Hubbry Logo
LiberalismLiberalismMain
Open search
Liberalism
Community hub
Liberalism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Liberalism
Liberalism
from Wikipedia

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and sometimes 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 

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[6] The philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[7] While the British liberal tradition emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[8]

Leaders in the British Glorious Revolution of 1688,[9] the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal sovereignty. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in Europe and South America, and it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States.[10] In Victorian Britain, it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people.[11] During the 19th and early 20th centuries, liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East influenced periods of reform, such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda, and the rise of constitutionalism, nationalism, and secularism. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day, leading to Islamic revivalism. Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were communism, conservatism, and socialism;[12] liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from fascism and Marxism–Leninism as new opponents. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further, especially in Western Europe, as liberal democracies found themselves as the winners in both world wars[13] and the Cold War.[14][15]

Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges.[6] Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights.[16] Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and global civil rights movements in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Other goals often accepted by liberals include universal suffrage and universal access to education. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often called simply liberalism in the United States) became a key component in expanding the welfare state.[17] 21st-century liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority.[6]

Definitions

[edit]

Origins

[edit]

Liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their etymology to liber, a root from Latin that means "free".[18] One of the first recorded instances of liberal occurred in 1375 when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.[18] The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.[18]

In the 16th-century Kingdom of England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[18] In Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters".[18] With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[18] In 1815, the first use of liberalism appeared in English.[19] In Spain, the liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,[20] fought for decades to implement the Spanish Constitution of 1812. From 1820 to 1823, during the Trienio Liberal, King Ferdinand VII was compelled by the liberales to swear to uphold the 1812 Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.[21]

Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[22][23][24] The United States differs from other countries in that conservatism is associated with red and liberalism with blue.[25]

Modern usage and definitions

[edit]

In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism).[26] In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. The dominant Canadian party is the Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party is usually considered liberal in the United States.[27][28][29] In the United States, conservative liberals are usually called conservatives in a broad sense.[30][31]

Social liberalism

[edit]

Over time, the meaning of liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. Since the 1930s, liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States, to refer to social liberalism, a variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual.[32]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[33] This variety of liberalism is also known as modern liberalism to distinguish it from classical liberalism, which evolved into modern conservatism. In the United States, the two forms of liberalism comprise the two main poles of American politics, in the forms of modern American liberalism and modern American conservatism.[34]

Some liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, fiscal conservatives, or libertarians, endorse fundamental liberal ideals but diverge from modern liberal thought on the grounds that economic freedom is more important than social equality.[35] Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought.[36][better source needed] In this American context, liberal is often used as a pejorative.[37]

This political philosophy is exemplified by enactment of major social legislation and welfare programs. Two major examples in the United States are Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies and later Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, as well as other accomplishments such as the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Act in 1935, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Modern liberalism, in the United States and other major Western countries, now includes issues such as same-sex marriage, transgender rights, the abolition of capital punishment, reproductive rights and other women's rights, voting rights for all adult citizens, civil rights, environmental justice, and government protection of the right to an adequate standard of living.[38][39][40] National social services, such as equal educational opportunities, access to health care, and transportation infrastructure are intended to meet the responsibility to promote the general welfare of all citizens as established by the United States Constitution.

Classical liberalism

[edit]

Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.[41] Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.[42]

In the context of current American politics of the present day, classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal".[43] Despite this, classical liberals tend to reject the right's higher tolerance for economic protectionism and the left's inclination for collective group rights due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism.[44] Additionally, in the United States classical liberalism is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with, American libertarianism.[45][46]

Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, classical liberalism was called economic liberalism. Later, the term was applied as a retronym, to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[47] By modern standards, in the United States the bare term liberalism often means social liberalism whereas in Europe and Australia it often means classical liberalism.[48][49]

Classical liberalism gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating at least as far back as the 16th century, within the Iberian, British, and Central European contexts, and it was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly.[50][51][52] Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[53] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations, and on a belief in natural law.[54] In contemporary times, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, George Stigler, Larry Arnhart, Ronald Coase and James M. Buchanan are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism;[55][56] however, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as neoclassical liberalism, distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.[57][58]

Philosophy

[edit]

Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in classical antiquity and Imperial China.[59][60] The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius praised "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[61] Scholars have also recognised many principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of several Sophists and the Funeral Oration by Pericles.[62] Liberal philosophy is the culmination of an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularized some of the modern world's most important and controversial principles. Its immense scholarly output has been characterized as containing "richness and diversity", but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition.[63]

Major themes

[edit]

Although all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought".[63] The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous qualifiers that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the term "liberalism", including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, the welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few.[64] Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.

Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as individualist, egalitarian, meliorist and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences.[65] The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, who believed in human progress, while suffering criticism by thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social cooperation would fail.[66]

The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights and utilitarian theory, although sometimes liberals even request support from scientific and religious circles.[65] Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:

Classical and modern

[edit]

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

[edit]

Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.[68][69] Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature — a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state — he constructed the idea of a social contract that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and, in so doing, form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such security. Hobbes had developed the concept of the social contract, according to which individuals in the anarchic and brutal state of nature came together and voluntarily ceded some of their rights to an established state authority, which would create laws to regulate social interactions to mitigate or mediate conflicts and enforce justice. Whereas Hobbes advocated a strong monarchical commonwealth (the Leviathan), Locke developed the then-radical notion that government acquires consent from the governed, which has to be constantly present for the government to remain legitimate.[70] While adopting Hobbes's idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, it violates the social contract, which protects life, liberty and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing the security of life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory. To these early enlightenment thinkers, securing the essential amenities of life—liberty and private property—required forming a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.[71]

His influential Two Treatises (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of their natural state and formed societies, Locke argued, "that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world".[72]: 170  The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a supernatural basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance, which advocated the divine right of kings[73] and echoed the earlier thought of Aristotle. Dr John Zvesper described this new thinking: "In the liberal understanding, there are no citizens within the regime who can claim to rule by natural or supernatural right, without the consent of the governed".[74]

Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In the First Treatise, Locke aimed his arguments first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th-century English conservative philosophy: Robert Filmer. Filmer's Patriarcha (1680) argued for the divine right of kings by appealing to biblical teaching, claiming that the authority granted to Adam by God gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world.[75] However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that the First Treatise is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation of Patriarcha. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that "conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women".[76] Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in Genesis was not to men over women, as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals.[76] Locke was not a feminist by modern standards, but the first major liberal thinker in history accomplished an equally major task on the road to making the world more pluralistic: integrating women into social theory.[76]

John Milton's Areopagitica (1644) argued for the importance of freedom of speech.

Locke also originated the concept of the separation of church and state.[77] Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right to the liberty of conscience, which he argued must remain protected from any government authority.[78] In his Letters Concerning Toleration, he also formulated a general defence for religious toleration. Three arguments are central:

  1. Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth claims of competing religious standpoints;
  2. Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
  3. Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[79]

Locke was influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poet John Milton, who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms.[80] Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, the government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel.[81] As assistant to Oliver Cromwell, Milton also drafted a constitution of the independents (Agreement of the People; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies.[82] In his Areopagitica, Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech—"the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties". His central argument was that the individual could use reason to distinguish right from wrong. To exercise this right, everyone must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "a free and open encounter", which will allow good arguments to prevail.

In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued that humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires.[83] This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty and property.[83] These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but all believed that liberty was natural and its restriction needed strong justification.[83] Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing, "Government even in its best state is a necessary evil."[84]

James Madison and Montesquieu

[edit]

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, liberal theorists such as James Madison and Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.[84] Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that legitimate government only exists with the consent of the governed, so poor and improper governance gave the people the authority to overthrow the ruling order through all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed.[85] Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have supported limited constitutional government while advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.[86] Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will.[87] Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper independently without official sponsorship or administration by the state.[87]

Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals have also argued over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals (from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill) conceptualised liberty as the absence of interference from government and other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others.[88] Mill's On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed, "the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way".[88] Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.[89]

Coppet Group and Benjamin Constant

[edit]
Madame de Staël

The development into maturity of modern classical in contrast to ancient liberalism took place before and soon after the French Revolution. One of the historic centres of this development was at Coppet Castle near Geneva, where the eponymous Coppet group gathered under the aegis of the exiled writer and salonnière, Madame de Staël, in the period between the establishment of Napoleon's First Empire (1804) and the Bourbon Restoration of 1814–1815.[90][91][92][93] The unprecedented concentration of European thinkers who met there was to have a considerable influence on the development of nineteenth-century liberalism and, incidentally, romanticism.[94][95][96] They included Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jean de Sismondi, Charles Victor de Bonstetten, Prosper de Barante, Henry Brougham, Lord Byron, Alphonse de Lamartine, Sir James Mackintosh, Juliette Récamier and August Wilhelm Schlegel.[97]

Benjamin Constant, a Franco-Swiss political activist and theorist

Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", the Edinburgh University-educated Swiss Protestant, Benjamin Constant, who looked to the United Kingdom rather than to ancient Rome for a practical model of freedom in a large mercantile society. He distinguished between the "Liberty of the Ancients" and the "Liberty of the Moderns".[98] The Liberty of the Ancients was a participatory republican liberty,[99] which gave the citizens the right to influence politics directly through debates and votes in the public assembly.[98] In order to support this degree of participation, citizenship was a burdensome moral obligation requiring a considerable investment of time and energy. Generally, this required a sub-group of slaves to do much of the productive work, leaving citizens free to deliberate on public affairs. Ancient Liberty was also limited to relatively small and homogenous male societies, where they could congregate in one place to transact public affairs.[98]

In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession of civil liberties, the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states and the inevitable result of creating a mercantile society where there were no slaves, but almost everybody had to earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would elect representatives who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement.[98] The importance of Constant's writings on the liberty of the ancients and that of the "moderns" has informed the understanding of liberalism, as has his critique of the French Revolution.[100] The British philosopher and historian of ideas, Sir Isaiah Berlin, has pointed to the debt owed to Constant.[101]

British liberalism

[edit]

Liberalism in Britain was based on core concepts such as classical economics, free trade, laissez-faire government with minimal intervention and taxation, and a balanced budget. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to developing a class of yeoman farmers.[102]

T. H. Green, an influential liberal philosopher who established in Prolegomena to Ethics (1884) the first major foundations for what later became known as positive liberty and in a few years, his ideas became the official policy of the Liberal Party in Britain, precipitating the rise of social liberalism and the modern welfare state

Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher T. H. Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of our moral character.[103]: 54–55  In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, allowing genuine choice.[103]: 54–55  Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been ... one might be inclined to wish that the term 'freedom' had been confined to the ... power to do what one wills.[104]

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good.[103]: 55  His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and John A. Hobson. In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain,[103]: 58  and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the "tyranny of the majority", a concept explained in Mill's On Liberty and Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville.[105] As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.[105]

Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and tolerance. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented, "equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things".[106] All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal.[107] In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume they all possess the same right to liberty.[108] In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law.[109] Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge in their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasised the need to ensure equality under the law and the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life.[109] Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality.[109]

To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and tolerance. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stable social order.[110] Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in how people think. Their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonises and minimises conflicting views but still allows those views to exist and flourish.[111] For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree.[112] From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Baruch Spinoza condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars".[112] Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society would contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.[112]

