Luke Savage — Liberalism in Theory and Practice

Contemporary liberals are temperamentally conservative — and what they want to conserve is a morally bankrupt political order.,,,

A characteristic of neoliberalism?

Maybe I was predisposed to democratic socialism; I always considered myself to be “on the Left,” even as a teenager. In any case, it’s become clear in retrospect that watching the liberal class respond to events over the past decade has been a powerful stimulus in my politicization.

Which is to say, I didn’t acquire radical politics simply through reading Marx in college (though it certainly aided the process). Nor did I become irredeemably frustrated with liberalism merely by absorbing some abstract argument about its flaws. I didn’t have a Road to Damascus revelation while thumbing through some volume by Chomsky or David Harvey. And while I would certainly count them as formative to my political evolution, it wasn’t the likes of Ralph Miliband and Tony Benn — let alone Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn — who ultimately imbued me with a burning hatred for anything and everything that calls itself “moderate” or “centrist.”

No, that instinct owes much more to watching Barack Obama summon forth a tidal wave of popular goodwill, then proceed to invite the same old cadre of apparatchiks and financiers back into the White House to carry on business as usual despite the most punishing economic crisis since the Great Depression; to seeing the “war on terror” become a permanent fixture of the global landscape long after its original architects had been booted from the halls of power, courtesy of supposedly enlightened humanitarians; to witnessing a potentially monumental hunger for change be sacrificed on the altar of managerialism and technocratic respectability. It comes from watching a smiling Nick Clegg stand next to David Cameron in the Rose Garden at Number 10 Downing Street before rubber-stamping a series of lacerating cuts to Britain’s welfare state and betraying a generation of students in the process; to seeing the dexterity by which Canada’s liberals gesture to the left then govern from the right; and from seeing the radical demands of global anti-austerity movements endlessly whittled down and regurgitated as neoliberal slam poetry to be recited at Davos by the hip young innovators du jour.

These triangulations, and many others like them, helped me realize that the malaise was the product of a congenital trait rather than a temporary blip. The problem, in other words, wasn’t that contemporary liberalism was failing to live up to its ideals, but that it was living up to them all too well....

Bourgeois liberalism.

In theory, modern liberalism is a set of ideas about human freedom, markets, and representative government. In practice, or so it now seems to me, it has largely become a political affect, and a quintessentially conservative one at that: a set of reflexes common to those with a Panglossian faith in capitalist markets and the institutions that attempt to sustain them amid our flailing global order. In theory, it is an ideology of progress. In practice, it has become the secular theology of the status quo; the mechanism through which the gilded buccaneers of Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and multinational capital rationalize hierarchy and exploitation while fostering resignation and polite deference among those they seek to rule....

Jacobin
Liberalism in Theory and Practice

Luke Savage

See also

In France, however, there is no centrist opposition or alternative left. Macron won by ingesting and replacing the decayed remnants of all the parties of the centre left and centre right, and even so he only won 24 percent of the vote in the first round of last year’s presidential elections. For liberals, he is literally the only game left in town. If he is defeated in the next presidential elections in 2022, then as things stand today, the overwhelming probability is that the next French president will be Marine le Pen of the National Front (or “National Rally” as it now calls itself).

With this, conservative nationalism would move into the very heart of European politics, and the European Union in anything like its existing form would cease to exist. Moreover, at this point, the main French opposition would become the Marxist (but equally anti-EU) left-wing movement of Jean-Luc Melenchon’s “Unbowed France” (La France Insoumise). If this becomes the only real choice left to French voters, then liberal democracy will be dead and democracy of any kind may not survive for much longer.

Well, maybe not neoliberal "democracy" of bourgeois liberalism. That is a far cry from democracy of any kind.

Otherwise, it is a useful article.

Valdai Club Discussion
The French Fifth Republic: Sinking Fast, with No Lifeboat in Sight

Anatol Lieven | professor at the campus of Georgetown University in Doha, Qatar, Associated Scholar of the Transnational Crisis Project, Chair of International Relations and Terrorism Studies at King's College London, and Senior Researcher (Bernard L. Schwartz fellow and American Strategy Program fellow) at the New America Foundation, where he focuses on US global strategy and the War on Terrorism,

David Gordon — Liberalism and "Classical Liberalism" — An Unfortunate Evolution

Backgrounder in the history of the development of liberalism. While it written from a Libertarian point of view, it is useful in understanding the historical background.

For a more thorough treatment although still a summary backgrounder, see the entry on liberalism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Where it falls short is assuming the John Locke somehow discovered the foundations of genuine liberalism, when the fundamentals emerged in ancient Greece and where treated throughout the history of Western thought and manifested differently in Britain, the Continent, and America.

