The Future of Liberalism

1. Liberalism's Enduring Value: A Tripartite Philosophy for Modernity

Modern citizens all too often forget that the liberal way of life is a good way of life, indeed, under the political conditions in which they live, the best way of life.

A crisis of confidence. Despite its historical success in fostering individual freedom and collective purpose, liberalism today suffers from a crisis of confidence, often misunderstood or maligned by its critics. This dominant political philosophy, rooted in John Locke's ideas of freedom and equality, has shaped modern societies globally, yet its foundational principles are frequently taken for granted or actively attacked. The book argues for a recovery of liberalism, emphasizing its universal appeal and its superiority over leading alternatives.

Three core dimensions. Liberalism is best understood through its three interconnected dimensions: substantive, procedural, and temperamental.

• Substantive: Commitment to liberty and equality, ensuring individuals have a say over their lives and opportunities to realize their full potential.
• Procedural: Adherence to constitutional rules and fair processes to peacefully negotiate differences, as an alternative to violence and absolutism.
• Temperamental: An inherent openness to the world, characterized by generosity, acceptance, respect, and a rejection of fear-based arguments.

Beyond partisan labels. These dimensions highlight that liberalism is more than a political party's platform; it's a way of thinking and acting essential for respecting human integrity and designing institutions that serve human needs. Critics often conflate liberalism with specific policies or partisan politics, but its deeper philosophical underpinnings offer a robust guide for navigating the complexities of modern life, ensuring individual freedom and a collective sense of purpose.

2. Humanity's Self-Creation: The Triumph of Culture Over Nature

Liberalism begins with the conviction that the question of human nature is up to human beings to decide; even if their nature makes them bad, their works can make them good.

Artifice over nature. Liberalism fundamentally believes that human beings are not fixed or predetermined by nature or divine will, but are actively shaped by their own deliberate acts and the cultural conditions they create. This perspective, championed by Immanuel Kant against Jean-Jacques Rousseau's romanticized view of a "state of nature," asserts that society and culture are not corrupting forces but essential for human development, morality, and freedom.

Purpose-driven existence. Thinkers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill emphasized that humans bring purpose to their lives through intentional cooperation and self-improvement. This contrasts sharply with views that see humans as inherently flawed or enslaved by genetic destiny, as suggested by some conservative religious figures or evolutionary psychologists.

• Locke: Humans appropriate nature for use through labor and society.
• Mill: Individuals strive for excellence and develop capacities through interaction.

Rejecting self-incapacitation. The liberal view challenges "self-incapacitating" narratives, whether religious or scientific, that claim humans are powerless to alter their condition. Instead, it posits that freedom and equality are achievements of human culture, requiring continuous effort to govern nature rather than be governed by it. This optimistic view of human capacity is central to liberalism's project of progress.

3. Equality's Inevitable Ascent in Modern Societies

Modernity creates inevitable pressures toward equality; once the industrial and democratic revolutions took off, unjustified inequalities could no longer be sustained.

A contested ideal. Historically, equality was a bitterly contested concept, often dismissed as chimeric by philosophers from Plato to Burke. However, the French and American Revolutions, with their declarations of equal rights, set in motion an unstoppable process. Modern societies, built on the premise of human legitimacy, found it increasingly difficult to justify inherited status or arbitrary discrimination.

Beyond radical egalitarianism. Liberal equality is not about achieving identical outcomes, a goal more associated with failed socialist experiments. Instead, it focuses on ensuring equality of opportunity and the capacity for individuals to shape their lives. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and R.H. Tawney argued that modern interdependence makes broad equality necessary for individual flourishing.

• Mill: Physical force no longer dictates social order; modern society demands justice and cultivated sympathy.
• Tawney: Social institutions should emphasize common humanity, using material resources to promote individual dignity.

The welfare state as moral institution. The rise of the welfare state, influenced by religious and secular moralists like T.H. Green, Walter Rauschenbusch, and T.H. Marshall, institutionalized the idea that society has a collective obligation to mitigate inequalities. This was not merely an economic program but a moral imperative, transforming justice into social justice and recognizing that arbitrary misfortune should not seal one's doom. Despite conservative attempts to roll it back, the welfare state's popularity and persistence demonstrate the enduring, almost inevitable, demand for equality in modern life.

4. Politics Demands Realism and Reason, Not Romantic Passion

Of all of liberalism's dispositions, a wariness toward what William Wordsworth in his preface to the second edition of Lyrical Ballads called “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” is one of the most important.

The dangers of romanticism. Liberalism, born in an era of intense political and artistic fervor, learned to distrust the "spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" in politics. While romanticism can inspire art and personal expression, its application to public life often leads to militarism, fervent nationalism, and ideological extremism, as seen in the Napoleonic Wars and subsequent conflicts. John Stuart Mill, though drawn to romanticism's vitality, ultimately recognized the need for Bentham's "precision of thought" in political philosophy.

