Liberalism: outline, Liberalism: outline, objectivesobjectivesIdentify varieties of liberalism,

historical circumstances in which they emerged

Describe conceptions of freedom at core of each variant

Show how each variant performs four functions of ideology

Describe differences between welfare-state liberalism and socialism

Review main features of liberal conception of democracy

What is Liberalism?What is Liberalism?When you hear that someone is a

liberal, or that a particular proposal or policy is liberal, what do you think this means?◦…think general principles, rather than

specific policies…A liberal person (policy, politician,

and so forth) is:1. ___________________________ 2. ___________________________ 3. ___________________________

A liberal is…A liberal is…Inclined to be in favor of reducing

role of government in our daily lives

Tolerant, perhaps even permissive, toward unusual or deviant persons or actions

More concerned with protecting rights of unpopular minorities than those of the majority

Liberal policies might Liberal policies might include...include...Higher taxes, with more monies

spent on social welfare programs than on defense

Opposition to laws restricting freedom of expression and action, including such actions as having abortions or smoking marijuana

Protecting rights of defendants in criminal cases and restricting power of police to gather evidence and extract confessions

Are these liberals; are Are these liberals; are these liberal policies?these liberal policies?Historically speaking, yes and noEach a feature of one or another part of

long liberal traditionClassical liberals (e.g., John Stuart Mill)

and modern libertarians tend to oppose governmental intrusion into private sphere

Modern welfare, welfare-state, or reform liberals more inclined to favor state intervention

To see how liberal tradition can contain such apparently contradictory views, we need to look at its long history

Liberalism definedLiberalism definedDerived from Latin word liber,

meaning “free”From beginning championed

freedom of individual from unjustified or unnecessary restrictions or restraints

In Middle Ages, these included restraints on religious worship and economic activity

Rise of liberalism associated with several important developments

Rise of LiberalismRise of Liberalism Waning of Middle Ages and demise of feudalism Increasing importance of trade and commerce

Appearance of merchant capitalist as key figure who sought to break down older feudal and religiously-based barriers to trade

Protestant Reformation -- questioning of papal and priestly power

Emergence of individualism, new ideas Idea that individual is sovereign and endowed with natural

rights, including right to life and liberty State should serve individual, not other way around

In name of these and other liberal ideas/ideals, great revolutions of 17th and 18th centuries fought in England, in American colonies, and France

From beginning, liberalism embroiled in political conflict and ideological controversy

Worries of CriticsWorries of CriticsOne of main worries expressed by

critics of this emerging ideology was:◦How can order be maintained in a society

whose members were freed from traditional religious and economic restraints? Would not such “masterless men” ride roughshod over each other? If the older restraints no longer sufficed, what was to be substituted in their place?

Some questions early liberal thinkers asked and attempted to answer

Thomas HobbesThomas Hobbes In 17th century, in Leviathan (1651), Hobbes

argued condition of perfect liberty -- what he called the “state of nature” -- would be one of grave danger and insecurityLife would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

Some way must be found to bring solitary individuals into civil relations of cooperation and harmony

In keeping with practices of new commercial society, Hobbes suggested that an agreement -- a compact or social contract -- was needed to bring and bind people together

John LockeJohn LockeHobbes’ successor, Locke,

agreed some sort of social contract was only means by which individual liberty and social order could be reconciled

Contract would specify rights of individuals and limit government’s right to restrict actions and activities of citizens

Hobbes, Locke, and Hobbes, Locke, and IndividualismIndividualismDespite differences, Hobbes and Locke

agreed civil society rests on consent of rational, self-interested individuals concerned with protecting lives and property

Hobbes and Locke are defenders of doctrine we now call individualism -- idea that individual is sovereign ruler of his or her own person -- which is core of liberalism and liberal idea of freedom

Liberals have historically viewed idea of liberty or freedom through individualist lenses

Locke, Jefferson, and Locke, Jefferson, and libertylibertyWhen Locke wrote that every person

possesses a right to “life, liberty and property,” liberty was placed second only to life itself

When Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, asserted that everyone has a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” he too asserted primacy of liberty