Both the Gordon and Stanford Encyclopedia summaries focus on liberalism as an Anglo-American phenomenon and neither mentions either the history or Continental approach to liberalism, or the antecedents. "Laissez-faire" is, of course, a French term, and the early French writers on economics and political theory were highly influential in the development of economic and political liberalism. Gordon mentions only Frédéric Bastiat.

Gordon and Stanford Encyclopedia also ignore the German contribution to the development of liberalism is ignored, which is understandable given the scope of their summary. But it is a major omission in that many consider Kant rather than Locke to be the father of modern liberalism. Prussian philosopher and educationist Wilhelm von Humboldt, who today is not adequately recognized for his contributions to the Western intellectual tradition, was also a major influence. The Stanford Encyclopedia article on liberalism does make mention of him but only in a brief sentence about his influence on J. S. Mill and it cites Humboldt's The Limits of State Action in the bibliography.

Of course, Anarchists were the the arch-liberals in the sense of advocating for complete freedom from government intrusion in the lives of individuals. While Marx and Engels disagreed with the anarchists of the time over means, they were in agreement over the principle of freedom from state control of individuals and proposed what they concluded from their analysis to be an optimal means for means of achieving this goal. 

After witnessing the French Revolution, Marx and Engels did not simply assume that getting rid of the state through overthrowing the state would lead to utopia immediately. That would take a gradual process of development that would need an interim arrangement to manage the transition as peacefully as possible under the circumstances. They also recognized that the elites in power and their regimes would not just roll over.

Another point that is interesting is that Mises, Hayek and Rothbard all wrote books specifically on liberalism from the classical liberal point of view updated in terms of modern Libertarianism.

A work I like in the tradition of welfare liberalism is John Kenneth Galbraith's The Good Society: The Humane Agenda.

In order to really understand your position, you have to think a thing through carefully using creative and critical thinking. This is best accomplished by writing. At the end of the process, there is something to share with others that may be of value — and could even change the world.

Mises Wire
Liberalism and "Classical Liberalism" — An Unfortunate Evolution

David Gordon |  Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review

Eric Falkenstein — The History of Individual Property Rights

Short summary. Worth read. Eric Falkenstein is a financial economist rather than a historian but he has done his research on this.

Falkenblog
The History of Individual Property Rights

Eric Falkenstein

Matt McManus — Liberalism, Classical and Egalitarian

Conservatives are about conserving and that means orienting toward tradition, that is, the past. 

Classical liberalism was a product of 18th century thought, specifically "the Enlightenment." Attempting to return to the past in the 21st century, especially as far back as the 18th century, is a fool's errand.

In this sense, orthodox Marxism is also conservative in that it looks to the 19th century, and "orthodox" economics in contrast to "heterodox" economics looks to the 20th century. Orthodox religions look back centuries, if not millennia.

Time to move on. We should remember that we "stand of the shoulders of giants." But we need to build on them instead of worshipping them.

Quillette

Liberalism, Classical and Egalitarian
Matt McManus

Roberta A. Modugno — The Levellers: The First Libertarians

Some interesting history.

The Levellers were one of the inspirations for classical liberalism and laissez-faire. Libertarianism is a contemporary manifestation of classical liberalism, in contrast to neoliberalism, which incorporates a role for the state in promoting commerce and capital formation.

Mises Institute — Mises Wire
The Levellers: The First Libertarians
Roberta A. Modugno

Trevor Louis — Classical Liberalism: How Small Government Can Regain Its Voice

The principles and values of classical liberalism are enshrined in American culture because they are what the nation was founded upon, unlike any other country on Earth.

Three of America’s mainstream ideologies have stemmed from a classical liberal culture: conservatism, libertarianism, and liberalism. Their own spin on the ideology of their roots follows as a result of the primary goal of each - preserving the social order, preserving liberty, and solving social problems, respectively. While these goals have put the competing ideologies at odds with each other over the past several decades, they must unite lest they let the fascists and Marxists gaining in power bring about the end of the “liberal consensus” (in the classical sense) these three ideologies have forged, which Ross Douthat identifies as a possibility.

A coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and reasonable liberals can emerge by returning to the classical liberal tradition of their roots. Conservatives would have to drop their tendency to bring religion into politics. Libertarians would have to drop their tendency to see no legitimate role for government at all. Liberals would have to drop their tendency to use the government as a vehicle for social change. If done properly, this could create a governing majority that wants to reduce the size and power of government in a secularized America.…

Some paradoxes of liberalism. Can liberals unite and create a political coalition in spite of them? I doubt it. The differences are too great to bridge based on "freedom" alone.

It's a pretty good post for a high school student though.

The American Thinker
Classical Liberalism: How Small Government Can Regain Its Voice
Trevor Louis, student at Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC

John Quiggin on John Locke's Classical Liberalism

Weekend reading on liberalism. These are short posts and they provide a good background in many political issues now to the fore in US politics.