Liberal economic theory

[edit]
Monument to the liberals of the 19th century in Agra del Orzán neighborhood, La Coruña, Galicia (Spain)

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, followed by the French liberal economist Jean-Baptiste Say's treatise on Political Economy published in 1803 and expanded in 1830 with practical applications, were to provide most of the ideas of economics until the publication of John Stuart Mill's Principles in 1848.[113]: 63, 68  Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.[113]: 64 

Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, maximises society's wealth[114] through profit-driven production of goods and services. An "invisible hand" directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation's good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their gain. This provided a moral justification for accumulating wealth, which some had previously viewed as sinful.[113]: 64 

Smith assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus later transformed into the "iron law of wages".[113]: 65  His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.[113]: 66  He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies and employers' organisations and trade unions.[113]: 67  While Smith advocated for minimal government intervention, he recognized that some market regulation was necessary to prevent fraud, protect consumers, and ensure fair competition.[115] Other than that government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[113]: 68  Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the globalisation literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace.[116] Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[113]: 69 

In his Treatise (Traité d'économie politique), Say states that any production process requires effort, knowledge and the "application" of the entrepreneur. He sees entrepreneurs as intermediaries in the production process who combine productive factors such as land, capital and labour to meet the consumers' demands. As a result, they play a central role in the economy through their coordinating function. He also highlights qualities essential for successful entrepreneurship and focuses on judgement, in that they have continued to assess market needs and the means to meet them. This requires an "unerring market sense". Say views entrepreneurial income primarily as the high revenue paid in compensation for their skills and expert knowledge. He does so by contrasting the enterprise and supply-of-capital functions, distinguishing the entrepreneur's earnings on the one hand and the remuneration of capital on the other. This differentiates his theory from that of Joseph Schumpeter, who describes entrepreneurial rent as short-term profits which compensate for high risk (Schumpeterian rent). Say himself also refers to risk and uncertainty along with innovation without analysing them in detail.

Say is also credited with Say's law, or the law of markets which may be summarised as "Aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand", and "Supply creates its own demand", or "Supply constitutes its own demand" and "Inherent in supply is the need for its own consumption". The related phrase "supply creates its own demand" was coined by John Maynard Keynes, who criticized Say's separate formulations as amounting to the same thing. Some advocates of Say's law who disagree with Keynes have claimed that Say's law can be summarized more accurately as "production precedes consumption" and that what Say is stating is that for consumption to happen, one must produce something of value so that it can be traded for money or barter for consumption later.[117][118] Say argues that "products are paid for with products" (1803, p. 153) or "a glut occurs only when too much resource is applied to making one product and not enough to another" (1803, pp. 178–179).[119]

Related reasoning appears in the work of John Stuart Mill and earlier in that of his Scottish classical economist father, James Mill (1808). Mill senior restates Say's law in 1808: "production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced".[120] In addition to Smith's and Say's legacies, Thomas Malthus' theories of population and David Ricardo's Iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics.[113]: 76  Meanwhile, Jean-Baptiste Say challenged Smith's labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798,[113]: 71–72  becoming a major influence on classical liberalism. Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because the population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were, in fact, responsible for their problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[113]: 72 

Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace.[121] Smith argued that as societies progressed, the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations.[122] Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the state's welfare and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, combining his Little Englander beliefs with opposition to the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.[123] Utilitarianism was seen as a political justification for implementing economic liberalism by British governments, an idea dominating economic policy from the 1840s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform, and John Stuart Mill's later writings foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a premise for a laissez-faire approach.[124]: 32  The central concept of utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[113]: 76  His philosophy proved highly influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government social control, including Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police, prison reforms, the workhouses and asylums for the mentally ill.

Keynesian economics

[edit]
John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of modern times and whose ideas, which are still widely felt, formalized modern liberal economic policy.

During the Great Depression, the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) gave the definitive liberal response to the economic crisis. Keynes had been "brought up" as a classical liberal, but especially after World War I, became increasingly a welfare or social liberal.[125] A prolific writer, among many other works, he had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.[126] Keynes was deeply critical of the British government's austerity measures during the Great Depression. He believed budget deficits were a good thing, a product of recessions. He wrote: "For Government borrowing of one kind or another is nature's remedy, so to speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill".[127] At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes published The Means to Prosperity, which contained specific policy recommendations for tackling unemployment in a global recession, chiefly counter cyclical public spending. The Means to Prosperity contains one of the first mentions of the multiplier effect.[128]

The Great Depression, with its periods of worldwide economic hardship, formed the backdrop against which the Keynesian Revolution took place (the image is Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother depiction of destitute pea-pickers in California, taken in March 1936).

Keynes's magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published in 1936,[129] and served as a theoretical justification for the interventionist policies Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. The General Theory challenged the earlier neo-classical economic paradigm, which had held that the market would naturally establish full employment equilibrium if it were unfettered by government interference. Classical economists believed in Say's law, which states that "supply creates its own demand" and that in a free market, workers would always be willing to lower their wages to a level where employers could profitably offer them jobs. An innovation from Keynes was the concept of price stickiness, i.e. the recognition that, in reality, workers often refuse to lower their wage demands even in cases where a classical economist might argue it is rational for them to do so. Due in part to price stickiness, it was established that the interaction of "aggregate demand" and "aggregate supply" may lead to stable unemployment equilibria, and in those cases, it is the state and not the market that economies must depend on for their salvation. The book advocated activist economic policy by the government to stimulate demand in times of high unemployment, for example, by spending on public works. In 1928, he wrote: "Let us be up and doing, using our idle resources to increase our wealth. ... With men and plants unemployed, it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford these new developments. It is precisely with these plants and these men that we shall afford them."[127] Where the market failed to allocate resources properly, the government was required to stimulate the economy until private funds could start flowing again—a "prime the pump" kind of strategy designed to boost industrial production.[130]

Liberal feminist theory

[edit]
Mary Wollstonecraft, widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism

Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, is an individualistic form of feminist theory that focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers to gender equality, claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order.[131] They argue that society believes women are naturally less intellectually and physically capable than men; thus, it tends to discriminate against women in the academy, the forum and the marketplace. Liberal feminists believe that "female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women's entrance to and success in the so-called public world". They strive for sexual equality via political and legal reform.[132]

British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.[133] In her writings, such as A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft commented on society's view of women and encouraged women to use their voices in making decisions separate from those previously made for them. Wollstonecraft "denied that women are, by nature, more pleasure seeking and pleasure giving than men. She reasoned that if they were confined to the same cages that trap women, men would develop the same flawed characters. What Wollstonecraft most wanted for women was personhood".[132]

John Stuart Mill was also an early proponent of feminism. In his article The Subjection of Women (1861, published 1869), Mill attempted to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality.[134][135] He believed that both sexes should have equal rights under the law and that "until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely".[136] Mill frequently spoke of this imbalance and wondered if women were able to feel the same "genuine unselfishness" that men did in providing for their families. This unselfishness Mill advocated is the one "that motivates people to take into account the good of society as well as the good of the individual person or small family unit".[132] Like Mary Wollstonecraft, Mill compared sexual inequality to slavery, arguing that their husbands are often just as abusive as masters and that a human being controls nearly every aspect of life for another human being. In his book The Subjection of Women, Mill argues that three major parts of women's lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.[137]

Equity feminism is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s,[138][139] specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism.[140] Steven Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist, defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology".[141] Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible with evolutionary psychology in contrast to gender feminism.[142]

Social liberal theory

[edit]
Sismondi, who wrote the first critique of the free market from a liberal perspective in 1819

Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi's New Principles of Political Economy (French: Nouveaux principes d'économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population) (1819) represents the first comprehensive liberal critique of early capitalism and laissez-faire economics, and his writings, which were studied by John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society.[143][144][145] By the end of the 19th century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged by downturns in economic growth, a growing perception of the evils of poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities, as well as the agitation of organised labour. The ideal of the self-made individual who could make his or her place in the world through hard work and talent seemed increasingly implausible. A major political reaction against the changes introduced by industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although socialism later became a more important force for change and reform. Some Victorian writers, including Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, became early influential critics of social injustice.[124]: 36–37 

New liberals began to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or by having impartially formulated and applied laws. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an equal opportunity for success.[146]

John Stuart Mill, whose On Liberty greatly influenced 19th-century liberalism

John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill's 1859 On Liberty addressed the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.[147] He gave an impassioned defence of free speech, arguing that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill defined "social liberty" as protection from "the tyranny of political rulers". He introduced many different concepts of the form tyranny can take, referred to as social tyranny and tyranny of the majority. Social liberty meant limits on the ruler's power through obtaining recognition of political liberties or rights and establishing a system of "constitutional checks".[148]

His definition of liberty, influenced by Joseph Priestley and Josiah Warren, was that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others.[149] However, although Mill's initial economic philosophy supported free markets and argued that progressive taxation penalised those who worked harder,[150] he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes,[151] including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system. Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention was T. H. Green. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of liberty to enslave the individual.[152] Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations most likely to foster individual self-realisation.

The New Liberalism or social liberalism movement emerged in about 1900 in Britain.[153] The New Liberals, including intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances.[5]: 29  In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, interventionist state.[154] It supports a mixed economy that includes public and private property in capital goods.[155][156] Principles that can be described as social liberal have been based upon or developed by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[157] Other important social liberal figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and R. H. Tawney.[158] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[158]

Anti-state liberal theory

[edit]
Gustave de Molinari
Julius Faucher

Classical liberalism advocates free trade under the rule of law. In contrast, the "anti-state liberal tradition", as described by Ralph Raico, was supportive of a system where law enforcement and the courts being provided by private companies, minimizing or rejecting the role of the state. Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing the protection of individual liberty and property was the French philosopher Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. In his essay The Production of Security, Molinari argued: "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argued that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".[159]

Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society, and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs artificial society, liberty vs authority, society of contract vs society of authority and industrial society vs militant society, to name a few.[160] The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer and thinkers such as Paul Émile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was Murray Rothbard. In the mid-20th century, Rothbard synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their labour theory of value and the norms they derived from it).[161] Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[162][163]

In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through taxation. Money and other goods and services would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Anarcho-capitalists say personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under what they describe as "political monopolies".[164] A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[165] Although enforcement methods vary, this pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP).

History

[edit]
John Locke was the first to develop a liberal philosophy, including the right to private property and the consent of the governed.

Liberal ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.[68][69][60][59] The first major signs of liberal politics emerged in modern times. These ideas began to coalesce at the time of the English Civil War. The Levellers, a largely ignored minority political movement that primarily consisted of Puritans, Presbyterians, and Quakers, called for freedom of religion, frequent convening of parliament and equality under the law. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 enshrined parliamentary sovereignty and the right of revolution in Britain and was referred to by author Steven Pincus as the "first modern liberal revolution".[166] The development of liberalism continued throughout the 18th century with the burgeoning Enlightenment ideals of the era. This period of profound intellectual vitality questioned old traditions and influenced several European monarchies throughout the 18th century. Political tension between England and its American colonies grew after 1765 and the Seven Years' War over the issue of taxation without representation, culminating in the American Revolutionary War and, eventually, the Declaration of Independence. After the war, the leaders debated about how to move forward. The Articles of Confederation, written in 1776, now appeared inadequate to provide security or even a functional government. The Confederation Congress called a Constitutional Convention in 1787, which resulted in the writing of a new Constitution of the United States establishing a federal government. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a republican and liberal document.[167][168] It remains the oldest liberal governing document in effect worldwide.

