The Future of Liberalism [Hardcover]

The Future of Liberalism
The Future of Liberalism is a competent history of core liberal ideas. It is wide ranging, in both the issues and theorists it addresses. Wolfe covers big name thinkers (Kant, Mill, and so on) but also includes numerous lesser-known figures, and he refers to about as many conservatives as he does liberals.

Wolfe stresses that the aim of liberalism is to give people the power to choose and shape their own lives. In a typical chapter he plays off a liberal representative against someone who proposed more or less the opposite ideas; Kant versus Rousseau or Benjamin Constant versus Carl Schmitt, for example. He mixes in contemporary political figures to illustrate his chief points. This is primarily intellectual history, so do not expect much in the way of programmatic proposals (health care, energy, the environment, etc.) or analysis of electoral politics. On the other hand, you will learn a great deal about Wolfe's own political beliefs and his reasons for them.

In my judgment, Wolfe's reasoning is less sound on certain key matters than it is on others. I am a bit baffled, for example, at how vehemently he objects to "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology." He sets up an overly simplified dichotomy between nature and nurture and argues that it is culture that has made man what he is. He is critical of anyone who suggests that genetic inheritance has some effect on moral behavior, for instance, and he concludes that such ideas necessarily support the political right. He does not acknowledge the arguments made by Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, and others for how a Darwinian view of nature can buttress the political left, and Wolfe makes really no case here to scientifically challenge the kinds of findings he finds so objectionable.

Contemporary conservatives and some liberals as well are likely to object to Wolfe's ready acceptance of the role of government. He sees government as a sort of countervailing power that stands up for the mass of the governed against powerful interests, but he offers only minimal insight into who influences the state through lobbying and campaign finance. He seems to think that it is only conservatives who cannot govern competently, that you must believe in what you are called upon to do in order to do it well (think Katrina). But he offers no evidence that liberals, who for Wolfe offer better policies, are any more managerially competent to execute those policies.

Wolfe claims that Francis Fukuyama went too far in proclaiming the triumph of liberalism in the modern world in The End of History and the Last Man, but he comes perilously close to the same position himself. The essence of modernity is that it wants to expand freedom and equality, Wolfe asserts. It would take a different book than this one to be wholly convincing on that point.

Even though I found myself questioning these and certain other of Wolfe's positions, I found his treatments of several aspects of liberal political theory to be nuanced and informative; the chapters on freedom of speech and freedom of religion are good examples. I think that no matter what one's political beliefs or background in political thought might be, most readers will learn at least some things of value from The Future of Liberalism.

On the sharp cover of this book is a red arrow pointing proudly upward. The text inside, however, is not that straightforward. Alan Wolfe is a liberal in the classical sense, building on the heritage of Locke, Mill, Dewey (in 1934 Dewey delivered a lecture with the title "The Future of Liberalism."), and others. In a chapter called "In Praise of Artifice," Wolfe opposes Kant to Rousseau and decidedly opts for Kant with his "artificial" approach as opposed to the latter's emphasis on "nature." Here the trouble starts. The perennial discussion Nature/Nurture rears its head again. After all those articles, books and debates, one would have thought the matter more or less settled. Behaviourism has been soundly refuted; we certainly are no blank slates. On the other hand, we are no slaves to our genes either. Nor have evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists contended that this were the case. The dichotomy is a false one. In NATURE VIA NURTURE (2003) Matt Ridley explains why. In a discussion on John Tooby and Leda Cosmides he says that the search for "genes for war" is bound to fail, but the contrary dogmatic insistence that war is a pure product of culture...is equally foolish"(p.245). Quoting eight scientists on both sides of the fence, he states that they nevertheless believe roughly the same thing. Human nature comes from an interaction of nature with nurture; Nature versus Nurture is dead.
It's as if Wolfe never read the last sentences in Richard Dawkins's THE SELFISH GENE which he by the way incredibly dates to 1989. And if he read it he seemingly doesn't believe a word of it. Here's what Dawkins has to say: "We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (The Selfish Gene 1976, p. 215). This is, by the way, were Frans de Waal criticized Dawkins for being dualistic and un-Darwinian. Be that as it may, one cannot miss the optimistic tone of this final chord. No Doom and Gloom there!
It's hard to fathom why Wolfe characterizes sociobiology as "the most popular form of illiberalism" (p.173). Could it possibly be the case that he considers it to be same the thing as Social Darwinism? It also seems misplaced to drag Daniel Dennet into this, who with his FREEDOM EVOLVES (2003) posits a strong case for the existence of a free will.
It's good to be an optimist but surely you have to acknowledge that our biological nature puts limits to what is humanly possible. This is neither liberal nor conservative; it's just a fact of life. Stating that the aim of popular science books "is to show that leading any kind of life we think we are choosing is impossible" (p. 47) is ludicrous. More accurately would be that most of them try to go after the facts. Some are speculative, to be sure, but to contrast them with religious self-help books and call them "self-incapacitating" is over the top. Talking about religion and belief, it's possible to understand the criticism of the Four Horsemen - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens - without necessarily having to accept that one should respect religious convictions per se and appreciate the belief in miracles "because of their wonder"( p. 184). There's no reference to Hume here; nor to Spinoza.

