I consider myself a social liberal and a economic conservative. I believe in freedom of expression and democracy. I also believe in balanced budgets, low debts, and a relatively free market system (with monitoring to stop cheating and manipulation). As Edmund Fawcett points out in his excellent book on Liberalism: The Life of an Idea the path to a free and open society that stresses economic equality and equal rights tends to be a bumpy one.
Among the dozens of politicians, philosophers, and economists Fawcett deals with in his story of Liberalism, I was captivated by his approach to Milton Friedman. Friedman is considered to be one of the great economists of the 20th Century (along side John Maynard Keynes). Both Liberals and Conservatives claim Friedman for their side when in reality, Friedman is hard to categorize. Friedman “argued that political freedom required economic freedom. Markets were blind to people’s non-monetary differences. Markets encouraged mutual forbearance and acceptance. The more markets spread within a society the less room there was for intolerance, oppression, and harmful political factionalism” (p. 373).
“Governments, Friedman thought, should limit themselves to enforcing contracts, promoting competition, protecting ‘the irresponsible whether madman or child,’ and ensuring stable money.” Governments got into trouble if they overreached.
I enjoyed Fawcett’s treatments of Keynes, Hayek, Schumpeter, Adam Smith, Marshall, and other notable economists. If you’re looking for a book about where Liberalism when right and where it went wrong, Edmund Fawcett’s book does this brilliantly. Are you a Liberal? GRADE: A
Table of Contents
Preface to the Paperback Edition xi
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments xxiii
Introduction It’s About More Than Liberty 1
PART ONE The Confidence of Youth (1830-1880) 27
1 Historical Setting in the 1830s: Thrown into a World of Ceaseless Change 28
2 Guiding Thoughts from Founding Thinkers: Conflict, Resistance, Progress, and Respect 34
i. Humboldt and Constant: Releasing People’s Capacities and Respecting Their Privacy 34
ii. Guizot: Taming Conflict without Arbitrary Power 44
iii. Tocqueville and Schulze-Delitzsch: The Modern Powers of Mass Democracy and Mass Markets 57
iv. Chadwick and Cobden: Governments and Markets as Engines of Social Progress 65
v. Smiles and Channing: Personal Progress as Self-Reliance or Moral Uplift 74
vi. Spencer: Liberalism Mistaken for Biology 79
vii. J. S. Mill: Holding Liberalism’s Ideas Together 85
3 Liberalism in Practice: Four Exemplary Politicians 98
i. Lincoln: The Many Uses of “Liberty” in the Land of Liberty 98
ii. Laboulaye and Richter: Tests for Liberals in Semiliberal Regimes 106
iii. Gladstone: Liberalism’s Capaciousness and the Politicsof Balance 112
4 The Nineteenth-Century Legacy: Liberalism without Caricature 117
i. Respect, “the Individual,” and the Lessons of Toleration 117
ii. The Achievements That Gave Liberals Confidence 133
PART TWO Liberalism in Maturity and the Struggle with Democracy (1880-1945) 137
5 Historical Setting in the 1880s: The World Liberals Were Making 138
6 The Compromises That Gave Us Liberal Democracy 146
i. Political Democracy: Liberal Resistance to Suffrage Extension 146
ii. Economic Democracy: The “New Liberalism” and Novel Tasks for the State 159
iii. Ethical Democracy: Letting Go Ethically and the Persistence of Intolerance 167
7 The Economic Powers of the Modern State and Modern Market 173
i. Walras, Marshall, and the Business Press: Resisting the State on Behalf of Markets 173
ii. Hobhouse, Naumann, Croly, and Bourgeois: Resisting Markets on Behalf of Society 186
8 Damaged Ideals and Broken Dreams 198
i. Chamberlain and Bassermann: Liberal Imperialism 198
ii. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Wilson: Liberal Hawks of 1914-1918 214
iii. Alain, Baldwin, and Brandeis: Liberal Dissent and the Warfare State 227
iv. Stresemann: Liberal Democracy in Peril 237
v. Keynes, Fisher, and Hayek (i): Liberal Economists in the Slump 245
vi. Hoover and Roosevelt: Forgotten Liberal and Foremost Liberal 267
9 Thinking about Liberalism in the 1930s-1940s 275
i. Lippmann and Hayek (ii): Liberals as Antitotalitarians 275
ii. Popper: Liberalism as Openness and Experiment 279
PART THREE Second Chance and Success (1945-1989) 285
10 Historical Setting after 1945: Liberal Democracy’s New Start 286
11 New Foundations: Rights, a Democratic Rule of Law, and Welfare 290
i. Drafters of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights: Liberal Democracy Goes Global 290
ii. German Postwar Liberals: The 1949 Basic Law as Liberal Democracy’s Exemplary Charter 302
iii. Beveridge: Liberalism and Welfare 312
12 Liberal Thinking after 1945 316
i. Oakeshott and Berlin: Letting Politics Alone and “Negative” Liberty 317
ii. Hayek (iii): Political Antipolitics 327
iii. Orwell, Camus, and Sartre: Liberals in the Cold War 332
iv. Rawls: Justifying Liberalism 338
v. Nozick, Dworkin, and MacIntyre: Responses to Rawls, Rights, and Community 348
13 The Breadth of Liberal Politics in the 1950s-1980s 355
i. Mendès-France, Brandt, and Johnson: Left Liberalism in the 1950s-1960s 355
ii. Buchanan and Friedman: Liberal Economists Against the State 368
iii. Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterrand, and Kohl: Right Liberalism in the 1970s-1980s 378
PART FOUR After 1989 391
Coda Liberal Dreams in the Twenty-First Century 392
Works Consulted 409
Name Index 433
Subject Index 444
Yep. I’m a liberal and proud of it. I also consider myself a conservative in the original meaning of the word — if it works, keep (or conserve) it; if it doesn’t. fix it. The problem today is that corporate overreach and greed, as well as the lust for political power, has gummed up the works for the vast majority of people. **sigh**
Jerry, I wish I could be your kind of “conservative” but I can’t fix anything.