John Locke was a proponent of bourgeois liberalism aka propertarianism. In this view the sole purpose of civil government is the protection of private property. John Quiggin exposes this idol of liberalism as having feet of clay. It also explains how many of the American founding fathers from the slave owing states saw no conflict between liberalism and slavery, which otherwise might seem a puzzling oversight or rank hypocrisy. Locke justified it for them because he was one of them, albeit in absentia.

Short Summary: John Locke, an enemy of freedom – John Quiggin

John Locke Against Freedom | John Quiggin - Jacobin

John Locke’s Road to Serfdom | John Quiggin - Jacobin

Locke’s Folly | John Quiggin - Jacobin

John Quiggin — Locke’s Folly

Jeffersonian Democrats made a serious attempt to implement Locke’s theories. Colonization and expropriation followed.

John Locke was an Enlightenment philosopher with an agenda — bourgeois liberalism based on freedom, to exploit land and workers that is.

Jacobin
Locke’s Folly
John Quiggin | Professor of Economics and an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland, and a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government

Anthony Gottlieb — The tolerant philosopher: why Pierre Bayle is the forgotten figure of the Enlightenment

If you are into the history of liberalism and the Enlightenment.

New Statesman
The tolerant philosopher: why Pierre Bayle is the forgotten figure of the Enlightenment

Anthony Gottlieb

Miles Kimball — The Complexity of Liberty: How Equality Enters into a Good Definition of Liberty

Having blogged through to the end of On Liberty, I know that what John Stuart Mill claims in the 9th paragraph of the “Introductory” to On Liberty is simple is anything but simple…

Liberalism deals with harmonizing freedom, egality, and community, another one of those pesky trifectas.

Confessions of a Supply Side Liberal
The Complexity of Liberty: How Equality Enters into a Good Definition of Liberty
Miles Kimball | Professor of Economics and Survey Research at the University of Michigan

Jag Bhalla — Stop Associating Adam Smith with Laissez-Faire Economics

Some keeper Smith quotes.

Evonomics
Stop Associating Adam Smith with Laissez-Faire Economics
Jag Bhalla

Brad DeLong — Must-Read: Marshall I. Steinbaum and Bernard A. Weisberger: Economics was Once Radical: Then It Decided Not to Be

Related factoid.

Until 1886 [John Bates] Clark was a Christian socialist reflecting the view of his German teachers that competition is no universal remedy – especially not for fixing wages. Wikipedia 

WCEG — The Equitablog

Must-Read: Marshall I. Steinbaum and Bernard A. Weisberger: Economics was Once Radical: Then It Decided Not to Be

Brad DeLong

John Quiggin — John Locke’s Road to Serfdom

John Locke advocated for a world based on expropriation, enslavement, and serfdom.

Jacobin
John Locke’s Road to Serfdom
John Quiggin

Alberto Mingardi — Herbert Spencer, the misunderstood libertarian

Why Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), you may ask. Spencer was an intellectual giant towering over his age along with several other intellectual giants, even though he is almost forgotten today as a major thinker and influencer. But he was a prominent influencer at the time that economic liberalism was in its later formative stages. We remember his contemporaries Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, for example, for their lasting influence, but Spencer's influence has been submerged in the general cultural paradigm and mostly overlooked. See The Man Versus The State, with Six Essays on Government, Society, and Freedom.

I would also call attention to Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) as an important but largely forgotten early liberal influencer. See Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Sphere and Duties of Government (The Limits of State Action) (1854 ed.)[1792], Translator: Joseph Coulthard.

EconLog
Herbert Spencer, the misunderstood libertarian

Alberto Mingardi | Director General of Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy's free-market think tank

Matias Vernengo — Beyond Laissez-faire? Seriously?

The world is still operating within the laissez-faire framework of classical liberalism, that is, in contextual terms of the 18th and 19th century, modified as 20th century neoliberalism. Time to catch up. Old Keynesianism, Post Keynesianism and Marxian economics still ruled out of the mainstream.

Naked Keynesianism
Beyond Laissez-faire? Seriously?
Matias Vernengo | Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University

Patrick L. Smith — Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein: Greece and Ukraine are the hot spots of a new war for supremacy

We should be considering the Greece and Ukraine crises together. If only the news media would allow that…

There is something tragically irrational driving both of these crises. The genesis of each, at least nominally, is the question of whether markets serve society or it is the other way around. Economic conflict, then, has been transformed into humanitarian disasters. This is what Greece and Ukraine have most fundamentally in common. 

It is in search of a logical explanation of the illogic at work in these two crises that something else, something larger, emerges to bring them into a coherent whole. Washington has so many wars going now, none declared, one can hardly keep the list current. But the most sustained and havoc-wreaking of them is unreported. This is the war for neoliberal supremacy across the planet. Greece and Ukraine are best viewed as two hot fronts in this war, a sort of World War III none of us ever imagined.

Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein. The thought holds for two reasons. At its core it is profoundly undemocratic, never mind that the English and American variants of democracy are the mulch from which it arises. It is also unrelentingly absolutist: Because it is intimately related to the myth of America’s providential exception, neoliberalism can tolerate no alternative. Were another idea of political economy to flourish it would expose premodern myth as premodern myth.…

Good snapshot of the birth and development of liberalism from classical to progressive on one hand and neoliberal on the other. Smith is well-informed both about history and current affairs, and he summarizes the essentials.

Salon

Neoliberalism is our Frankenstein: Greece and Ukraine are the hot spots of a new war for supremacy
Patrick L. Smith | International Herald Tribune’s bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992.

Michael Lind — Libertarians hijacked the right: How free-market zealots doomed American conservatism

Instead of denouncing the Koch brothers, the Club for Growth, Paul Ryan and other free-market zealots on the right, American progressives should thank them for hijacking American conservatism and compelling it to push a libertarian agenda of privatizing Social Security, voucherizing Medicare and abolishing the minimum wage that has zero political appeal.

Salon

Libertarians hijacked the right: How free-market zealots doomed American conservatism

Michael Lind

Peter Radford — Is Economic Orthodoxy Anti-Democracy?

Yes it is.

The explanation is found in the genesis of classical economics and then in its idealization of the marketplace.

"It's the assumptions, stupid."

The Radford Free Press
Is Economic Orthodoxy Anti-Democracy?
Peter Radford

Matt Bruenig — Capitalism Whack-A-Mole

There is no general framework of morality or justice that supports laissez-faire capitalism. This is a problem of course for those who wish to argue on behalf of it. When you talk to such people, a familiar argumentative pattern emerges that I have come to call Capitalism Whack-A-Mole.

Someone playing Capitalism Whack-A-Mole moves seamlessly between three different — and mutually incompatible — frameworks of justification. Those frameworks are desert (each person should get what they produce with their labor), voluntarism (each person should get whatever they come about through voluntary, non-coercive means), and utility (the economic system should be created to maximize well-being). This Capitalism Whack-A-Mole does not need a starting point, but, in my experience, either desert or voluntarism comes first, with utility the back up when the argument turns really bad.

Here is a simulation of one such argument.

MattBruenig | Politics

Capitalism Whack-A-Mole
Matt Bruenig

Brad DeLong — Karl Polanyi, Classical Liberalism, and the Varieties of "Neoliberalism"

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation is certainly the right place to start in thinking about "neoliberalism" and its global spread. But you are right to notice and do need to keep thinking that Polanyi is talking about pre-World War II classical liberalism, and that modern post-1980 neoliberalism is somewhat different.  

First, as I, at least, see it, there are three strands of thought that together make up the current of ideas and policies that people call "neoliberalism":

1. The revived and restored classical liberals, via the Mont Pelerin society and so forth—-and they do indeed have an attachment to the gold standard. 
2. The Milton Friedman neoliberals—-who believe that the gold standard was a disaster and the government needed to guarantee full employment (and low inflation) via activist monetary policy. But, they go on, attempts by the government to do more than simply maintain full employment and price stability would inevitably come to grief. Government policies would be turned to enrich the politically powerful rather than to enhance social welfare, and so almost always do more harm than good. (Why he thought that activist monetary policy was different—-why Milton Friedman believed government could be successful there while it could not be successful anywhere else—-was never something that he could explain very well.)
3. The Washington Monthly neoliberals, who argued that 1945-1980 had demonstrated that central planning of all kinds had grave deficiencies, and the governments that wanted to achieve social democratic ends were more often than not better off doing so through market means and market incentives than with bureaucracy. 

There are also differences with respect to the value put on democracy and liberty. The classical liberals wanted limited and representative government, which is a very different thing than modern political democracy, and were as likely or not to approve of traditional deference traditional social authority structures. Washington Monthly neoliberals are social liberals, and are democrats first and neoliberals second. Milton Friedman neoliberals tend to be true libertarians--social liberals--and want democracy constrained to preserve both social and economic liberties. Mont Pelerin neoliberals tend to be social conservatives, and to at least play with endorsing fascist and authoritarian dictators like Mussolini and Pinochet.…

You probably want to read the rest, too.

I have always thought of myself as a Washington Monthly neoliberal, and I am trying to resist the transformation into a Milton Friedman neoliberal.…

Grasping Reality

Karl Polanyi, Classical Liberalism, and the Varieties of "Neoliberalism"
J. Bradford DeLong | Pofessor of Economics and chair of the Political Economy major at the University of California, Berkeley