it serves.
For the American colonists of the 1770s, it was the lack of such ‘representativeness’ that sparked a revolt against the English Crown. This revolt was partly inspired by Locke’s theory of ‘government by consent’ and was encapsulated by the slogan ‘no taxation without representation’.
Therefore, the liberal state will always include representative bodies, such as parliaments, that allow rational discussion between representatives of the people, who are accountable to the people.
As Betty Friedan argued, liberals must always reject the conservative idea of a paternalistic state, where politicians feel a quasi-parental obligation to ‘look after’ people. Instead, they must demand legislatures that respect and articulate citizens’ interests.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: a meritocratic state
Like a liberal society, a liberal state must be meritocratic, governed by those who have earned rather than inherited their authority.
In this respect, the liberal state again stands in contrast to the pre-Enlightenment state, where the principle of hereditary power usually applied.
As Thomas Paine (1737-1809) remarked, when justifying the French Revolution’s overthrow of the nobility in 1790, aristocratic rule was ‘beyond equity, beyond reason and most certainly beyond wisdom’.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: a limited state
At the heart of the liberal state is a belief that power should not be exercised in an arbitrary and unlimited way. Instead, the state’s power should be limited by:
■ The preconditions of government: the terms on which the governed initially give their consent to be governed, as part of the original social contract between the state and its citizens.
■ The procedures and methods of government, as rationally agreed when the contract between state and citizens is being reached.
These conditions and procedures would be duly enshrined in a constitution: in effect, the rule book of a liberal state.
This constitution would be constructed after exhaustive rational discussion among its architects and would define the extent and procedures of state power.
Inherent to this constitution would be a ‘formalised’ equality, reflecting the liberal belief that human beings are born equal (i.e. they have foundational equality).
As such, a liberal constitution aims to give the same legal and political rights to all - such as the universal right to petition government - and apply the ‘rule of law’ so that state rules are applicable to everyone, regardless of class or status
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: a fragmented state
John Locke’s belief that the state’s powers should be ‘fragmented and scattered’ was a reaction to pre-Enlightenment states, where power was concentrated in the monarchy.
Liberals argue that power is more likely to be exercised wisely if it is shared evenly, reflecting the famous view of Lord Acton (1834-1902) that ‘absolute power tends to corrupt corrupts absolutely’.
Dispersed state power also reflects liberalism’s optimistic view of human nature. If individuals are generally rational and respectful, and inclined to peaceful self-determination, it seems reasonable to empower as many people as possible.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: a democratic state?
The question of whether a liberal state should be democratic is complex. At first glance, the ‘liberal state’ and the ‘democratic state’ seem complementary. With its claim that people are born equal and generally rational and that government should always involve the ‘consent’ of the governed, liberalism might be presumed to demand that all adults have an equal vote and that the result of votes should always be respected.
However, the situation is complicated by liberalism’s respect for ‘natural rights’, which liberals regard as non-negotiable. But what if some would-be voters are not respectful of such ‘rights’? What if those ‘rights’ prove less than popular at the ballot box?
For liberal thinkers, this dilemma has two consequences. First, classical liberals like John Locke and John Stuart Mill had reservations about universal adult suffrage, or the idea that all adults should be allowed to vote. Locke disapproved of the vote being given to those without property, on the grounds that it would threaten the ‘natural rights’ of property-owners. Mill feared that, if votes were given to the ‘uneducated’, it could lead to a lack of tolerance towards minority viewpoints, the subsequent erosion of ‘individuality’, and a society that stifled brilliance and originality.
Although Betty Friedan and John Rawls endorsed universal suffrage, they and other modern liberals have still been keen to stress representative democracy (allowing legislators to seek a liberal consensus) as opposed to direct democracy and its use of devices like referendums. Such devices, liberals claim, are inherently geared to majority opinion and may threaten the natural rights of minority interests - a threat which Mill termed ‘the tyranny of the majority’.
The second consequence of liberalism’s ambivalent attitude to democracy is that the liberal state will seek to constrain the effect of elections.
The core ideas of liberalism: View of the state: STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS: judicial supremacy
The dispersed power of a liberal state usually includes ‘supreme’ courts and unelected judges - in other words, state officials who may veto the policies of an elected government if they determine that some policies clash with a state’s Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is a constitutional document which protects certain ‘rights’, such as the ‘right’ to free speech, from the actions of politicians. Like so much else in liberalism, this arrangement stems from a belief that ‘natural rights’ are sacrosanct and cannot be threatened, and that certain policies are unacceptable, regardless of their popularity.