Yes—I consider myself a liberal, although in today’s political climate, in some quarters that’s akin to saying you’re a Devil worshiper! On the social spectrum, I believe that a woman should have autonomy over her reproductive system and that the government should not police activities between consenting adults. However, I also believe that too much wealth concentrated in too few hands results in social unrest, upheaval, rage, and scapegoating—unfortunately, we’re seeing that now as trillions of dollars have been transferred from the working- and middle-classes to the 1% over the past four decades. It’s such a shame that the idea that an individual should have personal, social freedom cannot seem to coexist with the idea that we shouldn’t create monetary policies that allow a handful of people to control 99.99% of a nation’s wealth!
Deb, the prevailing ideology today is Greed. Millionaires and billionaires sock their money away in off-shore accounts and Swiss Bank accounts. Their corporations pay ZERO taxes. The tax burden is on middle-class and working class citizens. Politicians, who depend on campaign contributions from the Rich, don’t dare raise taxes on them.
Deb, no reason to assume one can’t still be a social democrat. Plenty of them still around, along with their more corporatist cousins, welfare-staters/
I pretty much agree with what Deb says. I’m proud to be a liberal although some of the extremes such as WOKE and cancel culture make me feel embarrassed at times.
Steve, conservatives and Republicans demonized “liberals” and that stigma stings. But popular Government programs like Social Security and Medicare came about because of liberals.
Agree with Deb totally!
I call myself a Green Liberal, have been voting for the Greens since many years.
We are successful – the state of the Schwabs (Baden Württemberg, the home of Bosch, Mercedes, Porsche and many others) which has had a Green prime minister for several years who was just reelected.
What I really don’t get is that some people use “Liberal” as a swear word. In Hungary where I spend half of my time prime minister Orbán declared that he wants an”Illiberal Democracy” ???
Later he changed that to a “Christian Democracy” – of course he wants everybody to go to church, hates LGBT people, just introduced a law forbidding sex education for chidren, loves Putin – the list could go on …
Wolf, politicians are shapeshifters who will change their “ideology” to whatever will garner them more votes from unsuspecting voters.
Though clearly Orban is telling the voters exactly what he hopes to do.
I was elected to the lowest state office possible in Hawaii in 1983 as a Green.
What Deb says too. This week I particularly despite the Cardinals who will police parishioners support of legal abortions to deny communion. This is all about discrediting Biden before the next elections. I don’t understand how people can practice Catholicism any more. That’s this week’s bugaboo. Even the Evangelical Protestants haven’t suggested that.
Patti, instead of policing the pedophiles in the priesthood, the Bishops focus on making Life difficult for Catholic women. I wonder if some Dark Money donation triggered the Bishops’s action.
Yeah, Jackie made that pedophile point too. If they let priests marry, a lot of the problems would evaporate, including the shortage of priests. And don’t even get me started on women and the priesthood. Some of the worst pogroms and murderous rampages over the centuries have been instigated by the Catholic Church.
Jeff, they have a Dark Past…and an uncertain Future. Dozens of Catholic Churches have closed in Western NY along with Catholic Schools.
I’m a liberal, well described by Deb. But it isn’t easy when our elected “leaders” are overcautious candy asses who fail to understand an opposition completely devoid of shame, decency, or integrity. They simply can’t be bargained with. It’s impossible to even imagine a liberal who’d pull the kind of crap McConnell did with the Supreme Court, but I wish we had someone like that.
