I recently saw Alan Kahan give a talk on his recent book, arguing that liberalism has taken form over the ages based on responses to various fears. This is his case:

Proto-liberalism: from religious persecution

like that of Cromwell’s persecution of Catholics. Protoliberalism was led by Smith and Montesquieu.

Note: besides justification of revolution, Locke was not used too much in the broader US founding documents, nor was he taught much at the time besides as an odd figure. In the 20th century he was embraced.

Liberalism 1.0: from revolution / reaction

Kant - liberalism as critical thinking

Madison - post revolution checks and balances

Liberalism 2.0: from poverty (starting mid-late 1800s)

Macaulay, Tocqueville and JS Mill (a world safe to struggle with others)

• Tocqueville - liberalism needs to be founded on a religious community

• Mill - liberalism works without religion because it is justified in being good for human character

Liberalism 3.0:

from totalitarianism (reacting to Hitler and Stalin)

Early talks including Hayek, Lippman, Berlin: we have to do something different than Smith. [Von Mises kept to Smith though] In the beginning, they called themselves neoliberals.

Different groups developed including egalitarians (Rawls), libertarians, and the liberalism of Milton Friedman with more of a focus on economics (some call it neoliberalism).

Other interesting notes:

• 19th century liberals generally hated Catholics

• American and European liberalisms developed differently and don’t mean the same thing

• Kahan also argued that Republicanism is no different than Liberalism with the moral side that it held with it before the 20th century.

• Image: liberalism as an oyster, with layers building on one another

• 3 pillars are essential to crafting a liberal society: freedom, markets and orals

It makes sense to look at the origins of economic ideas and see how they rise, fall and continue to develop based on the historical events and motivations. Ideas are not divorced from the world. I also see how these different developments of liberalism came out of these different reactions -- from religious politics and persecutions to that of revolutions or governments. But the stress of defining liberalism as ‘freedom from being afraid’ seems unnecessary. It is a “freedom from” model, true, but generally seems to have the goal of a functioning society without one’s basic rights or way of life substantially impacted. So yes, it is in response to these incoming “threats”. But fear is not so defining as to represent the fundamental goal of liberalism.

I recently saw Alan Kahan give a talk on his recent book, arguing that liberalism has taken form over the ages based on responses to various fears. This is his case:

Proto-liberalism: from religious persecution

like that of Cromwell’s persecution of Catholics. Protoliberalism was led by Smith and Montesquieu.

Note: besides justification of revolution, Locke was not used too much in the broader US founding documents, nor was he taught much at the time besides as an odd figure. In the 20th century he was embraced.

Liberalism 1.0: from revolution / reaction

Kant - liberalism as critical thinking

Madison - post revolution checks and balances

Liberalism 2.0: from poverty (starting mid-late 1800s)

Macaulay, Tocqueville and JS Mill (a world safe to struggle with others)

• Tocqueville - liberalism needs to be founded on a religious community

• Mill - liberalism works without religion because it is justified in being good for human character

Liberalism 3.0:

from totalitarianism (reacting to Hitler and Stalin)

Early talks including Hayek, Lippman, Berlin: we have to do something different than Smith. [Von Mises kept to Smith though] In the beginning, they called themselves neoliberals.

Different groups developed including egalitarians (Rawls), libertarians, and the liberalism of Milton Friedman with more of a focus on economics (some call it neoliberalism).

Other interesting notes:

• 19th century liberals generally hated Catholics

• American and European liberalisms developed differently and don’t mean the same thing

• Kahan also argued that Republicanism is no different than Liberalism with the moral side that it held with it before the 20th century.

• Image: liberalism as an oyster, with layers building on one another

• 3 pillars are essential to crafting a liberal society: freedom, markets and orals

It makes sense to look at the origins of economic ideas and see how they rise, fall and continue to develop based on the historical events and motivations. Ideas are not divorced from the world. I also see how these different developments of liberalism came out of these different reactions -- from religious politics and persecutions to that of revolutions or governments. But the stress of defining liberalism as ‘freedom from being afraid’ seems unnecessary. It is a “freedom from” model, true, but generally seems to have the goal of a functioning society without one’s basic rights or way of life substantially impacted. So yes, it is in response to these incoming “threats”. But fear is not so defining as to represent the fundamental goal of liberalism.