Liberals are also wary of parliamentary sovereignty - a doctrine that places ultimate power in the hands of an elective body - as they fear it could lead to the legitimisation of ‘illiberal’ ideas (such as the persecution of certain minority groups) that happen to be temporarily popular at recent elections. Consequently, the liberal state seeks to protect itself from ‘elective dictatorship’ and any ‘populist’ government which shows scant regard for ‘natural rights’.
Classical liberalism: Revolutionary implications:
John Locke’s belief in government by consent, and his assertion that a state should be the servant not master of the people, may seem mainstream today. Yet, in the context of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such ideas were revolutionary and potentially violent.
By rejecting the twin pillars of the traditional European state - the divine right of kings and monarchical absolutism - Locke’s philosophy became associated with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the establishment of constitutional government in England. It also helped inspire the American revolt against British rule in 1775, when Locke’s belief in natural rights and government by consent were again proclaimed by the rebels.
Classical liberalism: Negative liberty:
- liberty means individuals are ‘free from’ interference by both governments and other individuals.
Negative liberty is a key feature of classical liberalism and closely connected to the seminal text, On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Although the term was not coined until a century after Mill’s death (by the philosopher Isaiah Berlin), it reflects Mill’s view that freedom means individuals being left alone to determine their own destiny.
Mill argued that, unless it could be shown that a man’s exercise of liberty ‘harmed’ that of others, any interference with his actions infringed his natural right to freedom. In short, for classical liberals like Mill, liberty largely meant an absence of interference.
Classical liberalism: Minimal government
- A feature of classical liberalism, minimal government reflected the concept of ‘negative liberty’ by minimising state activities (e.g. legislating and taxing as infrequently as possible).
Classical liberals endorse the idea of minimal government, which is different from the minimal state.
The notion of minimal government relates more to how much governing the state should undertake rather than the structure of the state. Given that classical liberals saw liberty as the absence of restraint, the belief in minimal government is unsurprising. According to Locke and Mill, governments should be limited not just in terms of how they can act, but in terms of whether they act. Consistent with ‘negative liberty’, the limited constitutional state should therefore co-exist with minimal government activity
Classical liberalism: Laissez-faire capitalism
For classical liberals, their belief in minimal government also informed their view of economics. More specifically, it shaped their view of how the state should respond to capitalism. The most famous expression of classical liberal economics came from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776), which was later commended strongly by John Stuart Mill.
Smith argued that capitalism had a limitless capacity to enrich individuals and society - as long as state intervention in the economy was severely restricted. Reflecting the notion of negative liberty, the state’s role was to adopt mainly laissez- faire approach to the workings of a market economy, so that market forces could operate and flourish ‘naturally’.
Smith advocated the end of tariffs, duties and other forms of economic protectionism, and the spread of free trade between nation-states and their commercial classes. These ideas were radical in 1776 but become orthodox in Britain and the USA during the nineteenth century.
Classical liberalism: ambivalent about democracy.
John Locke thought that universal adult suffrage, which empowered the majority, threatened the ‘natural’ property rights of a minority. As a result, most classical liberals believed that the right to vote should be confined to property owners. This largely explains the allegation of early socialists, such as Karl Marx, that classical liberalism was just a philosophical cover for ‘bourgeois’ class interests.
Later classical liberals like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, however, were more resigned to the inevitability of democracy. Indeed, Mill argued that it would eventually complement the ‘progressive’ aspect of human nature.
Mass engagement with election debates, Mill argued, along with the process of ‘rationally’ deciding whom to support, was a form of political education that would enhance everyone’s capacity for reason. As a result, Mill argued, democracy could fortify, rather than threaten, liberal society. He was therefore prepared, eventually, to champion votes for women.
But Mill was still hesitant. By the mid-nineteenth century, most adults had no formal education and were therefore ill- equipped (in Mill’s view) to make rational choices. Consequently, Mill argued that universal adult suffrage must be preceded by universal education. He was confident that mass education would establish a liberal consensus within society and then ensure liberal outcomes in elections. As a result, the traditional liberal fear about democracy - that it would lead to rule by an illiberal majority - would recede.
How did liberalism evolve into modern liberalism:
Modern liberalism was a response to the social and economic changes that had occurred since the era of John Locke, especially those arising from the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These changes made many aspects of classical liberalism - like the notion of ‘autonomous individuals seeking self-fulfilment in rural, ‘atomised’ societies- seem quaint, if not absurd. With the mass of individuals now dependent on heavy industry for work, and on urban landlords for homes, most individuals were now at the mercy of forces beyond their control. As such, it was harder to sustain Locke’s claim that, to be ‘free’, individuals merely required laissez-faire governments and a constitution that enshrined natural rights.
