ALAN WOLFE APRIL 13, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
On a recent trip to the Twin Cities to give a lecture, I was invited to write something by the editors of Contexts, a snappy journal associated with the American Sociological Association designed to bring sociological knowledge to the informed reading public. The magazine runs a feature called "One Thing I Know." Tell us one thing you know, the editors asked.
Accepting their invitation, the one thing I claimed to know is that there is no such thing as a distinction between "classical" and "modern" liberalism. I felt I needed to say as much because everywhere I go, the moment I tell people that I have written a book about liberalism, I am invariably asked which of the two I mean. Classical liberalism, my interlocutors patiently explain to me, is that wonderful notion of the free market elucidated by Adam Smith that worships the idea of freedom. The modern version, by contrast, is committed to expansion of the state and, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to slavery. One must choose one or the other. There really is no such thing, therefore, as modern liberalism. If you opt for the market, you are a libertarian. If you choose government, you are a socialist or, in more recent times, a fascist.
I try to explain to people that in my book I reject any such distinction and argue instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. But so foreign is this idea to them that they stare at me in utter disbelief. How could I have possibly written a book on liberalism, I can almost hear them thinking, when this guy doesn't know a thing about it?
The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy. To me, perhaps because so little of the means of production lies under my control, this is a remarkably uninteresting subject. I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique. Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.
When instead we do discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.
The liberal tradition is about far more than questions of economics, as important as those questions are. Modern liberalism did not start with the New Deal and end with The War on Poverty. What my critics call modern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism. That is why Adam Smith is a liberal and twentieth century libertarians such as Hayek are not. The latter seek to straighten out the crooked timber of humanity by forcing everyone into a mold established by the market. We know what Keynes thought of such an idea. I am certain that Smith, had he seen what contemporary Smithians are about, would have agreed with him.
8 comments
You left out the march of time. At any given time, there is a liberal answer and a conservative answer. What was liberal in 1875 is probably conservative now.
- deeptrunk
April 13, 2009 at 11:11pm
The notion that the "market" is some mysterious force beyond control - good or bad - by humans has been foisted upon us by the spin doctors of the right since the Great Communicator talked a lot ans said nothing. The market is a place where things are pt on offer and people choose to stop or walk by. It has no memory, no opinion, no corrective powers, no enticements beyond those we give it - collectively. Hayek's perfect world of 250,000 like-minded souls would be as dull as his writing is now. Better to quote Mencken: "No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
- Megannety
April 14, 2009 at 10:06am
two typos - sorry.
- Megannety
April 14, 2009 at 10:23am
Barack Vs. The Banks: How Banks Are Winning The Battle To Control Obama's Economic Agenda. by John
- Anonymous
April 14, 2009 at 10:45am
Nothing could be further from classical liberalism than the American "liberalism" of today. The two are polar opposites. Classical liberalism is about the flourishing of the individual and the community through the free action of individuals. Modern liberalism is about government deciding what is good for the individual and imposing its decisions by force. That is precisely what Adam Smith and all the great classical liberals opposed.
The slogan of modern liberlism is “equality”, meaning not equality of opportunity but forced equality of outcome. In practice that amounts to efforts by government to hobble the more energetic and intelligent members of society so that that they don't reap "unjust" rewards. The inevitable result is the triumph of the lazy, the stupid and the mediocre. Let me modify that a bit. Under "liberalism" energetic and intelligent people do triumph, but they do so by demagoguery and dishonesty rather than by acting for the benefit of all.
Modern liberalism suffers from several problems. One is the question of legitimacy. Why should a particular class, say Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Alan Wolfe, and the faculties of the elite universities rule the rest of us? Is Nancy a countesss? Is Alan a duke?
Another problem is that the lust for leveling will likely destroy our society economically. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. Affirmative action/political correctness has trashed most of the humanities and social science departments in American universities. But hitherto math and physical science have for most part part escaped unscathed. But since the election of you- know-who the feminist mafia smells blood. They are demanding quotas in math and the hard sciences. You don’t have to have a Larry Summers size IQ to see where that will lead.
What Wolfe doesn’t understand is just how fragile are the achievements of western civilization and how large is the threat posed to those achievements by the Orwellian perversion of the definition of the liberalism.
- bulbman1066
April 15, 2009 at 4:00am
Bulbman, you characterization of "modern liberalism" is not accurate. It is precisely equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, that is the goal.
"In practice that amounts to efforts by government to hobble the more energetic and intelligent members of society so that that they don't reap "unjust" rewards. The inevitable result is the triumph of the lazy, the stupid and the mediocre."
I suppose by that you are referring to "redistribution" through taxes, affirmative action, etc. But look around you Bulbman. There has been no triiumph of the lazy and stupid over people with ambition and talent. In many cases, the people with talent and ambition (along with a lot of luck) have enjoyed success that far outstrips any superiority in ambition or talent. That we give a bit of our money to permit the "lazy and stupid" (and the unlucky) to at least survive does not constitute "equality of outcome" or the triumph of the lazy.
As to legitimacy, Pelosi and Reid, for better or worse,were democratically elected to office. You may disagree with their policies, but I don't know what more you would require to regard them as "legitimate" lawmakers. Alan Wolfe doesn't rule anybody. Nor to university faculty members.
Can you identify the humanties and social science programs that have been "trashed," and how it is that they have been trashed. Do you have a referencre for your claim that "feminist mafia" is demainding quotas in science and math?
- dhurtado
April 18, 2009 at 10:01am
There are two things in your short essay that are a bit odd. First, there may or may not be a distinction between a classic and a modern liberal. Your definition of a liberal - in most parlance is a classic one. Keynes thought that increased governmental interventions would improve people's lives but he did not necessarily think that his solutions would increase liberty. Keynes was a subtle thinker in many ways - but he was skeptical of the ability of individuals to make the right choices in many cases.
Second, one of the errors of many on the right is their ability to quote Smith without having read him. I would argue that from how you describe Hayek, you suffer from that same problem. Hayek, believed that markets offer a better system for accommodating human liberty. But that did not mean that he thought everyone be "forced" into a "mold established by the market." Hayek, unlike Keynes, did not want to force any individual into a mold.
A current assumption for many "modern liberals" is confirmed by Mencken's quote above. (Odd because Mencken is not often confused as a liberal - either classic or modern). Hayek on the other hand had a great deal of faith in the unique knowledge of every individual and more importantly that their collective vision (made up of individual decisions) would always be better than the top down notion of macro-istas like Keynes.
- drtaxsacto
May 11, 2009 at 8:59pm
Two recent discussions, one by the “conservative” Gary Becker (brought to my attention by Economist’s View) and the other by the “liberal” Alan Wolfe (which I saw at Cafe Hayek) BOTH seem confused about their own political creeds. This is...
- Anonymous
May 12, 2009 at 12:18am