A Modern Classic
Political ideologies shape much of our societal norms and values. Values that may appear as though they have always been the standard. This paper will explain how liberalism, in its primary forms, has shaped political ideology then and now. Classical and Modern liberalism are a mainstay of political theory that have evolved throughout the 17th and 20th century and continue to take on new form. We will examine several political topics through the two liberal lenses and how this may shape future policy. As you read on, we will seek to determine whether the individual or the individual with the assistance of government is best suited to answer societal questions.
Let’s first explore liberalism a la carte. Principles of the individual, freed, reason, justice and toleration are fundamental to liberal beliefs (Heywood, 2007, 27). Throughout much of human civilization the individual has played a secondary role to the larger collective body, class, and socioeconomic groups. You were either born with rights that allowed you to pursue your own interests or to serve the interests of those in the reigning class. For most people throughout recorded history, they fell into the latter group, to serve their superiors. This unequal relationship which flourished well into the 17th century begged the question, whose interests should be served, the subjects to the nobles or the subjects to their own interests? As the age of feudalism eroded away, a growing middle class sought to gain hold on their personal and economic future and challenge this very question (Heywood, 2007, 24).
The idea of the individual as a focal point was a radical ideological movement, a grassroots cause that later evolved into classical liberalism. This ideology had its cornerstone in limited government and emphasis on individual responsibility and self-reliance. In the 19th century the ideals of natural rights, utilitarianism, economic liberalism, and social Darwinism began to take place (Heywood, 2007, 45). Natural rights were revolutionary, in their own respect. Rights were not merely granted by government or ruler but were an inherent right. Utilitarianism is the belief that action is only beneficial if that action improves the group at large. Economic liberalism would follow laissez-faire, a free market to set demands and costs, without government oversight. Social Darwinism would allow society to follow a biological construct where the strongest and most self-reliant survive. With these beliefs set in place, we see a glimpse of a society built for the individual and not an individual for the society. Furthermore, a new-age bottom-up approach regarding social and economic practices began to take shape.
As industrialization paved the way in the 20th century, a new stem of liberalism began to emerge over growing concerns for the working class. A lack of regulation and isolationist social policy was a one-size concept that lacked personalization. The advancement of capitalism in society was one catalyst for change, many saw the power that was once shared began to be limited to individuals at the top. Identifying this trend as unsustainable and undesirable, government intervention was seen as the solution. What was once viewed as a necessary evil was now viewed as a tool, leading the way for modern liberalism (Heywood, 2007, 53). Modern liberalism shares its background and general beliefs with the classical view with notable exceptions. These include individuality, positive freedom, social liberalism, and economic management. Individuality allowed the free pursuit of talent and interests without restriction. Positive freedom would provide an environment for success, eliminating barriers for the individual. Social liberalism would provide for the poor or elderly, a social contract of sorts for those unable to help themselves. Lastly, economic management would reject laissez-faire due to the perceived failures of capitalism, ushering in government regulation to the marketplace. The classical-modern split is implementation of government as social and economic mediator (Heywood, 2007, 54).
Now let’s dive into several current events with these ideas in mind. Covid-19 has been unlike anything we have experienced in recent decades. It has brought individual hardship and peril to global markets. In March 2020, the US government passed an unprecedented 2 trillion-dollar stimulus bill, which included sending $1400 checks to qualifying citizens (Snell, K). Approximately one year later, the US government is preparing to pass another multi trillion-dollar aid package. For many the question becomes, what will the spending bill accomplish? Perhaps more importantly, what would happen without it? Despite a novel crisis, this does not change the terms we laid out earlier. Even in the midst of a crisis, classical liberals may not consider an increased governmental role permissible at any time. Responsibility would be left to the individual, for better or worse. From a modern mindset, a multi-trillion-dollar aid package may be seen as a duty of the government to help alleviate hardships.
Affirmative action is another issue we will analyze, this time through social Darwinism and social liberalism. Affirmative action is often defined as, “favoring individuals in groups that have been previously discriminated against” (Britannica, T). Social Darwinism has inherent limitations that fail to take history into account or means of determining a disadvantage, real or perceived. The argument could be made that this is outside the purview for a classically liberal society, whereas social liberalism aims to address these exact predicaments. We can look around and see how positive freedoms, a modern belief, dominate our political landscape. Classical liberals respond with one important question, is disadvantage avoidable? If so, to what end should it be avoided? Social Darwinism suggests if you work then you will prosper but if-then is not a universal assurance (Heywood, 2007, 51). Climate change evokes a similar argument. Should sanctions be preferred over profit, even if that profit directly benefits its constituents? Who should be the arbiter weighing such matters? As policymakers debate these ideas, balance, as difficult as that might be must be sought. A rhetorical age-old question may provide further food for thought; who would you rather watch your children, your neighbor or the government?
These
complex issues can be difficult to navigate but provide the scaffolding
for a better society. A society that can discuss the particulars of how
to best move forward is a society that can thank the liberal movement.
The tug of war whether government is the best tool by which to improve
the human condition or not will continue and require constant
reevaluation. Neither classical or modern liberalism alone are able to
answer all questions but they are the ingredients toward meaningful
solutions. Looking back, we see how much progress has taken place in
just a few centuries. Liberalism will continue to evolve and perhaps,
take on new forms to provide an ever-improving society.
References
Heywood, A. (2007). Political ideologies: An introduction (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (Invalid Date). Affirmative action. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/affirmative-action
Snell, K. (2020, March 26). What's inside the Senate's $2 TRILLION Coronavirus aid package. Retrieved February 18, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package