In response to this threat, philosophers such as T.H. Green made a crucial acknowledgement: that having conquered the original enemies of liberty - monarchical absolutism and arbitrary power - liberals now faced new enemies that were social and economic. This, in turn, led Green and others to reappraise the philosophical basis of ‘liberty’ and the scope of a liberal state.
Modern Liberalism: Positive liberty.
Taking issue with Mill’s concept of ‘negative’ liberty, Green argued that freedom should not be seen merely as the absence of restraint and ‘freedom from’ oppressive rulers. Instead, it should be regarded as something more altruistic - a concept that involved individuals ‘enabling’ other individuals, thus allowing them the freedom to pursue individual fulfilment.
According to Green, this approach was not to be confused with the state-led collectivism of socialists such as Beatrice Webb, or the aristocratic paternalism of conservatives like Edmund Burke.
Instead, it was about empowering individuals to help themselves, thereby enabling them to control their lives in a way that would have been impossible had they been left alone. This concept eventually became known as ‘positive liberty’ and had profound effects upon how modern liberals regard the state
Modern Liberalism: The Enabling State:
Whereas classical liberalism endorsed negative liberty, and therefore minimal government, modern liberals demand a much larger state to facilitate positive liberty. In other words, they believe that only more government will ‘enable’ individuals to overcome socioeconomic threats to freedom.
For this reason, modern liberals such as John Rawls argue that individual liberty generally requires more laws, more state spending and more taxation. As a result, this brand of liberalism has become strongly linked to the UK’s post-war welfare state and various other ‘big government’ initiatives.
Having backed an enabling state, modern liberals faced criticism from so-called neo-liberals, who sought to rescue the classical liberal principle of minimal government. According to Friedrich von Hayek, for example, positive liberty was merely ‘socialism in disguise’ and therefore ‘the road to serfdom’ (or long-term dependence on others), creating a situation where liberty and enterprise were stifled by state welfare. Rawls naturally resisted such a suggestion, arguing that only an enlarged state could create the equality of opportunity necessary for individual freedom.
Rawls also claimed that, although an enabling state would require some people to sacrifice more in the form of taxation, they could still be rationally persuaded that this was consistent with their self-interest. As a result, Rawls argued that the enabling state was compatible with the perennial liberal principle of government by consent.
Modern liberalism: Keynesian capitalism
Reflecting its rejection of negative liberty and minimal government, modern liberalism is less prepared to endorse laissez-faire capitalism and more willing to back dirigiste capitalism, involving greater state intervention in a market economy.
Of crucial influence here was the economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued that minimal state intervention led periodically to mass unemployment, a resulting loss of freedom for millions of individuals, and the grave prospect of fascism and communism. Keynes therefore argued that self- fulfilment and liberty were seriously endangered by joblessness and resulting poverty.
As a liberal, Keynes was naturally keen to protect capitalism. But as a modern liberal he believed that the best way to do this was through state ‘management’ of capitalism, thereby ensuring economic stability and a workforce ‘enabled’ to be ‘free’ by full employment.
Modern liberalism: Liberal democracy:
As we saw earlier, classical liberals were wary of democracy, fearing that it endangered natural rights and tolerance.
However, once modern liberals began championing the extension of the state, the extension of democracy became harder to resist. As T.H. Green admitted, ‘if the state is to do more for its people, then the state must do more to secure their consent’. In other words, positive liberty and an enabling state required the embrace of universal adult suffrage.
Yet modern liberalism’s support for democracy is not unreserved. It has shown little interest, for example, in direct democracy and referendums. It has even been willing to limit representative democracy through its backing of the UK Human Rights Act (which transferred powers from elective representatives to unelected judges) and its firm support for the European Union (despite the undemocratic nature of key EU institutions, such as the European Commission).
Like classical liberals, modern liberals seem inclined to excuse democratic shortcomings in return for ensuring ‘liberal’ outcomes, such as the EU’s guarantee of free movement for its individual citizens. Modern liberals were also inclined to see the Brexit referendum as a shocking example of Mill’s ‘tyranny of the majority’ and a vindication of his view that big decisions are best left to liberal- minded parliaments.
Modern liberalism: Social liberalism:
Modern liberalism is also defined by efforts to update the classical liberal stress on tolerance - especially tolerance of minorities. This approach has become widely known as social liberalism.
From the mid-twentieth century onwards, modern liberalism became strongly linked with calls for greater racial and sexual toleration.
Key thinkers such as Betty Friedan protested that too many individuals in modern society were denied equality of opportunity on account of ‘essentialist’ factors like ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Given their acceptance of positive liberty and an enabling state, modern liberals like Friedan argued that solving such problems required fresh legislation and various forms of ‘affirmative action’ - that is, discrimination favouring groups that had, historically, been discriminated against (often referred to as ‘positive discrimination’).