To understand liberalism, we need to look at its understanding of freedom

Recall model of freedom as a triadic relation◦ (A) an agent◦ (B) a barrier or obstacle◦ (C) an aim or goal

The AgentThe Agent

Individual ◦Not class, caste, rank, or order to

which he or she belongsEach individual is an isolated,

self-governing sovereignFreedom is absence of

restrictions; to be free is to be unencumbered by obstacles or barriers

Barriers or ObstaclesBarriers or ObstaclesRestrictions or limitations (laws, rules,

regulations, and restrictive customs and traditions) that arbitrarily inhibit, impede, limit, or otherwise hinder actions, movements, and choices of individuals, particularly in private or personal sphere of thought and conduct

Liberals have tended to draw fairly sharp distinction between public and private spheres

In sphere of private belief -- especially religious beliefs -- one’s liberty should be absolute, according to Locke and other advocates of liberal toleration; state has neither right nor authority to tell its citizens what to believe or how to worship

Goals or AimsGoals or Aims Some seek religious freedom; others, freedom to

travel or emigrate; still others, freedom to vote, run for public office

Liberals have defended rights of individuals to pursue these and many other goals

Placed premium on pursuing and promoting one’s self-interest, as one understands it

Once free of feudal ties and other restrictions, most individuals would “naturally ” try to promote their own well-being, i.e., pursue their “right to life, liberty, and property”

Two social institutions supposed to protect and promote these rights – free market, liberal state

Free MarketFree Market Allows individuals to pursue interests in competition

with others pursuing their interests Earlier, pre-liberal moral codes had condemned self-

interested behavior as sinful or unjust, early liberals like Bernard Mandeville and Adam Smith believed “selfish” behavior to be rational and socially beneficial

“Private vices,” writes Mandeville, have a way of becoming “public benefits” in long run

Perhaps most famous case for self-interest made by Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776)◦ “Invisible hand” of the market

According to Smith, human beings have natural “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange”

The StateThe State“More visible hand”Scope and power of state should be minimal or

severely limited because it restricts freedom of citizens

Old liberal adage: “that state governs best which governs least”

State does have role to play; in most cases limited to making and enforcing laws needed to promote public and private dealings (e.g., laws that enforce terms of contracts between individuals)

Supposed to intervene to protect individual rights and to act in those few instances in which free market does not or cannot operate

Two sides of liberalismTwo sides of liberalism

History of liberalism in late 19th and 20th centuries story of disagreements about how much unassisted “free market” is able to achieve, and how well it can provide socially necessary services

Two sides of liberalism -- the economic and the ethical -- have long coexisted in uneasy tension

Utilitarian liberalsUtilitarian liberals In early 19th c., Utilitarian liberals led by Jeremy Bentham

tried to reconcile tension by devising market-based moral theory

Utilitarianism holds that each of us shops around, seeking to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains

Human beings are by nature hedonists, pleasure-seekers and pain-avoiders

Human nature impels us to search for pleasure or happiness and to avoid pain or unhappiness

Each person has natural or innate interest in promoting his or her own pleasure or happiness

Hence, says Bentham, there is no overriding “public interest” apart from “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”

Bentham and his disciple James Mill were free-market liberals

John Stuart MillJohn Stuart MillMill’s more famous son, extended

notion beyond economic sphereMaintained free market in goods

and services less important than free market in ideas and opinions

State should not interfere with expression and dissemination of ideas -- however unpopular or unorthodox they may be

J.S. Mill, J.S. Mill, On Liberty On Liberty (1859)(1859) Sustained defense of individual freedom and impassioned

argument against paternalism -- idea that state or any other institution or person can legitimately censor or silence unpopular individuals or minorities for their own or someone else’s good

Too often, says Mill, majority, or state that speaks in its name, has been mistaken or misguided

Far too much of human history is sad chronicle of censoring and silencing of people with unorthodox or unpopular views

Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, and countless others have been silenced, to detriment of human progress and happiness

To be sure, new truths and novel views are uncomfortable or unwelcome

Not sufficient reason for not listening to and considering such unorthodox views

Mill maintains, then, that the state has no business restricting expression of ideas and opinions

