The Ways in Which the Liberalism Ideology Has Changed from Its Classical Origins - Essay Example

number) Liberalism Introduction Most societies are governed by varying ideals. These ideals often determine the direction of the political and the societal decisions within a territory. This paper shall compare and contrast the ways in which the liberalism ideology has changed from its classical origins to the contemporary form it now takes. It shall also discuss the extent to which this ideology has transformed itself. In other words, it shall seek to answer whether or not it can still call itself liberalism. In answering these issues, this paper seeks to conclude whether there is a core or essence of liberalism which has survived and which gives it lasting meaning. This study is being undertaken in order to conceptualize a thorough understanding of the development of liberalism throughout the years. Discussion Liberalism came about in the Enlightenment period and it was initiated by the views of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who set forth that man “always acts with a view to his own benefit, with the avoidance of violent death as the greatest of evils” (Sorrentino, p. 2). He saw the government as a necessary agency which would protect man from his instincts in gaining as much as he can from his actions. This thought process was supported to a certain extent by John Locke, but with some modification. Locke leaned more on the belief that man is by nature good and was rational enough in following his natural rights – that of protecting and preserving his life under the inherent laws and conditions appropriated by God. Locke also emphasized that there is a need for man to protect his natural rights and to carry out the natural rules given to him by God (Sorrentino, p. 3). In a way, this formed the basis of the thought process in liberalism which accepts the need for government control. Nevertheless, the importance of protecting man’s basic rights has been highlighted by early liberalism ideals. French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau supported the fact that government was needed in order to unite people (Sorrentino, p. 3). These philosophers had different views of the social contract as they supported the liberal ideal that government is essential in protecting social harmony. The ideas of these philosophers were advocated and supported during the Enlightenment era and further supported by nineteenth century philosophers. Adam Smith also saw the roots of his commercial liberalism in these philosophers. He believed that commercial liberty has a natural counterpart in the constitutional order where the civil and political rights are protected (Sorrentino, p. 4). Jeremy Bentham had also a similar view with Adam Smith as he advocated the laissez faire policy in economic policies. Bentham however did not support the idea of natural law because he believed that the state is there to protect human welfare. This view seems to be supported in the current context of liberalism. Liberalism somehow evolved with the period of Enlightenment as the people seemed to take on a more ‘enlightened’ view of the world and of their natural rights within contemporary society. In general however, it is John Locke who is credited for advocating the formal foundations of liberalism. From his ideas, liberalism found its roots in his claims that all men are “by nature free and equal against claims that God has made all people naturally subject to a monarch” (Tuckness). Locke believed that people have basic rights to life, liberty, and property and these rights are the foundations of a liberal society. Locke’s belief in the freedom and equality of men justified the existence of legitimate government based on a social contract where men transferred their rights to the government in order to secure their enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and their property (Tuckness). However, even before these concepts of liberalism were laid out, the principles which have fundamentally differentiated liberalism from other ideals have already been present in civil society. The “primacy of the individual; the distinction between civil society and the political state; natural law and natural rights; political equality and limited government; private property and free enterprise – existed in piecemeal form at various times before the advent of John Locke” (Loberfeld). Nevertheless, it is still John Locke who has sown the roots of liberalism. Through his beliefs, other liberalist philosophers were able to conceptualize growth in the context of the basic premises of natural rights and justice. In effect, these philosophers were eventually able to gain better acceptance from society and the rest of the free thinkers of their time. Through his book, ‘Second Treatise on Government,’ Locke extracted the ideals from previous schools of thought and linked them with each other to apply within the context of contemporary government as a means of challenging the dominant monarchial rule (Ward, p. 171). The earliest conceptualizations of liberalism arose as a response to monarchial rule which largely dominated government and political processes during Locke’s time. In a major effort to oppose monarchial rule, Locke laid out that “the natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only have the law of nature for his rule” (as cited by Loberfeld). He subsequently relegates the role of government to less dominant task in governance – that of preserving property. From such thought processes, the minimalist view of the government came into being. The ideals of Locke would later be echoed in the American colonists in their Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” (as cited by Sorrentino, p. 4). These ideals advocated by this principles set forth by America’s founding fathers were soon to fuel the American Civil War. Adam Smith took liberalism one step further – on to the world of economics through his book ‘Wealth of Nations.’ Smith emphasized the importance of the free market and free trade (Tribe, p. 609). This is part of the liberalist growth into the field of economics with considerations of making the trading processes less restrictive and more competitive for all interested parties. Liberalism flourished in the 1800s and on to the early 1900s as it saw the following developments: industrial improvements; increase in population; improvements in living accommodations; growth in individual goals and social tolerance; abolition of slavery; reduced incidents of war; and decreased incidence of authoritarianism (Loberfeld). In this time period, it was noted that law-abiding citizens could live their lives and carry out their daily activities without being drawing the notice of the state (Rabushka, p. 80). Basically, the government left its citizens alone. This is part of the laissez faire concept which has been protected by liberalist policies and ideals. This is classical liberalism. From the basic concepts laid out by John Locke, liberalism transformed and moved away from the American context of liberalism – away from the concept of domestic freedom and foreign non-entanglement to the so-called welfare-warfare state (Rothbard, p. 1). In this context, liberalism moved away from advocating limited government involvement to one of expanding the power and concept of the state. Some economists like Joseph Schumpeter considered this as terminology theft. Terminology theft retains its meaning within the North American Continent and the liberal concept favors laissez faire (Loberfeld). It is essentially difficult to implement the welfare state as a new idea in a land where the policies are very much traditional and ingrained in the system. Moreover, liberalism has not really lost its original meaning. In the US, the UK, or even in Sweden, liberal democracy is equivalent to political freedom and private property which still forms the foundations of each country (Loberfeld). The argument that the change in liberalism is equivalent to a change in the liberal thought is based on the ideals of John Stuart Mill. Mill actually did not embrace the ideals of socialism; he actually disagreed with many of its tenets (Bellamy, p. 30). His disagreement with liberalism came forth with the suggestion that the distribution of wealth was not subject to natural economic policies or even property rights. This in fact is the current Anglo-American model of liberalism. Dicey was one of the legal scholars who set forth that Mill’s objection was based on the liberalist transition from individualism to collectivism (Loberfeld). His teachings impacted on men entering into public service in the late 1800s; it prepared these men to accept collectivism which was, at that time, gaining momentum. Eventually, the followers of collectivism like Hobhouse who did not agree with Fabian’s concept of liberalism and Shavian’s thoughts on authoritarianism would look to Mill and claim that their collectivism was the “scion of liberal ancestry – which seems to bring us back to the velvet glove” (Loberfeld). In its current context, liberalism refers more to the concept of a mixed economy – neither completely capitalist nor totally socialist (Jessop, p. 454). It is actually a combination of the liberal and the anti-liberal concepts. Hayek was one of the liberalists who observed that “If we have the redistribution of wealth, then what of private property? If we enact biased laws to effect economic (or social) equality, then what of political equality? If we regard the collective as the essential entity…then what of the primacy of the individual?” (Loberfeld). These are issues and contradictions within the liberal ideologies which have often fueled the need for more prudent ponderings within both the liberal and conservative plains of thought. Liberalism has undergone a significant change in the last century and this change has gone beyond a change in political beliefs and practices. Its changes are attributed to the shift in the basic outlook of Western man which stemmed from the shift away from Christianity and from the earlier concepts of morality. Liberalism transformation is said to be a manifestation of new sensibilities, of new ways of living life, and of the new ways of living in the moral and aesthetic scenario of the West; these changes made new Western political ideals desirable (Ryn, p. 9). Traditional concepts of liberalism are based on the initiatives of the nineteenth century; but the twentieth century initiated the proliferation of the world view which gave rise to socialism; and liberalism essentially followed its lead. In the United States, the concept of liberalism seems to be very different from the concept of liberalism