Why Modern Liberalism is in Retreat

Libe­ra­lism was once a radi­cal soci­al phi­lo­sop­hy beca­u­se it cham­pi­o­ned liber­ty, in par­ti­cu­lar, the right to indi­vi­du­al fre­e­dom in civil and eco­no­mic affa­irs. In time, howe­ver, the term “libe­ral” was hijac­ked by tho­se who were actu­al­ly advo­ca­ting a return to exten­si­ve govern­ment inter­fe­ren­ce, cham­pi­o­ning this now as neces­sa­ry so as “to make peo­ple free.” In fact, howe­ver, what they pro­po­sed was the pater­na­li­stic sta­te whe­re­by adult human beings would once aga­in be tre­a­ted as if they were chil­dren, depen­dents, in con­stant need of being regi­men­ted by supe­ri­or lea­ders so they could live successfully.

The radi­cal libe­ra­lism that meant fre­e­ing adult indi­vi­du­als from govern­ment beca­me clas­si­cal libe­ra­lism and, later, liber­ta­ri­a­nism, at least in the Uni­ted Sta­tes of Ame­ri­ca. (Thro­ug­ho­ut the rest of the world “libe­ral” still calls to mind the ori­gi­nal radi­cal mea­ning.) Yet the deba­te isn’t only abo­ut words.

Modern liberals—or tho­se indi­vi­du­als who else­whe­re are refer­red to as soci­al demo­crats or socialists—do have a dif­fe­rent idea of what human beings are. They think they are hel­pless in the face of the chal­len­ges and adver­si­ti­es of natu­re and soci­e­ty. Clas­si­cal libe­rals gene­ral­ly view peo­ple as capa­ble of taking the ini­ti­a­ti­ve, if only other peo­ple and govern­ments don’t put cha­ins on them, don’t stop them from hel­ping them­sel­ves. Cer­ta­in­ly peo­ple would have dif­fe­rent star­ting points in the effort to advan­ce themselves—some would have more for­tu­na­te begin­nings than others, would start off healt­hi­er, more appe­a­ling or talen­ted, born to wealt­hi­er parents, than others. Howe­ver, all in all, they could put the­ir sho­ul­ders to the task of impro­ving the­ir lives, wha­te­ver the­ir ori­gi­nal situ­a­ti­on. And a free soci­e­ty, one cham­pi­o­ned by clas­si­cal libe­rals or liber­ta­ri­ans, would then afford the best chan­ce for them all to suc­ce­ed at the­ir diver­se endeavors.

Modern libe­rals, howe­ver, embra­ce a dif­fe­rent view of human natu­re. They hold that we are basi­cal­ly moved by imper­so­nal for­ces and have no capa­ci­ty to ini­ti­a­te any impro­ve­ments in our lives. Any such impro­ve­ment has to come from the out­si­de, and govern­ment, with its con­cen­tra­ted and mas­si­ve coer­ci­ve power, is the most pro­mi­sing can­di­da­te to bring abo­ut such impro­ve­ment. This is, in fact, the intel­lec­tu­al sour­ce of the switch from the Ame­ri­can Foun­ders’ ori­gi­nal idea of indi­vi­du­al rights to the idea of posi­ti­ve rights or enti­tle­ments that was the sub­stan­ce of Fran­klin Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights.” Of cour­se, many other fac­tors influ­en­ced the chan­ge, inc­lu­ding vari­o­us spe­ci­al inter­ests para­ding as the public inter­est, but all rested, fun­da­men­tal­ly, on the switch from under­stan­ding peo­ple as self-star­ters to see­ing them as pas­si­ve par­ti­ci­pants wit­hin a soci­e­ty. The cen­tral issue is real­ly abo­ut human natu­re-are we at heart self-gover­ning, living enti­ti­es, or are we being moved abo­ut by imper­so­nal for­ces and in con­stant need of help from government?

Yet, as sho­uld be evi­dent, the modern liberal's appro­ach to advan­cing the lot of human beings is para­do­xi­cal. Whi­le denying that indi­vi­du­als can help them­sel­ves if left to the­ir own reso­ur­ces and to volun­ta­ry coo­pe­ra­ti­on, they affirm that govern­ments-which are, after all, com­po­sed of indi­vi­du­als-can take the ini­ti­a­ti­ve and effec­tu­a­te ade­qu­a­te solu­ti­ons to human pro­blems. How is this pos­si­ble? Eit­her we are hel­pless, in which case so is the govern­ment, or we can help our­sel­ves, in which case it is best, in most cases, to lea­ve us free to find our own solu­ti­on to pro­blems. More­o­ver, if we can take the ini­ti­a­ti­ve, then tho­se who know the pro­blems they face, who have access to what has come to be cal­led local kno­wled­ge-which is whe­re solu­ti­ons most often lie-are in a far bet­ter posi­ti­on to address chal­len­ges facing them than far off agen­ci­es of governments.

So what has stymi­ed the full deve­lop­ment of the clas­si­cal libe­ral, affir­ma­ti­ve view of human indi­vi­du­al capa­bi­li­ti­es of free men and women? It is, first, that the idea was sim­ply very radi­cal and unfa­mi­li­ar to most; and, second, that tho­se who had taken advan­ta­ge of the oppo­si­te idea (that rulers need to run everyone's life) didn't wish to yield power.

The modern libe­ral, in point of fact, is a reac­ti­o­na­ry, one who still clings to the old idea that peo­ple in the main are inept and requ­i­re some supre­me ruler to run the­ir lives, to take care of them. That is the foun­da­ti­o­nal idea behind feu­da­lism and monarc­hy, with tsars, Cae­sars, kings, que­ens, pha­ra­ohs, and other chi­efs ruling the realm with the rest of us rele­ga­ted to the posi­ti­on of subjects requ­i­red to fol­low the lea­ders' will.

In time, one may rea­so­na­bly hope, the clas­si­cal liberal's radi­cal but very sen­si­ble insight abo­ut human natu­re-that it is fun­da­men­tal­ly cre­a­ti­ve and pro­duc­ti­ve and needs liber­ty to flo­u­rish-will ree­mer­ge, having over­co­me the bad habit of depen­den­cy on govern­ment. Howe­ver, this can­not be expec­ted to hap­pen auto­ma­ti­cal­ly. Eter­nal vigi­lan­ce is its pri­ce, indeed.


Tibor Mac­han, a rese­arch fel­low at the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­ti­on is the aut­hor of more than twen­ty books, most recen­tly, The Pas­si­on for Liber­ty (Rowan & Lit­tle­fi­eld, 2003). He is a mem­ber of the Board of Scho­lars of the Vir­gi­nia Insti­tu­te for Public Poli­cy, an edu­ca­ti­on and rese­arch orga­ni­za­ti­on hea­dqu­ar­te­red in Gai­ne­svil­le, Vir­gi­nia. Ori­gi­nal publis­hed on the adres­se http://www.virginiainstitute.org