What about actions?What about actions? Surely, state has legitimate role to play in restricting or

regulating certain kinds of actions or behaviors Which ones can it legitimately limit or restrict? Mill draws distinction between purely private or “self-

regarding” actions and public or “other-regarding” acts An act is self-regarding, says Mill, if it affects only the

person performing it; an act is other-regarding if it also affects someone else

The state, he concludes, has no right to interfere with self-regarding acts and a legitimate, though severely limited, right to intervene in other-regarding acts

Only if an other-regarding act actually harms someone other than the person performing it can state step in to regulate, restrict, or outlaw it

Economic actions?Economic actions? Are they purely “self-regarding,” or are they “other-

regarding”? If the latter, to what extent can the state legitimately restrict or regulate economic actions and activities?

Consider the case of inheritance◦ Suppose my parents leave me a million dollars, and yours leave you

nothing but debts

◦ I am freer to pursue my aims than you are to pursue yours, especially if your aim is to be a millionaire

Liberal equality -- so-called equality of opportunity -- would hardly characterize our relationship

What, then, should be the proper role of the state?◦ Should it maximize my parents’ freedom to dispose of their wealth as

they see fit?

◦ Or should it seek to promote equality of opportunity by providing a “level playing field” that is not tipped toward my or anyone else’s advantage -- by, for example, levying a stiff inheritance tax on large fortunes?

Free market liberalsFree market liberals In attempting to answer such questions, liberals divided into

two competing camps On one side were those who favored letting individuals decide

how best to make and dispose of their wealth They favored unrestricted economic competition and laissez

faire (“let act”; i.e., free market) These “Manchester liberals” believed that life was a struggle

for survival and that the market was best suited to decide the outcome

View soon supplemented by “Social Darwinists” who claimed to apply Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection to study of human society

Both believed role of state should be limited to seeing that contracts were kept and private property protected

For Manchester Liberals and Social Darwinists, freedom was freedom to compete and keep fruits of one’s victory over other, unsuccessful competitors

Reform/welfare-state Reform/welfare-state liberalsliberals If liberal ideals such as equality of opportunity were to have any meaning,

playing field must be made more level than it has heretofore been Some kinds of freedom -- especially economic freedom -- can be restricted in

favor of other freedoms and to promote other important values and ideals T. H. Green and other reform-minded liberals believed the Utilitarians,

Manchester Liberals, and Social Darwinists had got it all wrong Their view of “human nature” was mistaken

◦ Human beings, said Green, are not selfish, pleasure-seeking animals, but are rational and reflective creatures capable of being motivated by noble and generous ideas and ideals

◦ Unlike mere animal pleasures, human pleasures and pains are mediated by ideas and ideals -- such as justice and fairness

◦ Prospect of anyone being treated unjustly is a source of pain to any morally sensitive and reflective human being

◦ Each of us -- far from being a pleasure-seeking animal or automaton -- harbors a vision of an ideal or better self; this higher self is, in short, a conception or picture of the kind of person we would like to be

With this more expansive notion of the self came a more expansive notion of self-interest -- and a different view of freedom and of the role of the state in promoting and sustaining freedom

Higher form of freedomHigher form of freedom For Green and later welfare or welfare-state liberals, Leonard

Hobhouse in England, John Dewey in the U.S., freedom is not liberty to do anything one pleases, provided that it does not interfere with other people’s freedom to do as they please

Freedom is opportunity for our ideal or higher self to be realized, that is, made real; the freedom of our ideal or higher self to promote its ideals and goals in a community consisting of other similarly situated higher selves

True liberty or freedom, then, requires that our ideal or higher self be free of temptations to which our lower self too often succumbs – including temptation to take advantage of, or to care nothing about, those less fortunate than ourselves

Laws that smooth social relations and restrict all-out competition are aids to true liberty, not restrictions on our rights or our freedom

These laws restrict our lower selves even as they encourage our higher selves to realize our nobler, more just and generous ideals

Liberalism and Liberalism and SocialismSocialism Similar sentiment has been invoked by socialists in

support of their schemes for social reform Need to clearly distinguish reform or welfare-state

liberalism from socialism Socialism seeks not to reform capitalism but to

replace it with a system of publicly-owned enterprises Reform/welfare-state liberalism, by contrast,

presupposes and takes for granted existence of a capitalist system

From perspective of welfare-state liberal, the role of the state includes that of regulating competition and alleviating the social ills and individual injuries wrought by a competitive capitalist society