Montesquieu, who argued for the separation of the powers of government

The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism in France were the abolition of feudalism in France on the night of 4 August 1789, which marked the collapse of feudal and old traditional rights and privileges and restrictions, as well as the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence from 1776.[169] During the Napoleonic Wars, the French brought Western Europe the liquidation of the feudal system, the liberalization of property laws, the end of seigneurial dues, the abolition of guilds, the legalization of divorce, the disintegration of Jewish ghettos, the collapse of the Inquisition, the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of the metric system and equality under the law for all men.[170] His most lasting achievement, the Civil Code, served as "an object of emulation all over the globe"[171] but also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".[172]

The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain.[102] Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of John Stuart Mill's Principles in 1848.[113]: 63, 68  Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.[113]: 64  The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Radicals like Richard Price and Joseph Priestley saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[173][full citation needed]

In Latin America, liberal unrest dates back to the 18th century, when liberal agitation in Latin America led to independence from the imperial power of Spain and Portugal. The new regimes were generally liberal in their political outlook and employed the philosophy of positivism, which emphasized the truth of modern science, to buttress their positions.[174] In the United States, a vicious war ensured the integrity of the nation and the abolition of slavery in the South. Historian Don H. Doyle has argued that the Union victory in the American Civil War (1861–1865) greatly boosted the course of liberalism.[175][page needed] In the 19th century, English liberal political philosophers were the most influential in the global tradition of liberalism.[176]

During the 19th and early 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform, such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda; the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; and different intellectuals and religious groups and movements, like the Young Ottomans and Islamic Modernism. Prominent of the era were Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, Namık Kemal and İbrahim Şinasi. However, the reformist ideas and trends did not reach the common population successfully, as the books, periodicals, and newspapers were accessible primarily to intellectuals and segments of the emerging middle class. Many Muslims saw them as foreign influences on the Muslim world. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by Middle Eastern states.[177][178] These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day. This led to Islamic revivalism.[179]

The iconic painting Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix, a tableau of the July Revolution in 1830

Abolitionist and suffrage movements spread, along with representative and democratic ideals. France established an enduring republic in the 1870s. However, nationalism also spread rapidly after 1815. A mixture of liberal and nationalist sentiments in Italy and Germany brought about the unification of the two countries in the late 19th century. A liberal regime came to power in Italy and ended the secular power of the Popes. However, the Vatican launched a counter-crusade against liberalism. Pope Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors in 1864, condemning liberalism in all its forms. In many countries, liberal forces responded by expelling the Jesuit order. By the end of the nineteenth century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged, and the ideal of the self-made individual seemed increasingly implausible. Victorian writers like Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold were early influential critics of social injustice.[124]: 36–37 

As a liberal nationalist,[180] K. J. Ståhlberg (1865–1952), the President of Finland, anchored the state in liberal democracy, guarded the fragile germ of the rule of law, and embarked on internal reforms.[181]

Liberalism gained momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. The bastion of autocracy, the Russian Tsar, was overthrown in the first phase of the Russian Revolution. The Allied victory in the First World War and the collapse of four empires seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism across the European continent, not just among the victorious allies but also in Germany and the newly created states of Eastern Europe. Militarism, as typified by Germany, was defeated and discredited. As Blinkhorn argues, the liberal themes were ascendant in terms of "cultural pluralism, religious and ethnic toleration, national self-determination, free market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, the League of Nations".

In the Middle East, liberalism led to constitutional periods, like the Ottoman First and Second Constitutional Era and the Persian constitutional period, but it declined in the late 1930s due to the growth and opposition of Islamism and pan-Arab nationalism.[182][183][184][185][179] However, many intellectuals advocated liberal values and ideas. Prominent liberals were Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, Tawfiq al-Hakim, Abd El-Razzak El-Sanhuri and Muhammad Mandur.[186]

Franklin D. Roosevelt

In the United States, modern liberalism traces its history to the popular presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who initiated the New Deal in response to the Great Depression and won an unprecedented four elections. The New Deal coalition established by Roosevelt left a strong legacy and influenced many future American presidents, including John F. Kennedy.[187] Meanwhile, the definitive liberal response to the Great Depression was given by the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.[188] The worldwide Great Depression, starting in 1929, hastened the discrediting of liberal economics and strengthened calls for state control over economic affairs. Economic woes prompted widespread unrest in the European political world, leading to the rise of fascism as an ideology and a movement against liberalism and communism, especially in Nazi Germany and Italy.[189] The rise of fascism in the 1930s eventually culminated in World War II, the deadliest conflict in human history. The Allies prevailed in the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for the Cold War between the Communist Eastern Bloc and the liberal Western Bloc.

In Iran, liberalism enjoyed wide popularity. In April 1951, the National Front became the governing coalition when democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, a liberal nationalist, took office as the Prime Minister. However, his way of governing conflicted with Western interests, and he was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953. The coup ended the dominance of liberalism in the country's politics.[190][191][192][193][194]

Among the various regional and national movements, the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for equal rights.[195] The Great Society project launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson oversaw the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the establishment of Head Start and the Job Corps as part of the War on Poverty and the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the "Liberal Hour".[196]

The 2017–2018 Russian protests were organized by Russia's liberal opposition.

The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several proxy wars, but the widely feared World War III between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an economic crisis in the 1970s inspired a move away from Keynesian economics, especially under Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. This trend, known as neoliberalism, constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus, which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[197][198] Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed precipitously, leaving liberal democracies as the only major forms of government in the West.

At the beginning of World War II, the number of democracies worldwide was about the same as it had been forty years before.[199] After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly but then retreated. In The Spirit of Democracy, Larry Diamond argues that by 1974 "dictatorship, not democracy, was the way of the world" and that "barely a quarter of independent states chose their governments through competitive, free, and fair elections". Diamond says that democracy bounced back, and by 1995 the world was "predominantly democratic".[200][201] However, liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.[202] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of the modern era.[4][5]: 11 

Criticism and support

[edit]
Execution of José María de Torrijos y Uriarte and his men in 1831 as Spanish King Ferdinand VII took repressive measures against the liberal forces in his country
Raif Badawi, a Saudi Arabian writer and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals, who was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam" in 2014

Liberalism has drawn criticism and support from various ideological groups throughout its history. Despite these complex relationships, some scholars have argued that liberalism actually "rejects ideological thinking" altogether, largely because such thinking could lead to unrealistic expectations for human society.[203]

Anarchism

[edit]

Anarchists criticise the liberal social contract, arguing that it creates a state that is "oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty".[204]

Catholicism

[edit]

One of the most outspoken early critics of liberalism was the Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church.[205] Christian democracy, a movement associated with modern democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations.[206] The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialisation and urbanisation associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.[207]

Conservatism

[edit]

Conservatives have criticised what they perceive as the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity.[208] However, some variations of conservatism, such as liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".[209]

Edmund Burke, the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and the natural equality of all humans.[209] Nonetheless, Burke was highly influential on other classical liberal thought, and has been praised by both conservatives and liberals alike.[210]

In the book Why Liberalism Failed (2018), Patrick Deneen argued that liberalism has led to income inequality, cultural decline, atomization, nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.[211][212] The book also argues that liberalism has replaced old values of community, religion and tradition with self-interest.[212]

Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that "liberalism has become obsolete" and claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, and civil and political rights for LGBTQ people.[213]

Fascism

[edit]

Fascists accuse liberalism of materialism and a lack of spiritual values.[214] In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its materialism, rationalism, individualism and utilitarianism.[215] Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness,[214] but they generally agree with liberals in their support of private property rights and a market economy.[215]

Feminism

[edit]

Some feminists argue that liberalism's emphasis on distinguishing between the private and public spheres in society "allow[s] the flourishing of bigotry and intolerance in the private sphere and to require respect for equality only in the public sphere", making "liberalism vulnerable to the right-wing populist attack. Political liberalism has rejected the feminist call to recognize that the personal is political and has relied on political institutions and processes as barriers against illiberalism."[216]

Islam

[edit]

Liberalism within Islam is supported by some Islamic schools and branches.[217][218] The Al-Baqara 256 verse in Quran supports liberalism by stating "there is no compulsion in religion".[219] Islamic supremacism, which includes criminal punishment of apostasy in Islam up to capital punishment, opposes liberalism.[220]

Marxism

[edit]

Karl Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century.[221] Vladimir Lenin stated that—in contrast with Marxism—liberal science defends wage slavery;[222][223] however, some proponents of liberalism, such as Thomas Paine, George Henry Evans, and Silvio Gesell, were critics of wage slavery.[224][225]

Deng Xiaoping believed that liberalization would destroy the political stability of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, making it difficult for development to take place, and is inherently capitalistic. He termed it "bourgeois liberalization".[226] Thus, some socialists accuse the economic doctrines of liberalism, such as individual economic freedom, of giving rise to what they view as a system of exploitation that goes against the democratic principles of liberalism, while some liberals oppose the wage slavery that the economic doctrines of capitalism allow.[227]

Social democracy

[edit]

Social democracy is an ideology that advocates for the reform of capitalism in a progressive manner. It emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Social democracy aims to address what it perceives as the inherent flaws of capitalism through government reform, with a focus on reducing inequality.[228] Importantly, social democracy does not oppose the state's existence. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist[who?] calling American liberalism "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States.[229]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Liberalism is a political philosophy that prioritizes individual liberty as the central value of legitimate political order, maintaining that political authority and law must be justified through the consent of free and equal persons and exist primarily to secure basic rights including freedom of conscience, expression, and association. Emerging from Enlightenment thought, liberalism draws on earlier precedents like the Magna Carta but was systematically articulated by figures such as John Locke, who posited natural rights to life, liberty, and property, arguing that governments derive legitimacy from protecting these against arbitrary power. In its classical form, liberalism advocates minimal state intervention, the rule of law, free markets, and private property rights to enable individual initiative and voluntary cooperation, principles that empirical evidence links to the acceleration of economic growth during the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent "Great Enrichment" multiplying global incomes by factors of ten to a hundred. These ideas underpinned the establishment of constitutional democracies, separation of powers, and protections against tyranny, including safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, fostering institutions that have sustained relative peace among liberal states and promoted widespread prosperity, though liberalism's evolution into modern variants emphasizing positive freedoms and redistributive policies has sparked ongoing debates about balancing equality with original commitments to limited government and negative liberty.

