"The philosopher Karl Popper, writing as fascist armies swept Europe"
Why is there this fixation on fascism when the primary scourge against liberalism has been collectivism? Collectivism attempts have murdered more, starved more, imprisoned more that has fascism... many millions more.
The primary threat to true liberalism today is collectivism... socialism, Marxism, communism... not what is only a pull by the majority to get back to some rational national industrial policy that provides some reasonable socioeconomic opportunity for the citizens.
I would add another threat that is ignored... the more modern one... it is corporatism... or in the case the evolution of the global corporatocracy. Wall Street rules the world and it prefers an end to liberalism as it tends to impact their profits and shareholder returns.
"Liberal democracy cannot function without a critical mass of citizens who are willing to uphold its norms, resist its erosion, and transmit its habits to the next generation."
Underlying the question of willingness is the assumption of intellectual competence: nothing brilliant, just a robust mind with habits of curiosity and critical thinking. Without that, it's hard to summon the resources to uphold, resist, and transmit; or even to notice the need to do so. Thomas Jefferson was uneasy on that head:
"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
-- Letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
John Locke just assumed that the participants in democracy would be functionally rational:
"[Locke] insisted ... that the test for participation in government was the possession, not of property, which he assumed all men should have, but of reason. ... Locke insisted, and it is an important point, that man has no right to the exercise of his freedom until he attains the use of his reason; that is, until the child grows into the adult. Freedom without reason is mere license."
-- J. Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition
Attaining the use of our reason is not something that just happens over time, either. It takes at least a conscientious effort. Political power may be a God-given right, but political wisdom is not a God-given power.
I think that you provided necessary but not sufficient conditions for liberalism's persistence. I think it requires a 5th defense: it needs to deliver. I think it is easy to rest our laurels on norms and institutions when they deliver for oneself, but not others. I fear that those chickens are coming home to roost. Just as its been said that "if liberals won't defend borders, fascists will." the same could be said of quality of life. If liberalism doesn't provide a stable opportunity, then demagogues will burn the system down. Liberalism is an abstract idea that is a hard sell when one's community is hollowed out of opportunity for economic security and dignity. Telling people that demagogues don't have their interests at heart and will only make things worse is not much for consolation.
I couldn't agree more, Ryan. It was a strong element in my Quillette essay, Classical Liberalism Without Strong Gods, linked to in the piece above. The essay attempts a fuller prescription of what liberal societies must do to meet the challenge. On this point, I said, "Liberalism must deliver the conditions for flourishing: security, opportunity, and a path upward for those willing to take it. This does not necessarily mean more government, but it does mean that we need government that works and systems that reward effort, protect dignity, and enable self-reliance." Meeting this challenge is very much my "day job" as a think tank senior fellow focused on applied public policy challenges. Education, Housing, Health, Law and Order, and a strong economy are all critical to the good life. The first four at least – and the fifth to a troublingly large degree – are all areas where the state has an outsized role – and where it is performing poorly.
That's great to add. I always see that a liberals view on government size or function is not set for "more" or "less". Rather boringly, it depends on what is needed in the day. I'll add that I appreciate that you wrote that liberalism isn't a destination, rather way the requires constant tinkering. Tacking as a conservative might say.
I'll add that I think some early liberal thinkers like JSM acknowledged this: if basic welfare isn't being met, then pitchforks shall come. think his appreciation of this within his liberal thought nuanced as he got older.
“Progressive illiberalism poses a second corrosive challenge to democratic norms. It manifests in the systematic suppression of debate on university campuses, the weaponization of social pressure to enforce ideological conformity, and the redefinition of disagreement as harm.”
"The philosopher Karl Popper, writing as fascist armies swept Europe"
Why is there this fixation on fascism when the primary scourge against liberalism has been collectivism? Collectivism attempts have murdered more, starved more, imprisoned more that has fascism... many millions more.
The primary threat to true liberalism today is collectivism... socialism, Marxism, communism... not what is only a pull by the majority to get back to some rational national industrial policy that provides some reasonable socioeconomic opportunity for the citizens.
I would add another threat that is ignored... the more modern one... it is corporatism... or in the case the evolution of the global corporatocracy. Wall Street rules the world and it prefers an end to liberalism as it tends to impact their profits and shareholder returns.
"Liberal democracy cannot function without a critical mass of citizens who are willing to uphold its norms, resist its erosion, and transmit its habits to the next generation."
Underlying the question of willingness is the assumption of intellectual competence: nothing brilliant, just a robust mind with habits of curiosity and critical thinking. Without that, it's hard to summon the resources to uphold, resist, and transmit; or even to notice the need to do so. Thomas Jefferson was uneasy on that head:
"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."
-- Letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
John Locke just assumed that the participants in democracy would be functionally rational:
"[Locke] insisted ... that the test for participation in government was the possession, not of property, which he assumed all men should have, but of reason. ... Locke insisted, and it is an important point, that man has no right to the exercise of his freedom until he attains the use of his reason; that is, until the child grows into the adult. Freedom without reason is mere license."
-- J. Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition
Attaining the use of our reason is not something that just happens over time, either. It takes at least a conscientious effort. Political power may be a God-given right, but political wisdom is not a God-given power.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-family-secret.html
I think that you provided necessary but not sufficient conditions for liberalism's persistence. I think it requires a 5th defense: it needs to deliver. I think it is easy to rest our laurels on norms and institutions when they deliver for oneself, but not others. I fear that those chickens are coming home to roost. Just as its been said that "if liberals won't defend borders, fascists will." the same could be said of quality of life. If liberalism doesn't provide a stable opportunity, then demagogues will burn the system down. Liberalism is an abstract idea that is a hard sell when one's community is hollowed out of opportunity for economic security and dignity. Telling people that demagogues don't have their interests at heart and will only make things worse is not much for consolation.
I couldn't agree more, Ryan. It was a strong element in my Quillette essay, Classical Liberalism Without Strong Gods, linked to in the piece above. The essay attempts a fuller prescription of what liberal societies must do to meet the challenge. On this point, I said, "Liberalism must deliver the conditions for flourishing: security, opportunity, and a path upward for those willing to take it. This does not necessarily mean more government, but it does mean that we need government that works and systems that reward effort, protect dignity, and enable self-reliance." Meeting this challenge is very much my "day job" as a think tank senior fellow focused on applied public policy challenges. Education, Housing, Health, Law and Order, and a strong economy are all critical to the good life. The first four at least – and the fifth to a troublingly large degree – are all areas where the state has an outsized role – and where it is performing poorly.
That's great to add. I always see that a liberals view on government size or function is not set for "more" or "less". Rather boringly, it depends on what is needed in the day. I'll add that I appreciate that you wrote that liberalism isn't a destination, rather way the requires constant tinkering. Tacking as a conservative might say.
I'll add that I think some early liberal thinkers like JSM acknowledged this: if basic welfare isn't being met, then pitchforks shall come. think his appreciation of this within his liberal thought nuanced as he got older.
Sounds good. But what's hate speech?
“Progressive illiberalism poses a second corrosive challenge to democratic norms. It manifests in the systematic suppression of debate on university campuses, the weaponization of social pressure to enforce ideological conformity, and the redefinition of disagreement as harm.”
Timely opinion in light of today’s assassination.