The Book That Changed How I Think About Liberalism

and so much reason to hope all at the same time, let me save a hear you. I'm Ezra Klein from New York Times opinion, host of the Ezra Klein Show.

“And for me, the best way to beat back that be willedered feeling is to talk it out with”

the people who have ideas and frameworks for making sense of it. Here is going to be plenty to talk about. You can find the Ezra Klein Show wherever you get your podcasts. [Music] We live in this moment when a liberalism is winning, when a liberalism is in power.

I don't think anybody really argues that. What has surprised me about it is how weak liberalism has felt in response. I'm a liberal. I'm a like a professional liberal, one involved in liberal politics. And I don't think at this moment I could tell you what liberalism's vision is,

who its leaders are. In some way, I feel liberals have never really recovered.

From the Obama era, when it had this grand victory in electing America's first black president, when it had this thoughtful, deliberate and frankly quite popular, liberal leader, and then it ended in Donald Trump. Another Donald Trump once, Donald Trump twice.

“But here's the thing, Donald Trump is not working out.”

He is not making people want more of what he is. But if he's going to be beaten, if illiberal political forces are going to turn back, I think you're going to need a liberalism that is aspirational again. A liberalism has moral imagination again. A liberalism is stands for more than not this.

And so I've been on this sort of esoteric personal quest, reading all these books in the liberal canon, reading all these histories of liberalism, trying to think through like what in this very, very long tradition is valuable for us right now. And one of the books I came across in the search is called the Lost History of Liberalism, by the story in Helena Rosenblatt, and one of the arguments it makes is that

before we ever had this word liberalism, in fact for thousands of years before the word, there was this tradition of being a liberal. And behind that tradition, there was this virtue called liberality. And people thought this virtue was really, really important. As Rosenblatt writes, for almost 2,000 years in demonstrating the virtues of a citizen,

showing devotion to the common good and respecting the importance of mutual connectedness. Liberality was talked about everywhere. You can read about it in Cicero, in John Locke, in the letters of George Washington.

In it, we never talk about it today.

Liberalism as a political philosophy and movement, it completely elbowed out. Liberalities of virtue, as an ethic, a citizen, aspires to meet. On to be clear, I don't think a rediscovery of liberality is a complete answer to what ales liberalism, but I do think it's one piece of the puzzle.

“I found it exciting. I think it's one place to begin an inquiry.”

You're going to hear a lot more of on this show over the next year. Helen O'Rosenblatt is a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center. She's the author of Liberal values, Benjamin Constant, and the politics of religion. As well as the aforementioned at the Lost History of Liberalism, which I highly recommend.

As always, my email, as we'll come and show at at mytimes.com.

Helen O'Rosenblatt, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me. So to the extent people think about liberalism today, which is, let's be real and niche hobby, I think they define it as a philosophy of individual rights, of individual expression. You write in your book that the word liberalism did not even exist until the early 19th century.

And for hundreds of years prior to its birth, being liberal meant something very different. What did it mean? That's right, being liberal really was not just about believing in a certain or working towards a certain political design. It wasn't just about a constitutional form. It wasn't just about individual rights. It was actually more about moral development and about

constitution should promote. And many of them thought that yes, rights are important,

“but they're important because they allow us to accomplish our obligations.”

To, they're very much concerned with establishing a good, morally good regime.

It's amazing how many of the early liberals were actually moralists at heart.

So talk me through the early word here. It's not even liberal, it's liberal, Alita's or where does this start for you? Liberalism as a word was coined around 1811, 1812. And it was first theorized as a concept. People start talking about what is liberalism. Well, liberalism is this that not the other thing. In the early 19th century in the wake of the French Revolution, it doesn't become

this Anglo-American tradition until very late in the game. I say, middle of the 20th century, does it become an Anglo-American tradition? This is something very exciting that I found in my research.

So I decided to trace the word and the meaning of the word all the way back to ancient Rome,

which is liberal in ancient Rome, the root of the word is liber, right? And the word liber, yes, it means free, but it also means generous, which I thought was so very, very interesting. So if liberal were the really the qualities of freedom, lovingness and generosity, expected of a citizen, liberally toss was the noun that went with it. So this was an attitude that was expected of citizens in Rome when you are devoted to the commonwealth, to the common good.