Core Principles

Individual Liberty as Negative Freedom

In classical liberalism, individual liberty is conceptualized as negative freedom, denoting the absence of external obstacles, barriers, or coercive interference that prevent an individual from acting as they choose within a protected sphere. This formulation prioritizes freedom from constraints imposed by others, particularly the state, over capacities or resources enabling specific actions. Negative freedom thus serves as a bulwark against arbitrary power, ensuring that individuals retain autonomy in personal, economic, and social domains unless their actions infringe on equivalent liberties of others. The philosophical roots of this view trace to Enlightenment thinkers who grounded liberty in natural rights predating civil society. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), argued that the state's primary role is to protect individuals from coercion and invasion of their natural rights to life, liberty, and property, limiting government authority to impartial enforcement of laws rather than expansive intervention. Locke's framework implies that true liberty exists where no arbitrary subjection occurs, as unchecked power inherently threatens personal agency through potential or actual coercion. This negative conception influenced subsequent liberal thought by establishing that political legitimacy derives from preventing interference, not from promoting collective ends that might override individual choices. Isaiah Berlin formalized the distinction in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty," defining negative liberty as the area within which a person is or should be left to act without interference from others, answering the question of what the subject is free to do or be, absent obstacles. Berlin contrasted this with positive liberty, which involves self-mastery or realization of one's higher potential, warning that the latter could justify coercive measures under the guise of enabling true freedom—a risk he associated with totalitarian ideologies. In liberal tradition, negative freedom's emphasis on non-interference aligns with empirical observations of human diversity: individuals possess varying desires, rationalities, and capacities, rendering uniform "positive" impositions inefficient and prone to abuse by centralized authority. Practically, negative liberty manifests in institutions like constitutional limits on government, due process protections, and free markets, where private property rights shield individuals from expropriation or forced association. For instance, classical liberals advocate minimal state coercion in economic exchanges, viewing voluntary contracts as expressions of uncoerced choice that generate prosperity without violating others' freedoms. This approach, rooted in causal realism, recognizes that coercion distorts incentives and outcomes—evidenced by historical data from regulatory overreach, such as reduced innovation under heavy-handed interventions—while non-interference fosters adaptive, decentralized decision-making. Critics from social liberal perspectives contend that negative freedom ignores structural inequalities, yet proponents counter that addressing such via coercive redistribution undermines the very liberty it claims to enhance, as it substitutes state judgment for individual agency.

Limited Government and Rule of Law


Classical liberalism posits that government authority must be circumscribed by explicit legal constraints, typically enshrined in a constitution, to safeguard individual liberties from arbitrary exercise of power. This principle emerged as a reaction against absolutist monarchies and mercantilist policies, advocating for state functions restricted primarily to protecting life, liberty, and property. Proponents argue that unchecked expansion of governmental powers historically leads to tyranny, as evidenced by pre-Enlightenment European regimes where rulers claimed divine right without constitutional limits.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government published in 1689, articulated the foundational rationale for limited government, asserting that political authority derives from the consent of the governed and is confined to securing natural rights—life, liberty, and property—against infringement. Locke contended that if government exceeds these bounds or fails to fulfill its protective role, citizens retain the right to dissolve it, a doctrine that influenced revolutionary documents like the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776. He emphasized that legislative power, as the supreme authority, must operate within the bounds of natural law, prohibiting retroactive legislation or arbitrary taxation without representation. Complementing Locke's consent-based limits, the rule of law in liberal thought demands that all individuals, including rulers, be subject to transparent, predictable, and impartially enforced laws, ensuring governmental actions are not capricious but bound by general principles applicable equally to all. This ideal prioritizes formal equality before the law and procedural fairness to foster individual autonomy, as arbitrary discretion undermines the ability to plan and act freely. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), advanced this through the doctrine of separation of powers, dividing government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any single entity from accumulating tyrannical authority. Montesquieu observed that concentrated power, as in absolutist France under Louis XIV, corroded liberty, whereas distributed powers with mutual checks—as partially realized in the English constitution post-1688—preserved it. These mechanisms interlock to constrain state overreach: limited government delineates the scope of permissible actions, while rule of law governs their execution, collectively enabling negative liberty by minimizing coercive interference in private spheres. Empirical instances, such as the U.S. Constitution's ratification in 1788 incorporating Montesquieu's tripartite division alongside Lockean rights protections, demonstrate how these principles curtailed federal powers through enumerated authorities and a Bill of Rights added in 1791. Violations, like executive overreach in 20th-century welfare expansions, have prompted liberal critiques highlighting erosion of these safeguards, though classical adherents maintain that deviations invite inefficiency and rights dilution absent rigorous adherence.

Economic Freedom and Private Property

John Locke posited in his Second Treatise of Government (1689) that private property originates from individuals' labor applied to natural resources, forming the basis for personal ownership and necessitating government's role in its protection as a core natural right alongside life and liberty. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), extended this by advocating economic freedom through laissez-faire policies, where private property enables the division of labor, free exchange, and the "invisible hand" mechanism that aligns self-interest with societal benefit via competitive markets. Classical liberals viewed secure private property rights as indispensable for economic liberty, preventing arbitrary state seizure and fostering incentives for production and innovation, as evidenced by Locke's assertion that property protection underpins civil society. Friedrich Hayek emphasized private property's role in generating spontaneous order, where decentralized decision-making, facilitated by ownership and market prices, coordinates complex economic activities beyond central planning's capacity, as property rights provide the informational signals necessary for efficient resource allocation. Empirical data supports these principles: nations scoring higher on economic freedom indices, which include robust property rights protections, exhibit stronger GDP growth and poverty reduction; for instance, analysis using the Fraser Institute's index finds a positive correlation between greater economic freedom and per capita income levels, with freer economies averaging over $40,000 GDP per capita compared to under $7,000 in repressed ones as of 2023 data. While some studies critique specific index methodologies, such as Heritage Foundation's, for potential inconsistencies yielding negative growth correlations, broader cross-country regressions consistently affirm that property rights security—measured by ease of business registration, judicial enforcement, and low expropriation risk—drives investment and prosperity, with a 1-point improvement in freedom scores linked to 1.1-1.6 times higher income effects. In liberal thought, economic freedom intertwined with private property counters collectivist alternatives by prioritizing individual agency over state control, historically enabling industrial revolutions; Britain's adherence to property sanctity post-1688 Glorious Revolution correlated with its 18th-19th century economic dominance, where secure tenure spurred capital accumulation and technological advances. This framework posits that violations of property rights, such as through excessive taxation or regulation, distort incentives and erode liberty, a view substantiated by post-communist transitions where privatization boosted output growth by 5-10% annually in Eastern Europe during the 1990s.

Philosophical Foundations

Natural Rights and First-Principles Reasoning

Natural rights theory posits that individuals possess inherent, inalienable entitlements to life, liberty, and property, existing prior to and independent of civil government, grounded in human nature and reason. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government published in 1689, described the state of nature as one of perfect freedom and equality among men, where each governs themselves according to the law of nature, which reason reveals as prohibiting harm to others' life, health, liberty, or possessions. These rights serve as the foundational axioms from which legitimate political authority emerges, with government formed via consent to secure them more effectively than in the anarchic state of nature. First-principles reasoning in liberal thought begins with self-evident truths about human agency and causality: individuals own themselves and the fruits of their labor, and any infringement on these rights disrupts natural order unless justified by mutual agreement. Locke reasoned that since men enter society to preserve property—including life and liberty—civil authority must be limited to that purpose, deriving its powers not from divine prerogative or conquest but from rational compact. This deductive approach contrasts with absolutist claims of unlimited sovereignty, emphasizing that violations of natural rights forfeit the aggressor's claims and justify resistance, as causal realism dictates that unconsented coercion undermines the very basis of social cooperation. Subsequent liberal derivations extended these principles to economic domains, viewing property rights as essential for incentivizing productive labor and innovation, with empirical evidence from historical enclosures and trade liberalization supporting causal links between secure property and prosperity growth rates exceeding 1-2% annually in 18th-19th century England. Thinkers maintained that reasoning from these foundations yields institutions like rule of law and separation of powers, preventing arbitrary power that could negate rights, as unchecked authority empirically correlates with rights erosions observed in absolutist regimes like 17th-century France under Louis XIV. This framework prioritizes empirical validation of principles, rejecting derivations not aligned with observable human incentives and behaviors.

Key Thinkers: Locke, Smith, and Hayek

John Locke (1632–1704) laid foundational principles for liberalism through his Two Treatises of Government (1689), rejecting the divine right of kings and asserting natural rights to life, liberty, and property derived from labor and reason. He argued that legitimate government arises from the consent of the governed via a social contract to protect these rights, with individuals retaining the right to revolution if rulers violate them. Locke's emphasis on limited government, property as a natural right, and tolerance—outlined in his A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)—established the negative conception of liberty central to classical liberal thought, influencing constitutional frameworks like the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Adam Smith (1723–1790) advanced liberal economic theory in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), demonstrating how division of labor and free exchange increase productivity and national wealth. He introduced the "invisible hand" metaphor, positing that individuals pursuing self-interest in competitive markets unintentionally promote societal welfare through voluntary trade, without coercive intervention. Smith's advocacy for laissez-faire policies, minimal state interference beyond defense, justice, and public works, and critique of mercantilism underscored liberalism's commitment to economic freedom as essential for prosperity and individual autonomy. Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) defended liberalism against 20th-century collectivism in The Road to Serfdom (1944), warning that central planning erodes liberty by concentrating power and suppressing dissent, as seen in socialist experiments leading to totalitarianism. He highlighted the "knowledge problem," arguing that no planner can possess the dispersed, tacit knowledge held by market participants, which prices efficiently aggregate to coordinate production. Hayek's concept of spontaneous order—emergent systems like law and markets arising from human action without design—reinforced liberal reliance on evolved institutions over rationalist blueprints, as elaborated in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), earning him the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics for insights into monetary theory and economic cycles.

Distinction from Collectivist Ideologies

Liberalism posits the individual as the fundamental unit of moral and political analysis, asserting that rights inhere in persons independently of group affiliation or collective purpose, whereas collectivist ideologies—such as socialism, communism, and certain strains of nationalism—elevate the group, class, or society as the primary entity, subordinating individual claims to communal goals. This ontological divergence stems from liberalism's grounding in natural rights theory, where individuals possess inherent liberties that precede and constrain state authority, in contrast to collectivism's view that rights are contingent upon social utility or group consensus, often requiring coercive redistribution or planning to realize. For instance, Friedrich Hayek argued that collectivism's endorsement of ends justifying means erodes the universal rules essential to liberal order, permitting interventions that inevitably expand into total control, as evidenced by the 20th-century experiences of Soviet central planning, which suppressed dissent and private initiative under the guise of proletarian interests. Economically, liberalism champions voluntary exchange, private property, and decentralized decision-making through markets, which harness individual incentives to generate prosperity without centralized dictates, as demonstrated by the post-1945 economic liberalization in West Germany under Ludwig Erhard's policies, yielding rapid growth rates averaging 8% annually from 1950 to 1960. Collectivism, by contrast, favors collective ownership and state-directed allocation, presuming superior knowledge of societal needs by planners, yet empirical outcomes reveal inefficiencies and shortages, such as the Soviet Union's chronic agricultural failures despite vast resources, attributable to the absence of price signals and personal stakes. Hayek's critique underscores this as a knowledge problem: no authority can aggregate the dispersed information held by millions of actors, leading collectivist systems to misallocate resources and stifle innovation, unlike liberalism's spontaneous order. In governance, liberalism limits state power to safeguarding negative freedoms—protections from interference—via rule of law and constitutional checks, rejecting the collectivist impulse to engineer equality of outcomes through expansive mandates that infringe on personal autonomy. This distinction manifests in liberalism's opposition to policies like mandatory wealth transfers or speech restrictions justified by group equity, which Hayek warned pave the "road to serfdom" by eroding the impartial framework that enables individual flourishing. Collectivist regimes, from Mao's China (1958–1962 Great Leap Forward, causing 15–55 million deaths via forced collectivization) to Venezuela's 21st-century expropriations, illustrate how prioritizing collective ends over individual means correlates with authoritarianism and economic collapse, underscoring liberalism's causal emphasis on voluntary cooperation as the bedrock of sustainable order.