War as a science. Carl von Clausewitz, a contemporary of the Romantic poets, understood that war is a science requiring dispassion and clinical precision, not risky adventurism or quests for glory. Liberalism, while not pacifist, approaches conflict with a Clausewitzian realism, prioritizing negotiation and compromise in domestic politics to ensure that international conflicts are treated as problems to be solved, not crusades to be won.

Containing ideology. The post-World War II "end of ideology" thinkers like Daniel Bell and Lionel Trilling emphasized irony and skepticism as antidotes to the passionate, black-and-white thinking of ideologies like Marxism. They argued that a responsible politics requires an "ethic of responsibility" (Max Weber) that prioritizes practical management and sober assessment over utopian visions or emotional fervor. This anti-ideological stance is crucial for maintaining stability and preventing politics from becoming a "struggle to the death."

5. The Rule of Law: Liberalism's Defense Against Arbitrary Power

Within the political realm, rules became more fundamental than values.

Constitutional constraints. Benjamin Constant, witnessing the French Revolution's excesses, argued for the "liberty of the moderns," emphasizing individual rights protected by constitutional rules and the separation of powers. This procedural liberalism, echoed by James Madison in the U.S. Constitution, aims to tame political passions and ensure that leaders are governed by laws, not by their own arbitrary will or the fleeting emotions of the populace.

Against the "state of exception." Carl Schmitt, a German jurist who supported Nazism, vehemently rejected liberal proceduralism, arguing that true sovereignty lies in the power to decide on the "exception" – to suspend laws in a crisis. He believed that liberalism's emphasis on discussion and checks and balances made it weak and apolitical, unable to confront real enemies. However, Constant's foresight reminds us that resorting to arbitrary measures, even in emergencies, sacrifices the very purpose of authority: to secure individual freedoms.

The danger of decisionism. Schmitt's "decisionism" – the idea that making a decision is more important than how it's made – and his "friend-enemy distinction" provide intellectual foundations for authoritarianism. When applied in practice, as seen in the George W. Bush administration's "unitary executive" theory and its approach to the "war on terror," it leads to the erosion of checks and balances, disregard for civil liberties, and a concentration of power that ultimately undermines both constitutional values and national security. Liberal proceduralism, by contrast, ensures that even in crisis, decisions are made through deliberation, fostering broader support and more effective outcomes.

6. Embracing Religious Freedom: Both From and For Faith

When it came to religion, liberals knew they wanted to be on the side of openness. They were never quite sure what they should be open toward.

The Enlightenment's dilemma. Enlightenment thinkers like Kant and Locke championed "freedom from religion," challenging dogma, superstition, and the coercive power of state-backed churches. However, liberalism also demands "freedom for religion," recognizing the inalienable right of individuals to believe and practice their faith voluntarily. This dual commitment is crucial for an open society, allowing for both secular reason and diverse spiritual convictions.

American exceptionalism. The United States, influenced by figures like John Locke and evangelical preacher John Leland, uniquely forged a strong tradition of church-state separation, not out of hostility to faith, but to protect it from state interference. Leland, a Baptist, allied with Madison and Jefferson to ensure religious liberty, demonstrating that religious conviction and liberal principles could be complementary, not contradictory.

Navigating contemporary challenges. Today, liberals face a triple duty:

• Against conservative theocrats: Who abandon separationism for an "accommodationist" stance, risking the prophetic voice of faith.
• Against illiberal secularists: Who, like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, dismiss all religion as "mad" or "delusional," advocating for its stigmatization rather than toleration.
• Against postmodernists: Who argue that religious freedom is impossible to define or that liberalism inherently co-opts faith.

True liberalism insists that belief can flourish in private without monopolizing public violence, and that an open mind means respecting diverse convictions, even those considered foolish by others, without sacrificing the commitment to reason and individual autonomy.

7. An Open Society Requires Active Cultivation and Deliberation

What is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said.

Beyond mere absence of restraint. An open society is not simply one free from censorship; it actively cultivates an informed and deliberative public. John Stuart Mill, while defending unpopular ideas, worried about the "tyranny of the majority" and public mediocrity. However, thinkers like John Dewey and Justice Louis D. Brandeis argued that the public is a "creature of artifice," capable of enlightenment through robust communication and education.

The public sphere's purpose. The goal of free speech, as articulated by Brandeis and Alexander Meiklejohn, is not just to allow "free trade in ideas" (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) but to improve the quality of public discourse and enable citizens to make wise decisions. This implies a positive role for government in fostering conditions for informed deliberation, rather than a passive, laissez-faire approach.