One thing that was a bit of an epiphany reading about from me, I think a lot of things are missing in modern liberalism. My interest in doing this episode and more that I think we're going to come is trying to figure out why liberalism feels so exhausted at a moment that it is so needed. And why so many books I read about it, some of the defenses I read of it, are so arid. They have no blood in them. One thing that was interesting here was this idea that

liberalism is built on a virtue, not a political philosophy, right, liberality. And as you just mentioned, that the old definitions of it and you have Cicero and John Locke and John Don and they have some kind of intersection between generosity and freedom, but not freedom like we think of it now. So what did freedom mean in this context? It's really about having the freedom

“to voluntarily become the person that you should be. And this is dropped out of our conversation.”

We think of liberalism so much as you said, being about individual rights and maximizing our choices. But it was to them also about making good choices. And a good system of government would help you give you the capacity to make those good choices. That evolved over time. So in the medieval period it became Christianized and it's behaving freely the way God wants you to behave in a generous charitable way. We need to talk about this conception of freedom, this conception of what it means

to be liberal. Who are some of the people you quote and what are their arguments? Oh well as you can imagine since you know it's not a super long book. And so I kind of move rather quickly and I have to make some strategic choices. But as you mentioned, there's there's Cicero and Senika and these are well-known names that have had tremendous influence. What do they say? What is their vision of liberalism? So that liberality is about reciprocity,

“exchange, gift giving and reciprocity is fundamental. You need to be good to one another.”

Very much about what they would call citizenly or I call citizenly virtues. Things that make a commonwealth work and adhere. That is not to. I don't try to idealize these thinkers either because you know you had slavery in Rome which is so we're talking about a small group and elite. I think this is quite important and it's something threaded through your book. You write at some point that this idea of being a liberal which comes away before liberalism is a political philosophy.

Is designed by and for the free wealthy and well-connected man who are in a position to give and receive benefits in ancient Rome and some other things that emerge as a book goes on. One thing that makes clear is that if today your problem with liberalism and liberals is you find them to be a bunch of smug condescending elites. That problem goes way back.

That's always been braided into the issue here and that there was like it was a set of

virtues that was associated with like the noble born and set them apart in a way that would make

the project. Yeah absolutely you know they don't even always live up to the ideal.

Sure don't. But they had that ideal and they talked about it and they designed a educational system, a liberal arts education that was supposed to cultivate these virtues on this liberality in elite boys. But there was a lot expected of the elite as well. So I don't think it was just near you know hypocrisy. I'm writing a book right now about what I'm the style, a great early liberal and a woman, a powerhouse, such a fascinating woman

right at the, it was some say that it was in her cello and her drawing room that liberalism was invented. Her name appears as a very important sort of powerbroke girl in his lecture in early 19th century and then gets dropped out. She's endlessly frustrated by where are the good men? We need some good in the men not only to pursue the policies that we need but to serve as examples.

“A question echoing through history right now. I think this is also somewhat inspiring or”

provocative to think of from our current vantage point, which is to say that one of the problems that early theorists of being liberal are trying to think through is what are the habits, what is a kind of education, what is a form of personal development needed to instill the virtues that will be necessary to hold together complex societies. What is needed to hold together a

country or even a city is not easy. I actually think this helps explain one reason liberals have always

been so shocked and repulsed by Donald Trump himself, not just Trumpism or Republican Party but him, which is quite deep in the liberal theory and inheritance, I'm not even sure people totally realize that they have absorbed is a sense that to make a country work people have to behave in a certain way for each other and the ways in which he flouts the rules of behavior, the ways in which he acts towards other people are almost separate from anything he believes, like a profound challenge to what

“liberalism believes of how you make a society work. I think in many ways he is proving that”

there was something important in the end, but this question of how do you instill in a society, the virtues necessary to make a society work, understanding that as an actually hard problem. I think there's juic in that today. Yeah, no, absolutely and the fact that there are elitists, liberals throughout their history, have tended to be elitist but they demanded a lot there were a lot of obligations and they took that extremely seriously. There's a section in my book where

I talk about Lincoln and they thought at that point they thought maybe a liberal democracy would fail. There was no real example of it lasting. You know, the would the American example of this exceptional example actually work and Lincoln showed that it could and he did it in this beautiful way that kind of made people optimistic about liberal democracy. He was not a demagogue. He did not talk down to people. He raised them up, he engaged in moral uplift and they recognized that and it

showed that a liberal democracy could survive if it had a leader like this. They also recognized

“that it was those kinds of leaders are very hard to find. What is the liberal in the liberal arts?”

Oh, the purpose of the liberal arts education is really to form leaders, to form freedom loving and moral leaders and giving them the tools, rhetoric and history and some science for sure, but it's supposed to train citizens really through engagement with the classics. In the early times there was a lot of emphasis on being able to speak in public, to speak in a convincing way in public and this is all really to convince people to become citizens and to do the right thing.