Historical Development

Enlightenment Origins and Early Advocates

Liberalism's intellectual roots trace to the Enlightenment, a European intellectual movement from the late 17th to early 19th century that prioritized reason, empirical observation, and individual autonomy over traditional authority, religious dogma, and absolute monarchy. Thinkers challenged the divine right of kings and feudal hierarchies, positing that governments derive legitimacy from protecting inherent human rights rather than divine mandate or conquest. This shift fostered ideas of consent-based governance and checks on power, forming the basis for classical liberal principles of limited state intervention and personal liberty. John Locke (1632–1704), an English philosopher and physician, emerged as a foundational advocate through his Two Treatises of Government (1689), which critiqued patriarchal absolutism and articulated a theory of natural rights and social contract. Locke contended that in the state of nature, individuals are free, equal, and independent, endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property derived from natural law. Governments form via mutual consent to safeguard these rights more effectively than individuals could alone, but rulers hold power in trust; violation justifies resistance or dissolution of authority. His emphasis on property as a product of labor and the rejection of arbitrary rule profoundly shaped liberal views on economic freedom and constitutional limits. Locke's ideas influenced subsequent liberal developments, including the English Bill of Rights (1689) and American Declaration of Independence (1776), by establishing that political obligation stems from rational agreement rather than birth or coercion. He integrated first-principles reasoning from empiricism—knowledge gained through sensory experience—to argue against innate ideas of hierarchy, promoting instead a causal understanding of society where individual actions and incentives drive order. While some interpretations later softened his strict limits on state power, Locke's core framework prioritized negative liberty, where freedom means absence of coercion rather than provision of goods. On the Continent, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755), advanced liberal institutional design in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), analyzing how laws should adapt to climates, mores, and government forms to preserve liberty. He advocated separating legislative, executive, and judicial powers to prevent tyranny, observing that concentrated authority, as in despotic regimes, erodes freedom through fear and caprice. Montesquieu's comparative approach—drawing from republics like ancient Rome and monarchies like England—highlighted moderate governments with intermediary bodies (e.g., nobility, guilds) as bulwarks against absolutism, influencing liberal constitutionalism by emphasizing rule of law over personal rule. Montesquieu's framework complemented Locke's by focusing on structural safeguards, warning that even well-intentioned power accumulates destructively without division; empirical evidence from historical tyrannies underscored this causal realism. His ideas informed the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances (1787) and broader liberal reforms, though he favored aristocratic elements for stability, reflecting a pragmatic conservatism within liberalism's commitment to ordered liberty over pure democracy. Early advocates like Locke and Montesquieu thus established liberalism's emphasis on institutional mechanisms to secure individual agency against state overreach.

19th-Century Liberal Revolutions and Reforms

The early 19th century saw liberal movements challenge post-Napoleonic absolutism across Europe, advocating for constitutional limits on monarchy, expanded suffrage, and free markets amid economic distress from the Continental System's aftermath and agrarian unrest. In southern Europe, the Greek War of Independence, erupting on March 25, 1821, embodied liberal aspirations for national self-determination and Enlightenment ideals, culminating in Greek sovereignty recognized by the Treaty of Constantinople on February 3, 1830, after intervention by Britain, France, and Russia at Navarino Bay in 1827. This success galvanized philhellenic liberals in Western Europe, who viewed it as a triumph of rational governance over Ottoman theocracy, though internal factionalism delayed stable liberal institutions until the 1840s. The Revolutions of 1830 marked a liberal surge in Western Europe, triggered by economic grievances and absolutist overreach. In France, the July Revolution from July 27-29, 1830, ousted ultra-royalist Charles X after his ordinances dissolved the liberal-leaning Chamber of Deputies and censored press, installing the Orléanist Louis-Philippe as "King of the French" under a revised Charter emphasizing property rights and parliamentary authority. Paralleling this, the Belgian Revolution began August 25, 1830, in Brussels against Dutch rule in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, yielding independence via the London Conference and a highly liberal constitution promulgated February 7, 1831, which enshrined civil liberties, bicameral legislature, and ministerial responsibility—principles that outlasted subsequent conservative restorations. In Britain, incremental reforms averted revolution: the Great Reform Act of June 7, 1832, abolished 56 rotten boroughs, enfranchised roughly 217,000 middle-class males in new urban constituencies, and standardized voting qualifications, redistributing power from aristocratic pockets to industrial interests while maintaining property-based suffrage. Liberal advocacy extended to humanitarian and economic spheres. British abolitionists, drawing on natural rights doctrine, secured the Slavery Abolition Act on August 28, 1833, emancipating approximately 800,000 enslaved individuals across the Empire (with a transitional apprenticeship until 1838), funded by a £20 million compensation to owners—equivalent to 40% of the national budget—marking a causal shift from mercantilist exploitation to individual liberty principles. Economically, the Anti-Corn Law League's campaign, led by manufacturers Richard Cobden and John Bright, pressured Parliament to repeal the protectionist Corn Laws on June 25, 1846, via Prime Minister Robert Peel's conversion amid Irish famine, ushering in freer grain imports that lowered food prices by up to 20% within a decade and boosted industrial growth by aligning policy with comparative advantage. The Revolutions of 1848 represented the era's liberal zenith and subsequent setbacks, erupting in over 50 states from Sicily in January to Vienna and Berlin by March, demanding constitutionalism, press freedom, and unified nation-states against Metternich's Carlsbad Decrees. Initial successes included Frankfurt Parliament's March 1848 assembly drafting a federal liberal constitution for Germany and Piedmont's Statuto Albertino granting Sardinia a charter, but conservative counter-mobilization—bolstered by armies loyal to Habsburg and Hohenzollern thrones—restored order by 1849, with 40,000 deaths across conflicts. Though failures exposed liberalism's vulnerability to nationalist-radical alliances and rural conservatism, they eroded absolutism's legitimacy, paving for later reforms like Prussia's 1850 constitution and Italy's unification under Cavour's liberal banner, while empirically demonstrating that sustained liberal gains required elite buy-in over mass upheaval.

20th-Century Shifts and World Wars Impact

The exigencies of World War I prompted liberal democracies to adopt extensive state interventions that deviated from classical liberal tenets of limited government and free markets. In the United States, federal expenditures escalated from $477 million in 1916 to $8,450 million in 1918, shifting resources toward military production and financed primarily through debt and new taxes rather than voluntary means. In the United Kingdom, public spending ballooned from 8% of GDP in 1913–14 to 62% in 1917–18, dominated by defense outlays that necessitated conscription, munitions controls, and suppression of strikes. These policies, while enabling Allied victory, eroded civil liberties through censorship, internment of dissenters, and labor restrictions, fostering a wartime habit of centralized planning that persisted beyond 1918. The war's economic fallout, including hyperinflation in defeated nations like Germany (peaking at 29,500% monthly in 1923) and the suspension of the gold standard, undermined confidence in laissez-faire as a stabilizer of prosperity. Politically, liberalism suffered: Britain's Liberal Party, once dominant, saw its parliamentary seats drop from 272 in 1910 to 28 by 1922, displaced by Labour's advocacy for expanded social provisions amid postwar demobilization hardships. This interwar period crystallized a shift toward "embedded liberalism," where market freedoms were subordinated to state safeguards against volatility, as evidenced by the 1919 Versailles Treaty's protectionist impulses that fragmented prewar global trade networks. World War II amplified these transformations, entrenching interventionism through total mobilization that normalized deficit spending and industrial direction. U.S. government outlays reached 43% of GDP by 1944, with rationing, wage-price freezes, and full-employment drives echoing wartime precedents from 1917–18. In Europe, the conflict's devastation—over 40 million civilian and military deaths—spurred postwar welfare state architectures, such as Britain's 1942 Beveridge Report, which proposed universal social insurance to avert prewar poverty cycles, leading to the National Health Service's establishment in 1948. These reforms, justified as bulwarks against communism and fascism, expanded fiscal commitments: UK social spending rose from 14% of GDP in 1938 to 25% by 1960, funded by progressive taxation that classical liberals critiqued as disincentivizing enterprise. The wars thus catalyzed ideological divergence within liberalism, promoting Keynesian demand management—articulated in John Maynard Keynes's 1936 General Theory and vindicated by wartime output surges—as a counter to depressions, supplanting 19th-century orthodoxy. While liberal democracies triumphed militarily, preserving negative freedoms against totalitarianism, the causal chain of total war to permanent state enlargement diluted core principles: civil liberties recovered unevenly, with McCarthy-era purges in the U.S. illustrating lingering securitization, and economic liberalism yielded to managed capitalism, as seen in Bretton Woods institutions prioritizing stability over unfettered exchange. This era marked liberalism's adaptation via hybridization, prioritizing resilience over purity, though empirical postwar growth (e.g., U.S. GDP doubling 1945–1960) masked accumulating distortions like inflation and dependency.

Variants and Divergences

Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism emerged during the Enlightenment as the foundational strain of liberal thought, emphasizing individual liberty, limited government intervention, and the protection of natural rights derived from reason and consent rather than divine right or tradition. It posits that government's primary role is to safeguard life, liberty, and property, with any expansion of state power requiring justification to prevent tyranny. This ideology underpinned the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the U.S. Constitution of 1787, which limited federal authority through enumerated powers and checks and balances. Central principles include the rule of law, where all individuals, including rulers, are subject to impartial legal constraints; free markets operating under laissez-faire economics, allowing voluntary exchange without coercive interference; and constitutionalism to constrain arbitrary power through representative institutions and separation of powers. Proponents argued that such arrangements foster spontaneous order and prosperity, as self-interested actions in competitive markets lead to efficient resource allocation and innovation, evidenced by the Industrial Revolution's productivity surges from 1760 to 1840 in Britain, where trade liberalization and property rights enforcement correlated with GDP per capita rising from about £1,700 to £3,200 in constant terms. Key thinkers shaped its intellectual framework: John Locke (1632–1704) articulated natural rights to life, liberty, and property in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), arguing governments derive legitimacy from consent and must protect these rights or face dissolution. Adam Smith (1723–1790) in The Wealth of Nations (1776) defended free trade and the division of labor, demonstrating how market competition, not mercantilist controls, generates wealth. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) extended defenses of liberty in On Liberty (1859), advocating the harm principle to limit interference to cases preventing harm to others. Distinguishing classical liberalism from later variants, it rejects expansive state roles in redistributing wealth or engineering equality, viewing such interventions as infringing on negative liberty—the freedom from coercion—and empirically linked to reduced growth, as seen in post-World War I comparisons where less regulated economies outperformed interventionist ones. While modern liberalism, influenced by 20th-century crises, embraced welfare provisions and positive liberties, classical adherents maintain that voluntary civil society and markets better achieve social goods without undermining incentives, a position supported by data from the 19th-century liberal reforms in Europe that halved illiteracy rates and extended lifespans through economic expansion rather than direct mandates.