established in the nineteenth century (Ryn, p. 9). Traditional concepts of liberalism set forth the importance of limited government, rule of law, free markets, and constitutionalism. In the more conservative outlook, older liberalism presented a sense of dependence on historically transformed ways of life. Edmund Burke and Lexis Tocqueville belonged to this school of thought and they attached a significant amount of traditional beliefs in their political preferences. On the other side – the radical side – liberalism’s support for freedom and scientific reasoning was a major part of the shift away from old Western traditions, especially Christianity (Ryn, p. 10). Mill was very pragmatic and he set forth that “the despotism of custom is a standing hindrance to human advancement” (Ryn, p. 10). He believed that applying unrestricted freedom in discussions would eliminate the outdated and superstitious beliefs and behaviors. In effect, the liberal elite would prompt the development of rational consensus. As liberalism distanced itself from the teachings of Christianity, it was also absorbed into socialism. Its ideas which were not summarily dismissed were reinterpreted based on concepts which gave fuel to socialism. This included the view of human nature and society based to Rousseau and his belief in the concept of radical reconstruction of society (Ryn, p. 10). Liberalism therefore found more weapons to attack the traditional thoughts in Western society. The new liberals were radical in America in raising issues against the old morals and customs of social democrats (Weinstein, p. 16). America’s liberals are actually different from the European liberals with Europeans dedicated more to the Welfare State, moral radicalism, with some preference for free, but regulated markets. The American socialists are more into hiding their innermost beliefs because of the greater number of voters and competitors with conservative beliefs (Ryn, p. 10). The blending of liberalism and socialism became apparent in the twentieth century and this blending has been facilitated by socialists applying more practical economic views. In the 1970s the liberalist-socialist concept was set forth by John Rawls. His theory of justice was a departure from the principles laid out by John Locke. Rawls saw a centrally managed society ruled for the benefit of all people (van der Brink, p. 42). In this regard, the expansion of the government was justified because it helped secure and enact justice. This thought process was the opposite of the ideals of the nineteenth century liberal; however, “under the influence of postmodernism, feminism, the homosexual-rights movement, multiculturalism, etc., liberalism took unto itself additional assignments, becoming ever more intent on employing government to shape the conduct and thinking of individuals” (Ryn, p. 8). New liberalism appeals to the current context because it seems to free people from the traditional moral and cultural limitations of society; allowing them to participate in behavior and activities which have often been disapproved or condemned for moral and ethical reasons. Where liberalism was originally thought of as a response to the stifling control of monarchial rule, the more current understanding of liberalism also involves the inevitability of portraying the traditional concepts of proper behavior as tantamount to narrow-mindedness and worthy of condemnation and punishment (van der Brink, p. 43). In this contemporary context, the government is now viewed as an agency which weeds out moral and cultural preferences and then implements the new and more liberal ones. In effect, the process of attributing government with numerous responsibilities is part of the enactment of a new worldwide order (Ryn, p. 8). The transformation of liberal ideals and the incorporation of new political conceptualizations into its practice can be seen in the manner by which it is accommodated by writers who support religion and moral practice, but who also do not wish to be left out of the new liberal agreement. These individuals seem to favor liberalism; but they also suggest that it can be improved by accepting its religious implications (Wolfe, p. 9). In this regard, they cannot be considered wholly supportive of the modern concepts of liberalism, as they cling to the traditions and morals of conservative society. The transformation of liberalism throughout the years has largely been based on the importance of securing and of allowing man to fully enjoy his rights. It was first started as a response to monarchial rule – a highly traditional and socially, as well as morally restrictive form of government. Now, liberalism is still very much a response to restrictions and traditions -- and of securing homosexual rights, feminism, multiculturalism and similar rights (Ryn, p. 9). Its acceptance of other people’s ideals have also shifted throughout the years; now it has adopted a more accepting attitude of varying ideals, including traditional ones. This is not to say that all liberalists have implemented this acceptance of other people’s beliefs; the managerial elites set forth that their sole interest lies mainly in instrumentalizing some groups which might undermine traditions and cultural identities (Ryn, p. 9). In effect, the traditional meaning of liberalism has now been replaced by the ideals which are trending in American society – gay rights, feminism, and unrestricted immigration, among others. A liberal is now largely based on what the user intends to express or signify, as long as he can convince other people to share his opinions as well (Ryn, p. 9). In so many ways, the new liberal flows in and out of what is ‘in fashion.’ In this case, if the modern ideals present the support of gay rights, then the liberal would take on that ideal – because it breaks away from the traditions and morals of a society. However, liberalism in its very core has still retained its essential ideals – that of protecting the people’s right, liberty, and property. This is the very essence of liberalism – that all people have rights and liberties and that these rights, whether they be tangible or intangible, resides in every individual and must be protected. Efforts to reduce or to compromise these rights are therefore against the ideals of liberalism. Liberalism is about straining against efforts to suppress these rights and liberties. For the most part, traditions and moral ideals often stifle or interfere with the exercise of these rights. It is incumbent upon the liberal to uphold these rights and protect their manifestations. Liberalism in relation to free trade has also remained one of the more contemporary features of liberalism. Laissez faire is part and parcel of liberalism and this practice has managed to enjoy success within the liberalist context (Loberfeld). However, laissez faire is not necessarily synonymous with economic liberalism; instead, laissez faire is only one of the ways by which liberalism can be achieved (Harris, p. 127). For those engaged in trade and business in the liberal society are therefore allowed to use laissez faire to promote the ideals of liberalism. Economic liberalism is founded on the need to set up institutions in order to ensure adequate access of each individual to the societal and legal processes which would assist him in carrying out his economic activities. The government’s role in this set-up is not as limited as was originally conceptualized by the original liberalists. These liberalists have, after all, understood the value of government in securing the fair practice of rights within the liberal context. Conclusion The discussion above sets forth how liberalism has transformed over the years. It was first built as a response to the restrictions of monarchial rule and of traditional and moral society. In the nineteenth century, the role of the government in the liberal society was very much minimal; men were left to do what they wanted and to freely expect security in their rights, liberty, and property. This is the very essence of liberalism. Throughout the years, this ideal was resorted to in order to lend support for attempts to be less traditional and to be restricted by morals. It also evolved closely into socialist ideals and concepts. In the economic context, liberalism also saw application. It has changed significantly over the years. In the most contemporary context, liberalism is related to the support attributed to gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism, and similar rights and liberties. The ideals of laissez faire has been included as part of liberal ideals. It has however retained its core values, that of protecting the inalienable rights, liberties, and property of every individual. Works Cited Bellamy, R. Rethinking Liberalism. 2000. New York: Continuum International Publishing Harris, S. Postwar economic problems. 1972. California: Ayer Publishers Jessop, B. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State Theoretical Perspective. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing JRank. Liberalism - The Historical Development Of The Liberal Idea. 2011. 10 April 2011 from http://science.jrank.org/pages/9957/Liberalism-Historical-Development-Liberal-Idea.html Loberfeld, B. Liberalism: History and Future. ABCD Unlimited 2004. 10 April 2011 from http://abcdunlimited.com/ideas/liberalism.html Rabushka, A. From Adam Smith to the Wealth of America. 1985. New York: Transaction Publishers Rothbard, D. The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique. (n.d). 10 April 2011 from http://www.rothbard.it/essays/the-great-society-a-libertarian-critique.doc Ryn, C. Dimensions of Power: The Transformation of Liberalism and the Limits of ‘Politics’. Humanitas, 2000, volume 13(2), pp. 4-27 Sorrentino, C. A concise history of the evolution of liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. Carleton University. 2011. 10 April 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/49858481/A-concise-history-of-the-evolution-of-liberalism-conservatism-and-nationalism Tribe, K. Adam Smith: Critical Theorist? Journal of Economic Literature, 1999, volume 37, pp. 609–632 Tuckness, A. Locke's Political Philosophy. Stanford University. 2005. 10 April 2011 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ Van der Brink, B. The tragedy of liberalism: an alternative defense of a political tradition. 2000. New York: State of New York Press Ward, L. John Locke and Modern Life. 2010. New York: Cambridge University Press Weinstein, D. Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism. 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press Wolfe, C. Natural law liberalism. 2006. New York: Cambridge University Press Read More