Michael, contemporary politics seems to be obsessed with Power. Moscow Mitch and his minions lust for control of the Senate. Meanwhile, they block any progress (like they did with Obama). The Democrats need to hold the Senate and House and add to their majorities for anything to change.
Biden did all sorts of weaseling while a senator, and usually for the most half-assed of ends, ranging from getting an anti-flag-burning amendment started (it quickly fell apart as a movement) to his shameful behavior during Clarence Thomas’s hearings toward Anita Hill, to his opposition to school desegregation. Weaseling isn’t really what we need. As he continues to prove in not getting behind an end to the filibuster.
Todd, I’m not a fan of the filibuster, but it does protect the minority in the Senate. When the Democrats become the minority in the Senate, they might want the filibuster to block GOP legislation.
Theoretically, it’s meant to protect the country from bad ideas in legislation, much as the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from despotic and special-interest-driven presidents. We can see how well these theories have played out in practice.
Neither have succeeded. And, as has been noted repeatedly of late, the filibuster was introduced and used successfully mostly to reverse and retard civil rights legislation. They are vastly more cancerous than anything they ever cure, as is demonstrated by Ted Cruz as well as McConnell being the major exploiters of the filibuster in recent times.
Todd, the filibuster was a rarely used political tool…until recent years.
Yes, Deb pretty much nails it, as usual. What I have always hated in politicians is not that they are “conservative” but that they are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is #1 on my list of political and other sins. Republicans believe in laissez faire, right? Keep governments hands off? But if it is something they are against, be it abortion or same sex marriage or whatever, then voila! Suddenly, government should step in. They supposedly want “strict constructionists” like Nino Scalia, until they don’t and they want judges to make their own laws. I don’t define myself as a liberal but I know most people would. Say “progressive” but not extremist of the AOC sort.
Jeff, I’m not big on labels. But I’d go with Pragmatist because I want Results and legislation that works to help Americans. I don’t care whether liberals, progressives, moderates, or conservatives get it done as long as positive effects follow the passage of the Bill. You’re right about most politicians being hypocrites, it seems to come with the territory…
Alexandria-Cortez hardly “extremist”…
More and more lately, I find I’m not so much a Liberal as an Anti-Republican. The duplicity of Trump, McConnell, Cruz, et al, Gerrymandering, the Arizona “recount” and blatant voter suppression laws lead me to see the GOP as a threat to representative government.
Dan, same here. The GOP sees their “base” dwindle and seek to suppress votes and make it harder to vote as strategies to keep them in Power. Clearly, their “ideas,” agendas, and “ideologies” no longer appeal to a majority of the voters. So now, it’s down to trickery to hold their political jobs.
I was privileged to be invited to take part in a fellowship at NYU when I was teaching. The goal was to devise a plan to support all inner city students. My group’s plan (super progressive, bordering on Socialism) was to create a campus cradle to grave, to support parents, seniors and , of course, students through a college degree. We already have a huge city college system in place that we thought could design it. The people judging the ideas thought we went way over the top but I still stand by it and believe our crime, homelessness and increasing income disparity would vastly improve in all big cities.
Jackie
Jackie, the problems of crime, homelessness, income disparity, and mental health need to be addressed after years of neglect. Plans like yours could be the answer.
Good for you, Jackie.
Imagine Marjorie Taylor Green, pregnant, as U.S. President. Now, add a Republican Congress, both Senate and House. How would America change? Explain, using examples. 1 hour.
Rick, the answer revolves around Money. Marjorie Taylor Green could generate a lot of sympathy (and campaign contributions) as POTUS. A Republican Congress could create havoc and discord. America would change…for the Worse!
I figured lots of people would move to Canada…
Rick, have you been to Canada recently? It’s not so great up there.
I’m a liberal! On some issues! I’m conservative on others! Before you denounce Trump, McConnell, etc., how about a few words for Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, AOC and her gang, and the Biden/Harris disaster! I’ll wait!
Bob, I hear the sound of crickets…
Yeah, there’s no defending those scumbags!
Liberals in most of Europe are still what they initially were: Whigs, or “classic” liberals…seems as if that’s what your book here is discussing for the most part…Friedman certainly no welfare-statist, but a right-leaning near-libertarian, of the sort William Buckley always hoped to keep vocal but in the tent at NATIONAL REVIEW and the GOP he hoped to have reflect the values of his magazine…and they largely did so in his time.
Todd, Buckley was conservative, but he railed against the “nuts” in the GOP. Now, the GOP actively recruits conspiracy theorists, Qanon believers, and wackos.
Yes, he would eventually expel Brent Bozell and others on the far-reactionary right/fascists from the magazine, while still being willing to play ball with them in the larger world…