Liberal Nationalism

Liberal nationalism emerged in 19th-century Europe as a variant reconciling liberal principles of individual rights, democracy, and self-determination with civic nationalism, viewing the nation-state as a vehicle for enabling collective self-government while preserving personal freedoms. It posits that national identity, grounded in shared civic values rather than ethnic exclusivity, fosters the conditions for liberal institutions by promoting popular sovereignty and resistance to absolutism, distinguishing itself from illiberal nationalisms that subordinate individuals to state or cultural collectivism. A key figure was Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–1872), who in works like "On Nationality" (1852) argued that nations are essential units for human moral and political progress, advocating republican constitutions and international federation among free nations. Mazzini's Young Italy movement drove the Risorgimento, blending liberal reforms with patriotic unification efforts, while similar ideas animated the 1848 revolutions across Europe, where demands for constitutional government intertwined with national independence from empires like Austria. This strand supported liberal revolutions by framing national self-determination as compatible with universal rights, though it risked tensions with liberalism's cosmopolitan ideals when national priorities conflicted with individual liberties.

Neoliberalism and Market Reforms

Neoliberalism emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the perceived failures of Keynesian economics and extensive state intervention, advocating for a return to market-oriented policies within the liberal tradition of limited government and individual economic freedom. Key proponents, including Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, founded the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947 to promote these ideas, emphasizing deregulation, privatization of state-owned enterprises, free trade, and monetary discipline to curb inflation. This approach sought to extend competitive markets into previously state-dominated areas, viewing government intervention as distorting price signals and incentives essential for efficient resource allocation. Pioneering implementations occurred in the 1970s and 1980s amid economic crises like stagflation. In Chile, following the 1973 military coup, economists trained at the University of Chicago—known as the Chicago Boys—advised on sweeping reforms under Augusto Pinochet, including privatizing over 200 state firms, liberalizing trade, and stabilizing currency, which transformed a hyperinflationary economy into one of Latin America's fastest-growing. Margaret Thatcher's government in the UK from 1979 enacted privatization of industries like British Telecom and British Gas, curbed union power through laws limiting strikes, and reduced top income tax rates from 83% to 40%, fostering entrepreneurship and controlling inflation from 18% in 1980 to 4.6% by 1983. Ronald Reagan in the US from 1981 implemented supply-side tax cuts reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% by 1988, deregulated industries such as airlines and finance, and emphasized anti-inflationary Federal Reserve policies under Paul Volcker, contributing to GDP growth averaging 3.5% annually during his tenure. Empirical outcomes demonstrate causal links between these reforms and economic revitalization, though with trade-offs like rising income inequality. In Chile, GDP per capita rose from approximately $2,200 in 1975 to over $10,000 by 2010 in constant dollars, while extreme poverty fell from 45% in 1987 to 2.4% by 2017, attributed by analysts to market liberalization enabling export-led growth in copper and agriculture. UK's real GDP growth averaged 2.5% annually from 1980-1990, surpassing the prior decade's stagnation, with unemployment peaking but then declining amid productivity gains from competition. Globally, neoliberal-inspired Washington Consensus policies in the 1990s correlated with a halving of extreme poverty rates from 36% in 1990 to 18% by 2000 across adopting developing nations, driven by trade openness and foreign investment, as evidenced by World Bank data linking economic freedom indices to higher growth and poverty alleviation. Critics, often from interventionist perspectives, highlight increased Gini coefficients—e.g., Chile's from 0.46 in 1987 to 0.51 in 2017—but overlook absolute gains in living standards and the role of prior statist policies in initial inequalities.

Social Liberalism as a Modern Deviation

Social liberalism, often termed "New Liberalism" in the British context, emerged in the late nineteenth century as an ideological shift within liberalism, responding to industrial-era poverty and inequality that classical liberalism's laissez-faire approach appeared insufficient to mitigate. Thinkers like Thomas Hill Green (1836–1882), a proponent of British idealism, critiqued pure individualism by advocating "positive freedom"—the state's role in enabling individuals to realize their moral potential through interventions such as universal education and temperance reforms—contrasting with classical emphasis on negative liberty and minimal government. Green's lectures, delivered in the 1870s and 1880s at Oxford, influenced a generation of policymakers by positing that true liberty requires removing social barriers via collective action, marking an early philosophical pivot toward state-enabled equality of opportunity over unfettered individual autonomy. This deviation crystallized in policy during the British Liberal government's tenure from 1906 to 1914, when reforms under Prime Minister H.H. Asquith and Chancellor David Lloyd George introduced redistributive measures diverging from classical tenets of voluntary charity and market self-correction. Key enactments included the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906 for free school meals to needy children, the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 providing non-contributory pensions of up to 5 shillings weekly for those over 70, and the National Insurance Act 1911 mandating worker contributions for sickness and unemployment benefits covering over 2.25 million by 1913. These initiatives expanded state coercion through taxation—raising income tax rates and introducing graduated scales—to fund welfare, prioritizing communal welfare over property rights and incentivizing dependency, as classical liberals like Herbert Spencer had warned against in his 1884 critique of such "new liberalism" as paternalistic overreach. From a classical liberal standpoint, social liberalism's embrace of government as arbiter of social justice fundamentally undermines liberalism's first principles by presupposing market failure requires perpetual state expansion, denying society's self-regulatory mechanisms observed in historical free-market successes like Britain's nineteenth-century growth. Austrian economists, including Ludwig von Mises, argued this leads to interventionist spirals where initial fixes like welfare distort price signals and resource allocation, empirically evidenced by post-1945 European welfare states' average public debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 80% by 2020 amid stagnant productivity compared to more restrained systems. Cato Institute analyses further highlight how expansive benefits correlate with reduced labor participation; for example, countries with high replacement rates in unemployment insurance show durations 20-30% longer than in liberalized markets, fostering disincentives that classical theory attributes to eroded personal agency rather than inherent capitalist flaws. While academic sources often frame these policies as progressive advancements—reflecting institutional biases toward collectivism—causal evidence from reforms' outcomes, such as Britain's interwar unemployment spikes partly linked to rigid labor mandates, supports critiques that social liberalism deviates toward quasi-socialism, compromising liberalism's core causal realism in favoring empirical liberty over engineered equity.

Economic Theory and Evidence

Laissez-Faire Principles and Empirical Successes

Laissez-faire principles, central to classical liberalism's economic framework, advocate for minimal government interference in market activities, relying on individual initiative, private property rights, and voluntary transactions to drive resource allocation and innovation. This approach posits that free markets, unhindered by regulations on prices, wages, or production, foster efficient outcomes through competition and the price mechanism, as articulated by economists like Adam Smith in emphasizing the "invisible hand." Government roles are confined to enforcing contracts, protecting property, and defending against coercion, avoiding subsidies, tariffs, or central planning that distort incentives. Empirical evidence supports the efficacy of these principles in promoting growth and prosperity. In 19th-century Britain, adherence to laissez-faire, including the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and reduced trade barriers, coincided with accelerated economic expansion, transforming the nation from agrarian to industrial dominance with real GDP growth averaging around 2% annually from 1820 to 1870, outpacing prior eras and enabling widespread wealth creation. This period saw per capita income rise substantially, funding infrastructure and technological advances without extensive state direction. Post-World War II Hong Kong exemplifies laissez-faire success under British colonial policy, where low taxes, no tariffs on most goods, and minimal regulation propelled GDP per capita from about 25% of the UK's level in 1960 to over 133% by 1997, achieving average annual growth exceeding 7% from 1961 to 1997 through export-led industrialization and entrepreneurship. Officials like Financial Secretary John Cowperthwaite rejected interventionist measures, prioritizing sound money and open markets, which correlated with poverty reduction from near-universal levels to under 10% by the 1990s. In Chile, free-market reforms initiated in the mid-1970s by the "Chicago Boys"—including privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization—reversed prior stagnation, yielding average annual GDP growth of 7.2% from 1984 to 1998 and sustaining 4.6% thereafter into the 2000s, lifting millions from poverty and positioning Chile as Latin America's highest per capita income by 2010. These outcomes stemmed from reducing government spending from 30% to under 20% of GDP and opening markets, contrasting with the hyperinflation and contraction under earlier interventionism. Cross-national data reinforces these cases: the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World index shows countries in the top quartile of economic freedom averaging 7.8% higher GDP per capita than the bottom quartile, with a one-point score increase linked to 0.108% faster annual growth; similarly, Heritage Foundation analyses correlate higher freedom scores with reduced poverty and elevated life expectancy. Such patterns hold across diverse datasets, indicating causal links via incentivized investment and productivity, though critics note variances due to institutional quality.

Critiques of Keynesian Interventions

Critics of Keynesian interventions, particularly from classical liberal and Austrian economists, contend that government fiscal stimulus distorts market signals and leads to inefficient resource allocation. By injecting demand through deficit spending, such policies artificially inflate economic activity, encouraging malinvestments in unsustainable sectors, as articulated in the Austrian business cycle theory developed by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. This approach posits that low interest rates induced by central bank accommodation, often paired with fiscal expansion, misdirect capital toward long-term projects that cannot be sustained, culminating in inevitable busts rather than genuine growth. A core theoretical objection is the crowding-out effect, where increased government borrowing raises interest rates and displaces private investment. Empirical analyses indicate that government spending multipliers— the ratio of GDP increase to spending increment—are frequently below 1, implying no net economic expansion as private sector activity contracts. For instance, studies of U.S. fiscal actions during recessions have shown multipliers near zero in the long run, with government outlays substituting for rather than supplementing private consumption and investment. Historical evidence underscores these flaws, notably the stagflation of the 1970s in the United States and other Western economies, where Keynesian demand management failed to resolve simultaneous high inflation and unemployment. Policies emphasizing fiscal expansion amid rising wage pressures and oil shocks entrenched inflation expectations, with U.S. consumer prices surging 13.5% in 1980, eroding the Phillips curve trade-off central to Keynesian models. Monetarist Milton Friedman highlighted this breakdown, arguing that fiscal interventions exacerbate instability by ignoring the natural rate of unemployment and monetary excesses, as validated by subsequent policy shifts toward tighter money supply controls under Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker starting in 1979. Persistent deficits from Keynesian stimuli have also fueled public debt accumulation, imposing intergenerational burdens through future taxation or inflation. Post-2008 U.S. fiscal packages, exceeding $800 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, correlated with sluggish recovery and elevated debt-to-GDP ratios surpassing 100% by 2012, without commensurate multiplier effects. Liberal economists warn that such interventions erode fiscal discipline, politicize economic decisions, and hinder the spontaneous order of markets essential for sustained prosperity.