The arguments of multiculturalist Will Kymlicka are dismissed as being not especially persuasive. This seems a bit unfair in view of this writers efforts in that area for a number of years now. At least philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in his ETHICS OF IDENTITY (2005) engages in an analysis of the tension between individual and group autonomy.
The chapter on Carl Schmitt and Benjamin Constant relates the fascinating story of two different temperaments, one totalitarian and the other liberal. The most disturbing fact being Schmitt's lasting legacy, especially on the contemporary left, including Hardt and Negri as well as Zizek "the dazzling wordsmith." The influence of Constant has been limited, which, however, some writers now try to do something about. With the Lisboan earthquake of 1755 as starting point, Wolfe proceeds to tell his version of the failure of the Bush administration to do anything much about hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. His unsurprising conclusion is that it was due to incompetence but things get interesting when he considers this to have been PLANNED incompetence. From then on follows an exciting exposé of the power struggle between conservatives and democrats with focus on how liberals could, and should, revitalize their heritage. A heritage which, according to Wolfe, is the only real alternative. Liberals should stop being defensive and come out in the open with their strong views on equality and liberty. Wolfe does this with verve and conviction. The last chapter, "Liberalism's Promise," is a veritable who's who of political commentators of the latest years, which makes for positively riveting reading.
With small letters in the Acknowledgements, I noticed the name Jytte Klausen. They are married with three children and she has written an interesting book in its own right, THE ISLAMIC CHALLENGE. Based on interviews throughout Europe it paints a picture of Muslim identity, immigration, integration and so forth (including a short discussion on Kymlicka). This is done with praiseworthy clarity and calmness, lacking in many of the books Wolfe discusses, i.e. Bawer, Berman, Gray.
Having lived in the Netherlands for the past twenty five years, I couldn't help notice Wolfe's misspelling of Pim Fortuyn, the murdered Dutch politician. Even though it's not as bad as for example "Baryck Obyma," it's still a bit careless and doesn't strengthen his arguments. Some of these are convincing, others less so. But, of course, you don't have to agree with everything to like a book. THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM is a vivid contribution to a heated debate and carries many ideas worth contemplating. Perhaps the most commendable effort is the resurrection of the very word "liberal." The time should be over when, in some quarters, it's used as an invective.

This book comes at a time when the term "liberalism" has become so disparaged in so many quarters that not only is it not used, but its very meaning and significance to American life is in danger of being lost. Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy; for example, it does not view individuals as brutish and mean, as did Hobbes. It recognizes that man is a social and creative being, who has the capability of creating a culture in which substantial freedom, rights, equal opportunity, and the like act to enlarge individuals and produce a better society. In a chapter "In Praise of Artifice," the author acknowledges that liberal rights are artificial in the sense of being created and enforced by society, that is, by individuals acting freely. That is in distinct contrast to the limited rights that are said to exist in a state of nature.

It is interesting that conservatives, given their insistence that they are the prime promoters and guardians of freedom, see rights as being no more than those existing in a pre-social natural order, which are quite elementary. All man can do is distort that natural order when it comes to enhancing rights. That perspective has much in common with the view that a religious order defines one's place in society. Either perspective supports the various hierarchies of society, where natural leaders by natural right have more of everything, including money and power. In essence, man cannot and should not escape his natural place - quite a limited view of freedom.