Otto Von BismarckOtto Von Bismarck Grandfather of modern welfare state was neither a

socialist nor a liberal Otto Von Bismarck, Prussian militarist and ardently

antisocialist “Iron Chancellor” who united Germany in latter part of 19th century, believed welfare state was best way of opposing socialism

Through state-sponsored system of taxing employers and employees to support ill, injured, and unemployed workers, German state could increase its power and prestige while stealing thunder from socialists, who had made considerable gains by playing upon workers’ fears of illness, injury, and unemployment

Welfare state supplied a social safety net in an unpredictably up-and-down cyclical capitalist economy

Welfare state in U.S.Welfare state in U.S.

In the U.S., rough-and-ready liberalism of Manchester school advocated by proponents of “rugged individualism” such as Herbert Hoover, who coined phrase

No matter how rugged they were, isolated individuals hardly a match for Great Depression of 1930s

Workers lost jobs, farmers lost farms, and financiers lost fortunes

No one seemed safe from ravages of competitive capitalist system gone haywire

F.D.R.F.D.R.During Great Depression, welfare-state

liberalism came into its ownPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed

through programs that would have been unthinkable only a few years earlier

Although some critics cried “socialism,” F.D.R. was no socialist

He was simply a reform-minded welfare-state liberal who had tried, as he thought, to save capitalism from its own excesses

1950s-1980s1950s-1980s

Welfare state and its supporting ideology, liberalism, continued to flourish well into 1960s, during presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson

In 1970s -- and even more in 1980s, during the Ronald Reagan administration -- ideology of welfare-state liberalism criticized by those who called themselves conservatives

American conservatives like Reagan borrowed heavily from essentially economic liberalism of older nineteenth century variety -- that is, from Manchester Liberalism

LibertariansLibertarians Criticize Reagan and other contemporary conservatives for not

being true to economic principles of Manchester Liberalism and ethical principles of John Stuart Mill

Sometimes call themselves true liberals, but most often simply libertarians

Modern libertarians like Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick want to get government out of boardroom and bedroom -- that is, out of economy and moral domain

The state, they say, has no business “interfering” in any economic transaction, including selling of sex or drugs or any other commodity or service

Almost any decision -- including decision to take drugs or to sell sexual services or buy them from others -- is a private moral decision made on basis of self-interest and therefore best left to individuals operating in environment of free market

The state should be minimal in its scope and morally neutral in its operations; should not try to regulate economy or reform citizens

Liberalism – complex and Liberalism – complex and varied varied If nothing else, libertarianism and

other varieties of liberalism suggest liberal tradition is complex and varied

No doubt it is this complexity, variety, and variability that accounts for much of the modern confusion over what liberalism is and what liberals believe

And yet, as we’ll see, much the same can be said about what conservatism is and what conservatives believe and advocate

Key termsKey terms natural or unalienable rights tyranny of the majority negative and positive liberty neoclassical liberalism welfare liberalism communitarianism religious conformity liberal democracy feudalism Utilitarianism Social Darwinism affirmative action Rawls’ notion of justice

Discussion/essay Discussion/essay questionsquestions1. If all liberals want to promote individual liberty, how can we

then explain the division of liberalism into two competing groups? When did this division begin, and why does it persist today?

2. Some say that the core of liberalism is its commitment to equality of opportunity in a competitive society. Do you agree? Explain your position, and also indicate why equal opportunity is so troublesome for liberals today.

3. What is the point of the “one very simple principle” John Stuart Mill proposes in On Liberty? How does Mill defend this principle, and do you find his defense satisfactory? Why or why not?

4. Compare and contrast the Utilitarian and Reform liberal conceptions of human nature. Which view is the more accurate representation?

5. What school of liberalism do you find most compelling – free market liberalism (Manchester liberalism, utilitarianism, social darwinism, neoclassical/libertarian) or reform/welfare liberalism – and why? How does it fit with liberal democracy?