Global Trade and Prosperity Data

Global trade liberalization, aligned with classical liberal principles of free markets and reduced barriers, has empirically correlated with substantial increases in economic prosperity. Following the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 and its evolution into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, multilateral negotiations reduced average tariffs from around 40% in the late 1940s to under 5% by the early 2000s, facilitating a surge in international trade volumes. The global trade-to-GDP ratio rose from approximately 39% in 1995 to 63% in 2022, reflecting deeper economic integration and contributing to higher overall growth rates. GATT/WTO membership has been associated with trade increases ranging from 30% to 65% or more for member countries, varying by country development status and period, with particularly strong effects for developing economies through expanded export opportunities. Empirical studies quantify the causal link between trade openness and prosperity metrics. Research indicates that trade liberalization boosts annual per capita GDP growth by 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points on average, translating to 10-20% higher incomes after approximately seven years in liberalizing economies. Post-liberalization episodes, such as those in East Asian economies including South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore from the 1960s onward, saw average annual GDP growth rates exceed 7% for decades, driven by export-led strategies that dismantled protectionist barriers. China's partial trade liberalization after 1978, including WTO accession in 2001, accelerated its GDP growth to an average of 9.5% annually from 1978 to 2010, lifting over 800 million people out of extreme poverty as measured by the World Bank's $1.90 daily threshold. Similarly, India's 1991 reforms reducing tariffs and deregulating trade correlated with GDP growth averaging 6-7% thereafter, alongside a decline in extreme poverty from 45% in 1993 to under 10% by 2019.
Region/PeriodKey Liberalization EventGDP Growth ImpactPoverty Reduction
East Asia (1960s-1990s)Export-oriented reforms in South Korea, Taiwan7-10% annual averageExtreme poverty halved in many cases
China (1978-2010)Deng Xiaoping reforms, WTO entry9.5% annual average800 million lifted from $1.90/day poverty
Global (Post-GATT/WTO)Tariff reductions to <5%1-2.6% added per capita growthTrade as primary driver of poverty decline
While effects vary by country-specific factors like institutional quality and complementary policies, meta-analyses confirm a net positive relationship, with trade reforms explaining up to half of global poverty reduction since 1980 through enhanced productivity and resource allocation. Protectionist reversals, conversely, have historically stifled growth, as seen in pre-reform Latin American economies averaging under 2% annual GDP expansion in the 1980s amid import substitution. This data underscores liberalism's emphasis on voluntary exchange across borders as a mechanism for compounding wealth creation.

Achievements and Causal Impacts

Reduction in Poverty and Innovation Booms

The adoption of liberal economic policies, including market liberalization, property rights enforcement, and reduced government intervention, has correlated strongly with unprecedented global poverty reduction since the late 20th century. According to World Bank data, the number of people living in extreme poverty—defined as less than $2.15 per day in 2017 purchasing power parity—dropped from approximately 2.3 billion in 1990 (38% of the global population) to around 808 million by 2023 (about 10%), marking the fastest decline in human history. This trend accelerated following the 1980s shift toward free-market reforms in countries like China (post-1978 Deng Xiaoping reforms) and India (1991 liberalization), where billions escaped destitution through export-led growth and private enterprise. Empirical analyses attribute this primarily to mechanisms such as enhanced economic growth, job creation, and entrepreneurship fostered by economic freedom, rather than solely foreign aid or redistribution. Cross-country studies using indices like the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom demonstrate that nations with higher scores in rule of law, trade freedom, and limited government consistently exhibit lower poverty rates and higher GDP per capita. For instance, countries in the top quartile of economic freedom have median incomes over 7 times higher than those in the bottom quartile, enabling broad-based prosperity that lifts the poor through market opportunities rather than direct transfers. Trade openness, a hallmark of liberal globalization, has further driven poverty alleviation by integrating developing economies into global supply chains, as evidenced by World Bank reports showing export growth and foreign investment reducing poverty in regions from East Asia to Eastern Europe. While critics argue redistribution played a role, data indicate that public spending accounts for only about 30% of the decline, with market-driven growth and institutional reforms providing the causal foundation. Liberal capitalism has also spurred innovation booms by incentivizing risk-taking, investment in research and development, and knowledge diffusion through competitive markets. Historical examples include the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century Britain, where laissez-faire policies and secure property rights catalyzed mechanization and productivity surges, and the post-1980 U.S. tech boom following deregulation and tax cuts, which saw personal computer adoption skyrocket from under 10% of households in 1984 to over 50% by 2000. Quantitative evidence links economic freedom to higher innovation outputs: countries with greater freedom generate more patents per capita and higher citation rates, reflecting genuine technological advancement rather than rent-seeking. For example, analysis of manufacturing industries across 72 countries shows stronger patent protections—integral to liberal institutions—boost economic growth via increased R&D and technology transfer. These dynamics underscore how liberal principles create self-reinforcing cycles of innovation and wealth creation, contrasting with stagnant outcomes in more interventionist regimes.

Expansion of Personal Freedoms

Classical liberalism advanced personal freedoms by prioritizing individual autonomy against state and ecclesiastical authority, leading to institutional protections for speech, religion, and association. John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859) formalized the harm principle, arguing that interference with individual actions is justifiable only to prevent harm to others, influencing subsequent legal frameworks for free expression. In practice, liberal reforms dismantled censorship regimes; for instance, the lapse of Britain's Licensing of the Press Act in 1695 enabled a free press, fostering public discourse without prior restraint. Liberal principles contributed to the eradication of coercive labor systems, expanding freedoms of movement and contract. The abolition of slavery in the British Empire via the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, driven by liberal critiques of inefficiency and moral incompatibility with individual rights as voiced by economists like Adam Smith, freed over 800,000 individuals. Similarly, serfdom's end in Russia in 1861 under Tsar Alexander II, influenced by Western liberal ideas emphasizing personal liberty over feudal obligations, emancipated approximately 23 million serfs, allowing them contractual freedom and property ownership. These reforms reflected liberalism's causal role in replacing status-based hierarchies with voluntary associations, reducing arbitrary power over persons. In the 19th and 20th centuries, liberal societies extended freedoms through suffrage expansions and civil liberties protections. Women's suffrage in New Zealand (1893), the first national granting of voting rights to women, and subsequent adoptions in liberal democracies like the UK (1918) and US (1920) embodied liberal equality under law. The 19th century marked a peak in liberal epochs, with Western nations abolishing guilds and monopolies, enhancing freedoms of association and enterprise. Data from human rights metrics indicate progressive improvements in civil liberties in liberalizing countries, such as increased protections against arbitrary arrest and expanded press freedoms, correlating with the spread of constitutional governments. Empirical trends underscore liberalism's impact: Freedom House's Freedom in the World reports document a rise in global civil liberties scores from the late 20th century onward in adopting liberal democracies, peaking before recent declines, with historical precedents in 19th-century Europe where liberal reforms correlated with higher individual agency indicators like literacy and mobility. In the US, the First Amendment (1791) institutionalized freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, serving as a model that causal analysis links to sustained expansions in expressive rights absent in non-liberal regimes. These achievements demonstrate liberalism's mechanism of constraining power to enlarge personal spheres, though maintenance requires vigilance against erosions.

Democratic Institutions and Stability

Liberalism underpins democratic institutions through principles of limited government, separation of powers, and the rule of law, which disperse authority and prevent arbitrary rule. These elements, drawn from thinkers like Montesquieu, enable checks and balances that facilitate peaceful power transitions and mitigate risks of tyranny. In practice, such institutions protect minority rights against majority whims, fostering environments where electoral competition occurs without systemic collapse. Historically, liberal frameworks contributed to the stability of early modern democracies; the United States Constitution of 1787, incorporating separation of powers and federalism influenced by liberal ideas, has sustained continuous democratic governance for over two centuries, with 59 presidential elections held without interruption. Similarly, post-World War II liberal democracies in Western Europe rebuilt with strong constitutional protections, achieving decades of stability amid ideological challenges. These examples illustrate how liberal institutional designs correlate with resilience against internal upheavals, as opposed to centralized systems prone to coups. Empirical analyses confirm that liberal institutions enhance democratic endurance; a long-view study of democratization waves identifies liberal mechanisms—such as independent judiciaries and rights protections—as critical alongside economic factors for preventing backsliding. Research on governance dimensions shows that secure property rights and rule of law reduce political instability by incentivizing investment in state capacity and lowering incentives for elite predation. Cross-national data from sources like the World Justice Project further link robust rule-of-law adherence to higher peace indices and lower conflict rates in liberal democracies. Causal realism suggests these outcomes stem from liberalism's emphasis on accountability; weak executive constraints in nominally democratic systems heighten illiberal takeover risks, as modeled in studies where voter preferences for security amplify instability absent liberal safeguards. Thus, liberalism's institutional legacy demonstrably bolsters stability by aligning governance with empirical incentives for cooperation over coercion, though vulnerabilities persist in eroding norms.

Criticisms from Diverse Perspectives

Conservative Critiques: Erosion of Tradition and Community

Conservative thinkers, beginning with Edmund Burke in his 1790 work Reflections on the Revolution in France, have argued that liberalism's emphasis on abstract individual rights and rationalist reconstruction undermines the organic fabric of society, which Burke viewed as an inherited partnership across generations rather than a contractual invention. Burke contended that the French revolutionaries' liberal-inspired pursuit of universal rights disregarded historical precedents and communal bonds, leading to violent upheaval and the erosion of established customs that provide social stability. This critique posits that liberalism's ahistorical individualism severs people from tradition, fostering alienation as inherited institutions like monarchy and aristocracy—seen as embodiments of collective wisdom—are supplanted by abstract equality. In the mid-20th century, Robert Nisbet extended this line of reasoning in The Quest for Community (1953), asserting that liberal modernity's dual forces of atomistic individualism and centralized state power have dismantled intermediate associations such as family, neighborhood, and church, which historically mediated between the individual and society. Nisbet traced this erosion to the liberal valorization of personal autonomy, which, combined with progressive centralization, reduces community to voluntary contracts or state dependencies, culminating in a "quest for community" that manifests as either totalitarian absorption or isolated anomie. Similarly, Russell Kirk, in The Conservative Mind (1953), critiqued liberalism as an ideological force that prioritizes perpetual innovation and equality over prudence and moral order, thereby dissolving the "permanent things"—tradition, custom, and hierarchy—that sustain communal life. Kirk warned that liberalism's rationalism erodes the prescriptive bonds of faith and kinship, leaving society vulnerable to ideological abstractions that ignore human imperfection. Contemporary conservative scholars like Patrick Deneen, in Why Liberalism Failed (2018), argue that liberalism's core project of maximizing individual choice has paradoxically succeeded to the point of self-undermining, hollowing out pre-liberal institutions like the family and local communities that once buffered state expansion and provided non-market forms of solidarity. Deneen contends that by promoting autonomy over obligation, liberalism fosters cultural fragmentation and reliance on government to compensate for lost social ties, as evidenced by declining birth rates and weakened civic associations. Empirical trends support these critiques, with data showing a marked decline in U.S. social capital since the 1960s, including a drop in weekly church attendance from about 48% in the late 1950s to 41% by the 1960s, alongside reduced participation in civic groups and family cohesion. The introduction of no-fault divorce laws, starting in California in 1969 and spreading nationwide, correlates with a doubling of divorce rates—from 2.2 per 1,000 population in 1960 to 5.2 by 1980— which conservatives attribute to liberalism's prioritization of individual exit rights over marital permanence, exacerbating community breakdown. Overall, these observers maintain that liberalism's causal mechanism—elevating personal liberty above inherited duties—has empirically weakened the relational networks essential for societal resilience, as reflected in rising indicators of loneliness and distrust documented in longitudinal studies.