It sounds terribly idealistic and I don't always want to again idealize them or say these people

were were perfect in every way far from it. But the ideas were pretty beautiful and I think we could learn something from them. Education is such an important part of this book. Other histories of liberalism I've read actually reveal the same thing that when you go back into the liberal tradition, the purpose of education is hotly debated and held at the center of the project. Today you don't have that discourse in the same way. We talk about whether or not education is

is prepared you to get a job. And that was not the purpose of the liberal arts. No, it was not. Today it's a lot about vocational training, a lot about preparing students to get jobs. These were considered menial tasks. Liberal arts was for the leaders in the times and the citizens

were the leaders of society and in Rome. In medieval period as well it was always about

something other than preparing you for a job. Isn't it funny that today when people try to defend the humanities which are under siege in many universities frankly and they try to advocate for liberal arts education that they say oh well actually there's proof that having a liberal arts education will get you that job. So it's that whole discussion about what a citizen of

“a democracy means what it means to be a citizen. What are the values? What is our common language?”

What does it mean to be a citizen of a democracy? All of these questions that are so important have kind of dropped out of our discussion. People are even embarrassed sometimes. And do you think that's because citizenship is broadly shared now and so it isn't seen as a thing that people have to work to achieve or do you think that's because that politics doesn't work. People like it. People don't want to be told but they have to do it to be a citizen. That's a great

question. And as a historian I always apologize for saying history is complicated so usually there's

not just one answer to that terrific question. Just give me the one that best serves my current purposes. Or maybe another way to ask it is at what point in your view did the strand of liberal thinking that was about the cultivation and disciplining of the self. Oh. Drop out. Definitely it happened during

“the Cold War let's say. It's pretty recent in the history that I describe in my book, right?”

But this idea of disciplining the self we're talking about the collectivity about your duties about any government or state getting involved in forming citizens. A public education system that forms a citizen started to have a scary kind of ring to it when you've seen fascism and communism. And liberals wanted to show like, oh we're not that. We're not going in that direction. We are not about the state forming citizens. We are about individual rights, about property rights and

particular. And I think that really gave probably the impetus to something that was probably happening already. I gave my brother a near-time subscription. She sent you your long subscription so I have access to

“all the games. We'll do a word all over any spelling bee. It has given us a personal”

connection. We change articles. And so having read the same article, we can discuss it. The coverage, the options, not just news. That should diversify it. I was really excited to give him a near-time's cooking subscription so that we could share recipes. And we even just shared a recipe the other day. The New York Times contributes to our quality time together. You have all of that information at your fingertips. It enriches our relationship,

broadening our horizons. It was such a cool thought for gift. We're reading the same stuff, we're making the same food, we're on the same page. Connect even more with someone you care about. Learn more about giving a New York Times subscription as a gift at nytimes.com/gift. The critiques you hear today of liberals and go back quite a long way. You have this part of the book where you're describing fights in England in the 1830s. The conservatives,

what they say about the liberals, even that, is that critics of liberals am accused of meaning the exact opposite of liberality. The accused liberals are being selfish, egoistic, only interested in the gratification of their individual desires. You're describing this tradition that is focused on personal cultivation and liberal arts. What point is this critique that no, you just want to be able to follow your own desires wherever they go and not have anybody

telling you not to? When does that enter into the phrase? Right at the beginning. It's been

shown that liberalism, the actual word, was first a pejorative of term of insult. It was coined

French Revolution, and the word liberal, when it refers to something political, is often written

with an accent on the "e" to show its kind of foreignist. It's something dangerous. It's something wrong. Yeah, leave it all. It has to do with the revolution and we don't want back. You know, all of this getting rid of noble privileges, creating, which we would call civil equality, isn't that a great thing? They would say, "No, that's removing the privilege that they had had for such a long time." So that's being selfish. That's not being magnanimous. And so the

Catholics, mainly, Catholic counter-revolutionaries immediately started denouncing liberals for being selfish, because they were taking away their privileges. I mean, they had a whole slew of insulting terms that they used as synonyms for liberals, anarchists. They are against the family. They are sexually deviant. All of this, because it seemed like they wanted to free up all the, in some ways, rightly so, the constraints of the old regime. Throughout the 19th century, the Catholic church

was probably the most powerful enemy of liberalism. So the popes, one after the other, just

viewed the most vile kind of, if I may say, rhetoric about liberals, about how very bad and sinful