• Brandeis: Valued liberty as both an end and a means to develop faculties and ensure deliberative forces prevail.
• Meiklejohn: Emphasized that "everything worth saying shall be said" and voters must be "made as wise as possible."

Balancing freedom and equality. Contemporary debates over hate speech and campaign finance reform illustrate the tension between free expression and equality. While hate speech should generally be protected to avoid censorship and encourage open communication, campaign finance reform is necessary to prevent wealthy interests from distorting public discourse and undermining the capacity for genuine deliberation. An open society thrives when it encourages citizens to use their full capacities as speakers and thinkers, ensuring that the marketplace of ideas is not merely a marketplace of money.

8. Effective Governance: Liberalism's Embrace of the Capable State

Government grows because, all things considered, we would rather lead better lives than miserable lives.

The state's indispensable role. Modernity has made the state an unavoidable and indispensable institution for achieving the good life. From building infrastructure and ensuring economic security to protecting against natural disasters and promoting social justice, government provides the collective capacity for human beings to shape their destiny. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 starkly demonstrated that nature's fury demands a robust, competent state response, not a retreat from governmental action.

Overcoming the "curse of the state." While other political philosophies have struggled with the state's power—romanticism with militarism, nationalism with bureaucracy, socialism with totalitarianism, and traditional conservatism with laissez-faire—liberalism has adapted. It moved from early laissez-faire to embracing government as a "countervailing power" (John Kenneth Galbraith) against forces larger than individuals.

• FDR's New Deal: Mobilized government for public works and economic security, transforming the nation's infrastructure and social safety nets.
• LBJ's Great Society: Expanded government's role to address racial inequality, poverty, and healthcare, solidifying the welfare state.

Purposeful public administration. Liberalism views the state not as an end in itself, but as a means to help individuals lead autonomous lives. This requires effective public administration, guided by disinterest and reason, to manage the complexities of modern society. The failures of "planned incompetence" seen in the Bush administration's response to Katrina underscore that rejecting government's legitimacy leads to disastrous outcomes, proving that good governance is essential for human well-being.

9. Conservative Anti-Government Ideology Leads to Incompetence

For liberals, conservatives cannot govern for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon; if you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.

The Goldwater dilemma. American conservatism, particularly since Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, has been characterized by an ideological commitment to anti-government rhetoric and laissez-faire economics. This stance, while appealing to diverse segments of the Republican base, creates a fundamental contradiction: conservatives preach small government but, once in power, find themselves unable or unwilling to dismantle popular programs or resist using state power for their own ends.

Planned incompetence in action. The George W. Bush administration exemplified this "planned incompetence." Despite claiming managerial expertise, its response to Hurricane Katrina was paralyzed by an ideological aversion to federal intervention, prioritizing a philosophy of limited government over the immediate needs of suffering citizens. This approach, driven by figures like Joseph Allbaugh and Michael Brown, demonstrated that a deep distrust of government leads to administrative failure, even in critical situations.

A self-defeating stance. Attacks on government, while politically useful for rallying support, ultimately undermine the capacity for effective governance. When a party consistently denigrates the very institution it is tasked with running, it fosters a climate of inefficiency and irresponsibility. The Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility, expensive wars, and resistance to oversight, even from within its own party (e.g., libertarians), revealed the practical bankruptcy of an ideology that rejects the state's essential role in modern life.

10. Liberalism's Future: A Confident Path Through Modern Challenges

Of all the political world-views at our disposal, the most appropriate political philosophy for our times has the best chance of being the most appropriate for our children and grandchildren as well.

Modernity's enduring companion. Liberalism is not merely a political philosophy; it is modernity's most compatible companion, uniquely equipped to manage the complexities of a world defined by industrialization, urbanization, scientific advancement, and democratization. Its core dispositions—flexibility, openness, commitment to growth, and belief in human agency—align perfectly with the dynamic and unpredictable nature of modern life.

Beyond the "end of history." While some proclaim the "end of history" or liberalism's obsolescence, its success in overcoming economic catastrophes, building infrastructure, advancing equality, and confronting totalitarian threats demonstrates its enduring relevance. Critics, whether conservative populists, globalists, or anti-liberal terrorists, often inadvertently confirm liberalism's dominance by adopting its language or reacting against its pervasive influence.

The challenge of self-belief. Liberalism's biggest challenge is not external rivals, but internal self-doubt among liberals themselves. Too often, liberal politicians lack the courage to proudly articulate their achievements and principles, pandering to perceived conservative sentiments rather than leading public opinion. The future of liberalism depends on liberals rediscovering their confidence, embracing their tradition of growth and leadership, and honestly confronting the world's challenges with their time-tested philosophy.