Left-Wing Critiques: Insufficient Equality Measures

Left-wing critics, particularly from socialist and Marxist traditions, argue that liberalism's conception of equality is confined to formal legal and political rights, which fail to mitigate the substantive economic inequalities generated by unregulated capitalism. Karl Marx, in his 1843 essay "On the Jewish Question," critiqued liberal emancipation as providing only abstract rights that do not liberate individuals from material dependencies, allowing the "egoistic" pursuits of civil society to perpetuate class divisions and alienation. This perspective holds that liberalism's emphasis on individual liberty masks how market competition concentrates wealth, rendering political equality illusory for the working class, as economic power determines effective access to rights. Such critiques extend to empirical observations of inequality persistence in liberal economies, where critics contend that minimal state intervention insufficiently counters capitalist tendencies toward wealth accumulation. For instance, socialist analysts point to the U.S. Gini coefficient rising from 0.37 in 1980 to 0.41 in 2019, attributing this to liberal policies favoring deregulation over redistribution, which exacerbate disparities without addressing root causes like private ownership of production. Marxists further argue that liberalism's reliance on competitive markets inherently produces unequal outcomes, as profit motives prioritize efficiency over equitable distribution, leading to systemic exploitation rather than genuine equal opportunity. Proponents of these views, often from outlets aligned with socialist ideology, advocate transcending liberalism through collective ownership to achieve "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," claiming that liberal reforms like welfare states merely palliate rather than eliminate inequality's structural drivers. However, these critiques, while highlighting real disparities—such as the top 1% capturing 22% of U.S. national income by 2022—overlook liberalism's role in global poverty reduction, where market-oriented policies lifted over 1 billion people out of extreme poverty between 1990 and 2019, suggesting that absolute gains in equality may outweigh relative measures favored by left-wing analysis.

Internal Contradictions: Paradox of Tolerance and Relativism

The paradox of tolerance, formulated by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), asserts that a society's commitment to unlimited tolerance must exclude tolerance toward the intolerant to avoid self-destruction. Popper reasoned that if tolerant individuals fail to resist those who actively seek to dismantle tolerance—through suppression of rational debate or violence—the tolerant framework collapses, as evidenced by historical rises of totalitarian regimes that exploited open societies. This formulation exposes a foundational tension in liberalism: its ideal of universal tolerance as a neutral principle requires selective application, demanding an underlying commitment to liberal norms as superior, which contradicts the relativistic impartiality often embedded in liberal thought. Compounding this issue, liberalism's frequent alignment with moral relativism or value pluralism—positing that no ethical framework holds absolute validity—further erodes the capacity to justify intolerance toward illiberal forces. Under relativism, all cultural or ideological positions, including those endorsing coercion or hierarchy, merit equal deference, rendering Popper's defensive intolerance arbitrary or hypocritical, as no objective standard elevates liberal tolerance over alternatives. Critics from philosophical traditions, including some within liberalism, argue this leads to incoherence, where relativism's tolerance principle cannot consistently oppose practices like enforced conformity without invoking non-relativistic grounds, such as empirical evidence of liberalism's superior outcomes in fostering innovation and stability. In contemporary applications, these contradictions manifest in policy debates, such as restrictions on speech deemed "hateful," where relativist premises justify suppressing dissent under the guise of tolerance, yet fail to provide a principled boundary against escalating illiberalism. Empirical observations, including surveys showing declining trust in liberal institutions amid rising identity-based conflicts since the 2010s, underscore how unaddressed relativism permits intolerant ideologies to gain footholds by framing liberal defenses as mere power plays. Resolving the paradox demands liberals prioritize causal mechanisms—like rational argumentation over force—while acknowledging that pure relativism invites the very fragmentation it seeks to avoid, as seen in historical cases where unchecked pluralism preceded authoritarian backlashes.

Contemporary Status and Challenges

Rise of Populism and Illiberal Backlash (Post-2010s)

In the 2010s, populist movements gained significant traction across Western democracies, challenging the post-Cold War liberal consensus on globalization, supranational governance, and cultural pluralism. In the United States, Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, securing 304 electoral votes against Hillary Clinton's 227 despite losing the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points, drew support from non-college-educated white voters in deindustrialized regions, where long-term economic distress from manufacturing job losses—totaling over 5 million since 2000—fostered resentment toward trade deals like NAFTA. Similarly, the United Kingdom's 2016 Brexit referendum resulted in a 51.9% vote to leave the European Union, driven by concerns over immigration and sovereignty erosion, with Leave prevailing in areas like the North East of England (58%) where EU migration had surged from 8% to 13% of the population between 2004 and 2016. These outcomes reflected a broader rejection of elite-driven policies perceived as prioritizing cosmopolitan interests over national communities. European populist parties, often right-leaning, saw their combined vote share rise from under 10% in the early 2000s to approximately 25% by 2018, with notable gains in national elections: France's National Rally under Marine Le Pen reached 33.4% in the 2017 presidential runoff, Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) captured 12.6% in the 2017 Bundestag election, and Italy's Lega secured 17.4% in 2018. Empirical analyses attribute this surge to secular trends including globalization-induced wage stagnation for low-skilled workers—real median wages in the EU stagnated at around €25,000 from 2008 to 2018—and automation displacing routine jobs, alongside cultural anxieties over rapid demographic shifts from non-Western immigration, which reached net 1.5 million annually in the EU by 2015. Social media amplified these grievances, enabling direct appeals that bypassed traditional media filters often aligned with liberal establishments. While some scholars emphasize economic have-nots, others highlight a cultural backlash thesis, where support correlates more strongly with older demographics and regions resisting progressive norms on identity and family structures. This populist wave included explicitly illiberal variants, as exemplified by Hungary's Viktor Orbán, who since regaining power in 2010 has consolidated control through measures like media consolidation—Fidesz-affiliated outlets controlling over 80% of media by 2020—and judicial reforms that reduced court independence, framing these as defenses of national sovereignty against Brussels-imposed liberalism. In a 2014 speech, Orbán advocated "illiberal democracy" as a model drawing from non-liberal states like Russia and China, prioritizing ethnic homogeneity and Christian values over universal rights, amid policies curtailing NGO funding and migrant inflows following the 2015 crisis that saw 400,000 asylum seekers enter Hungary. Comparable dynamics emerged in Poland under the Law and Justice party (PiS), which from 2015 onward reformed courts and public broadcasting to align with conservative nationalism, reflecting voter demands for cultural preservation amid EU-mandated policies seen as eroding traditional institutions. These developments underscore a causal backlash against liberalism's perceived overreach, where open borders and supranational authority exacerbated local disempowerment, prompting demands for democratic accountability rooted in national majorities rather than minority vetoes or expert bureaucracies.

Identity Politics and Cultural Fragmentation

Identity politics, emphasizing group-based claims rooted in race, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality over individual agency, has emerged as a challenge to liberalism's foundational commitment to universal rights and civic equality. Originating in the 1960s as a tool for marginalized groups to seek inclusion, it shifted in the late 20th century toward affirming group hierarchies and particularistic demands, diverging from liberalism's emphasis on shared humanity and merit-based individualism. By the 2010s, this approach proliferated in Western liberal democracies, fueled by academic theories and media narratives prioritizing systemic oppression narratives, often sidelining evidence-based policy discourse. This shift has contributed to cultural fragmentation by supplanting transcendent national or liberal identities with competing tribal loyalties, fostering zero-sum competitions for recognition and resources. In the United States, for instance, surveys indicate that by 2016, 43% of Black Americans doubted equal rights for all groups, while over 50% of whites perceived discrimination against their own group, reflecting mutual victimhood perceptions that erode trust. European contexts show similar patterns, with identity-driven debates over immigration and multiculturalism correlating with rising affective polarization, where partisan animus rivals ideological disagreement. Empirical models demonstrate how salient cultural identities distort beliefs toward group stereotypes, amplifying conflicts over immigration or symbolic issues while correlating disparate policy views into unified partisan packages. The consequences include heightened social division and weakened liberal institutions. Post-2016 U.S. election data reveal a 20% surge in hate crimes, linked to reciprocal identity mobilization on both left (e.g., exclusionary protests) and right (e.g., anti-immigrant rhetoric). In liberal democracies, this has manifested as declining social cohesion metrics, with ethnic and identity diversity studies showing reduced intra-community trust absent strong civic bonds. Identity politics undermines liberalism's paradox of tolerance by demanding conformity to group orthodoxies, often enforcing speech restrictions that contradict free expression principles, as seen in campus deplatforming incidents and corporate DEI mandates prioritizing equity over equality. While proponents cite it as corrective for historical injustices, causal analyses reveal it exacerbates polarization faster in the U.S. than peers like the UK or Germany, threatening the deliberative consensus essential to liberal governance.

Potential Reforms Toward Classical Roots

Proponents of reviving classical liberalism advocate reforms that prioritize individual liberty, limited government, and spontaneous social order over expansive state intervention, drawing on principles articulated by thinkers like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. These include emphasizing a compelling public vision of liberty as a "shining city on a hill," akin to rhetorical strategies that historically mobilized support for free markets and personal responsibility. Such efforts aim to counter the drift toward bureaucratic expansion by educating citizens on the "invisible hand" mechanism, which coordinates individual actions without central planning, thereby challenging policies like rent control or minimum wages that disrupt market signals. Institutional reforms focus on decentralizing power through federalism and subsidiarity, enabling local communities to handle decisions traditionally monopolized by national bureaucracies, which fosters accountability and innovation tailored to specific contexts. Strengthening voluntary associations and civil society as buffers between individuals and the state would reduce dependence on welfare entitlements, promoting civic virtue and personal responsibility while transitioning social safety nets toward private and community-based mechanisms. Property rights would be reinforced, including adaptations for intellectual property and data in digital economies, to underpin market frameworks and environmental stewardship via incentives like tradable permits rather than top-down regulations. Cultural and educational initiatives propose curricula centered on critical thinking, moral reasoning, and historical appreciation of liberal institutions to cultivate informed citizenship capable of sustaining self-governance. Monetary policy reforms toward sound money principles, such as rules limiting fiat currency debasement, would safeguard economic stability and political freedom from inflationary distortions. Internationally, prioritizing free trade, sovereignty respect, and rule-of-law diplomacy would mitigate global pressures that undermine domestic reforms, though challenges like entrenched bureaucracies and democratic resistance necessitate building new narratives of liberalism's tangible benefits in prosperity and peace. Structural restraints on administrative agencies, including sunset clauses on regulations, represent another avenue to curb unaccountable power accumulation.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.