“the world. The liberalism is sin. I mean, there were works that came out like that. So, and I think,”

actually, interestingly enough, today's criticisms, for example, by post-liberals and so on, which are many of them, men are the Catholic counter-revolutionaries, or actually reviving some of that language, and using very old arguments. I've said here with Patrick Denine, I mean, not literally in this room, but on this podcast, and I was like, "Where is this coming from with you?" And he's like, one of these post-liberal, close to JD Vance, and he's like, "Well, you know,

the left one should destroy the family." I don't think we do, but that is his view of it. How much is the tension between the Catholic church and liberals, or liberalism? How much is it around, but I think of as liberalism's first significant political idea,

because so far we've been tracking this almost virtue that is a way for the powerful to think

“of themselves is developing in a way that is per social. If I were to be, I think straightforward”

about it. It's not a way to reorder society, but this idea of generosity towards your fellow citizen begins to flower into an idea of toleration when that is more radical. And toleration is a way of reordering society. So can you tell a bit of that story, how we get from, you know, the morality to actual arguments for, for coloration, and then how that begins to put, you know, liberals in tension with religious authorities?

Absolutely. Many key liberals are actually Protestant. This founding group that I talk about in France, might I'm distal and Benjamin Constall, were actually Protestants, and that Protestants were a way overrepresented in terms of numbers in liberal movements throughout the French history. The reason here is, you know, Protestants in France wanted to be tolerate, to be actually

“recognized as citizens, which they weren't. So this is a key, one of the key sort of developments”

in the history of liberalism when it moves from being just what we were talking about, the virtues of a like a Roman citizen or a Christian nobleman who should give to the poor and be liberal and magnanimous. To now, you're starting to say that we have to be accepting of difference. And you start using liberal not to just define or describe an individual who's magnanimous, but a whole society, clubs can be liberal because they allow different types of members.

Religions can be liberal when they are tolerant and you can understand them the church. A Catholic church in particular gets very worried about this when you're going to be accepting that it's not the one religion. But before we go into the Catholic Church's reaction, I want to spend a moment on this because from where we sit now in United States of America, I don't think religious tolerance strikes many people as a particularly radical idea.

It is taken broadly for granted. And I like to paint a little bit more of the picture of what is the context into which this argument is beginning to play out. And the relationship to religion is like a fundamental divide in societies and the stakes are very high for people who believe. So just tell me a little bit about what is the situation into which this argument of a religious toleration is entering? Well, today we're here very much about celebrating difference,

and when I find this somewhat troubling, is that these Protestants that I'm talking about,

“the early founders of liberalism really did not advocate toleration for toleration's sake,”

because they are very hostile to or disdainful towards what they call superstition and dogmas. So dogmas have held people back in their opinion. The Church, of course, in France,

they were in charge of education, they're in charge of censorship. They basically find,

and you can see this at Adam Smith's 12th of Nations, which is really funny, is they believe in a free marketplace of religion. So that if you tolerate our religions, they can then sort of fight among themselves. And this is going to lead to a purification of religions, and eventually people are going to become liberal Protestants, like they are, or unitarians type, or deists, you know, have a religion. They're not anti-religious,

but the way you please God is what being good to your fellow citizen, by doing good to the community, not necessarily praying, certain times of the day, or doing certain rituals, or believing

in certain dogmas, but being good. So you could see also that certain, or not not just a Catholic

church, but certain Orthodox churches would be upset by this, because literally, if this is the case, what you need church is for, you can believe in God and be a good person without going to church. I want to look more close to something you said earlier in that answer, which is that tolerance, toleration in this framing is not just a nice, civically virtuous thing. It's not about being polite, that there is a theory here about the marketplace of ideas. I'm one of the other

books in the books that I've quite liked. There's Edmund Fossett's liberalism, the life of an idea.

“I think it's a subtitle. And he makes more than you do, of the idea that central to liberalism”

is the idea that in a conflict written, disputatious society, that you can turn difference into something

constructive through argumentation, through the exchange of ideas, that tolerance and other things are built on it, freedom of speech, et cetera. It's not about being nice. It is about this belief, which sometimes proves out, and sometimes does not go as well as people hope, that you can make disagreement not into something that terraces society. It's a part, but into something that refines them and makes them better and helps people find truth and progress and a way forward.