But conservatism is a philosophy that is at odds with the tremendous progress that has been made by the average man in Western liberal democracies over the last couple of hundred years of vast technological and social change. Much to the dismay of conservatives, enlarged, powerful states have created and enforced rights that have enabled large percentages of their populations to make advancements, while curtailing the prerogatives of elites. The rigid dependencies of traditional societies - families, serfs (employees) and lords (CEOs), etc - have been tempered and lost legitimacy. Despite claims to the contrary, conservatives also favor a large state with considerable police powers to enforce social hierarchies, that is, the privileges of elites.

While certainly a concern of the author is the "future" of liberalism, a great portion of the book is devoted to its history: its key proponents and their arguments, as well as its critics. Basic to this discussion is the disagreement between Rousseau and Kant over two centuries ago concerning the legitimacy of a social versus a natural approach to human affairs. Civilization and the requirement for cooperation basically infringes on the essential nature of man according to Rousseau, while Kant holds that man can advance beyond a primitive state only through such socially enhanced constructs as freedom and equality. The author also refers to other giants of liberal thought like John Stuart Mill and Benjamin Constant.

A fundamental aspect of being able to truly exercise freedom is the absence of significant dependencies. The basis of Jefferson's belief in democracy was a nation largely made up of self-sufficient farmers. However, the complete transformation of the US economy, after industrialization to one where most people are employees and are subject to the capriciousness of markets, necessitates, according to the author, a welfare state. As the author notes, the welfare state "is an exercise in self-governance," because it gives individuals a basic level of autonomy in making choices regardless of current standing, especially employment status. The conservative dream of cutting back the welfare state would restore a so-called natural order where elites can dictate to the disadvantaged.

The author heads off any suggestions that liberalism is an ideology, akin to fascism, communism, and even nationalism with all of the extremism and rigidity that pertains. In the words of philosopher Richard Rorty, "The social glue holding together the ideal liberal society ... consists in little more than a consensus that the point of social organization is to let everybody have a chance at self-creation to the best of his or her abilities, and that that goal requires, besides peace and wealth, the standard `bourgeois freedoms'." Liberalism seeks to be situated in the "vital center" and be the reasonable approach in contrast to the emotions and dangerous consequences of various forms of romantic utopianism, such as market fundamentalism or trying to install democracy in some of the most backward places in the world. Unfortunately, democratic debate often seems to get short shrift when elites are determined to follow agendas of dubious validity.

The author offers few prognostications concerning the future of liberalism; however, he makes clear that the American public has suffered greatly from the meagerness of conservatives. Conservatives basically do not have a coherent public philosophy, including the role of government, which is readily seen in their unconscionable handling of the natural disaster Katrina and their permitting Wall St. and multi-national corporations to act with no regard for the consequences on our economy. Their essentially anti-government approach is well put by a pundit: "From a liberal perspective, conservatives cannot govern for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf-bourguignon; if you believe that what you are called to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well."

The modern world is far too complex and interdependent for the simplistic approaches of conservatives. "Survival of the fittest" thinking and its variants are utterly irresponsible in the modern civilized world. Government must not only take the leading role in managing all of this complexity, but must also be a "countervailing" power, primarily towards huge economic entities. And that is in addition to performing the broader role of ensuring that citizens truly have equal opportunity and the wherewithal to make choices. However, "the essence of conservatism is that it wants to limit the reach of liberty and equality while the essence of modernity is to expand them." As the author says, "Modernity cannot be managed by pretending that modernity never happened."

Liberalism is a philosophy, but it is people, some of whom may be self-classified liberals, who actually vote. Most people are not philosophers, but they are heavily influenced by the many forms of media and educational and religious institutions. There is no doubt that the conservative surge in the last few decades has been aided by a tremendous propaganda campaign fueled by rich conservative donors. An artificial reality has been constructed that obviously has wide appeal. Government in all of its manifestations is demonized and corporations become benign entities. In addition, fears and prejudices are pandered to. The author is so focused on liberalism that this propaganda onslaught goes virtually unmentioned, which is by far the greatest enemy of liberalism.