In the late 18th century and most of the 19th century, a new political philosophy challenged the existing forms of government in the western world. It was “liberal democracy.” The concept started in Great Britain but found its most important influence in the United States. It was the basis for the for the American constitution in 1789 and became the model over the next century for most Western nations. The characteristics of liberal democracy are: (1) emphasis on the individual as opposed to the state or a head of state or religious authorities, (2) pluralism and toleration, in both deed and thought, (3) majority rule through elections, (4) separation of powers, (5) strong protections for individual rights, such as free speech and freedom of religion, and (6) the rule of law. Government isn’t the grantor of rights; it’s the protector of them. It was based on a belief that by rational, open discussion, human beings were capable of living together peacefully and happily. Given the emphasis on individual liberty, liberal democracy tended to support capitalism.It was a huge success in most of the Western world. But by the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, there were two problems. First, liberalism didn’t meet the changing times. It didn’t address the consequences of the industrial revolution. It’s laissez faire philosophy didn’t provide any help for those who lacked adequate nutrition, housing, medical attention, or a good education. The second problem is that liberalism, with its emphasis on the individual, was indifferent to the nurturing of local communal organizations – the myriad of organizations which not only provided a sense of community, but also were classrooms in which to learn how democracy worked. New political movements arose which argued that liberal democracy not only led to great economic disparity but also didn’t address the non-material needs of citizens. Not unlike today, a lot of citizens felt that government wasn’t working for them. The consequence was the rise of fascism and national socialism, which emphasized central authority, nationalism which excluded “others,” blood (racial superiority) and iron (militarism), and of communism.
By the second quarter of the 20th century, many believed that liberal democracy was dying. But it didn’t die. On the contrary, because of its openness and toleration of different points of view, it was able to adjust to the new circumstances. Notwithstanding its inclination to limit the power of the state, it accepted that liberal democracy had room for government to help people who needed help. Roosevelt’s New Deal was an application of that new view which perhaps saved America from the authoritarian forces infecting much of Europe and the Soviet Union. Liberal democracy not only won the actual war with the authoritarian Axis powers; it won the war of political ideas.
We now face the same challenge our predecessors faced. Liberal democracy has not delivered for a great many of our citizens in the Western world. With the exception of Victor Orban’s defeat in Hungary, liberal democracies are under threat virtually everywhere. If we still believe that the essential features of the liberal democracy bequeathed to us are important and should be passed on to the next generation, but a better version of them, we need to understand what went wrong, and fix it. We know, for example, that like a hundred years ago, the economic system has worked incredibly well for a large number of citizens, but not for all Americans. We have become a plutocracy or oligarchy. My one vote is not, in reality, equal to Elon Musk’s one vote. While many Americans find it difficult to pay for groceries, others dine at expensive restaurants. Unlike my generation, young people today cannot count on a financially secure future.
Another factor seems to be the fracturing of the earlier sense of community. The French Revolution called for “liberty, equality and fraternity.” People often forget about the “fraternity” part. But that word captured the French understanding of the importance of community to a successful democracy. It has been replaced by on-line communities. The evidence so far seems to be that these communities, rather than building healthier relationships, do the opposite. Unfortunately, liberal democracy, by its nature, does not try to build communities; it just tries to get out of their way. That needs to be reconsidered. Liberal democracy was saved in the 20th century by adjusting to the needs of the citizens. Almost certainly the great majority of Americans want the characteristics of liberal democracy but, again, it can only be preserved if it is adjusted to meet the needs of the people. John Stuart Mill was the most important proponent of the virtues of liberal democracy. Edmund Burke was the most important proponent of preserving our historical institutions and communal arrangements. Perhaps what we need now is a marriage of John Stuart Mills’ classic liberalism and Edmund Burke’s’ conservatism. In any event, we invite all of you to share your views on what we need to do to, once again, to save liberal democracy.