I do think about that. Yeah, absolutely. I'm so glad you brought that up because it's a really important central aspect of liberalism. This is kind of optimism. If you accept this toleration, progress will be the result. People will improve. Society will improve. We need this sort of battle of ideas to refine ourselves in our way of thinking and there'll be a better outcome in the future. Yes. So, marketplaces of ideas without state interference, without church interference,

allow these ideas to compete with each other, including religious ideas. And this will be kind of a purification process. And yeah, they were very optimistic about the future. Today, that seems so naive, disbelief, you know, in the arc of history, the march of history they talked about the whole time. I mean, they weren't naive and they weren't silly. I know one of the guys who's one of I hear on my in my book is Vajrayamal Khonstan. And he said, "We need pleasing illusions. We need

pleasing illusions to make us better." Well, so to maybe cut into some of that pessimism, this is hard to do well. Liberalism is hard to do well. Complex society is hard to do well.

“Some of the collapse and confidence in that I think is misplaced. I don't think that what happened”

is all these ideals failed. I think in many cases we failed the ideals. Yes. But I want to get it something that exists in there as a shadow side. One thing that is very personal in your book is the contempt many liberals in the 1700s, the 1800s have for religion or certainly religions that they don't belong to. As you say, backwards superstitious. And this comes right up into the modern era, where there's a real feeling among the religious liberals like down on them, among evangelical

Christians and others that they try to use a state to change their behavior. You can't even refuse to be a cake for a couple that is getting married of the same sex. And so there is this critique of liberalism that you see throughout the ages, which is that liberals are tolerant of everything but what they consider to be the intolerant. And if they consider you to be intolerant, backwards, bigoted, then they will bring the full force of the state if they control it down upon your head.

How do you tolerate people who don't want to be tolerant? How do you then not become intolerant?

“Can you trace a bit of that? I don't know if they ever solved that problem. They were very”

expensive. I mean one has to. If you really try to understand the world from their perspective, you know, it was really hard to be a liberal. Most of the time it was there were such formidable obstacles, such strong enemies and such intolerance of their views. It was really serious stuff to think of the Catholic Church coming back into power, the counter-revolutionaries, you know, what would happen to you. So do you tolerate them? Do you allow them to use the free press

to attack constitutional government? At what point do you censor? We struggle with this

today and they certainly did then? What in your view is the first society or state in which

something that we would now recognize as a liberalism takes power? When does it move from a theory outside power as a political philosophy not as a virtue into something that is being wielded by those with authority? You know, famously in 1930 there is a revolution that brings what's considered a liberal government into power and it unfortunately fails in the 1848 revolution. In France, 1830 what happens in the French Revolution? It's the rise of the bourgeoisie. It's the fact that the

nobles, the privileges of the nobility are overturned and you have rule of law civic equality. Marks talks about this communist talk about this as being the bourgeois kind of revolution and how terrible it is because it became very quickly considered a selfish regime, a money, money,

“driven machine. Let's stand Marks for a minute. What is his critique of liberalism?”

Liberalism is really the rule of the bourgeoisie. It's middle class. It's money. If you look at France, you also was really much looking at France, right? Everybody's looking at France was going on with the success of revolutions. It's like a laboratory of political ideas, right? So this is a bourgeois revolution to them and it's liberals who carry these ideas forward. But when it happens in Mark's thought, of course, once they take over power, they're going to exploit the

workers and just make more and more money and exploit the workers until they will rise up and you'll have the communist revolution and they take over. But the thing is that there's no way around it. You need the liberals to take power. You need the bourgeoisie. In Mark's view, so he's not anti-dispercisely. He's just as this is the motor of history. He's going to be superseded by the proletariat. Where does liberalism begin to become interested in or associated with

the actual redistribution of resources and society from the rich to the poor? Where does it become connected to social welfare states? And when you talk about FDR and that later liberalism, right, and a lot of happens between what we've been discussing in there. At some point, this moves away from just being a set of approaches to a marketplace of ideas or individual virtue. And it becomes connected to a view that power needs to be redistributed and money and security needs to be

distributed. When does that begin to happen? Right, so the early liberals were only mostly concerned with creating a political system, getting rid of the divine right of kings and having constitutional representative government with guarantees for individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of

“religion and private property rights, rule of law, obviously very important. But as they're also”

pragmatic people and over time with the Industrial Revolution, with urbanization, they see new problems arise, right? The idea of that, there is populism, a new word that's invented at the time, that means people are stuck, workers are stuck in poverty. And what to do about it, some people start saying, listen, deregulation isn't working for these people, they're stuck. And with our core values of generosity and freedom lovingness, obviously these people are not free, they're not

able to morally refine themselves or to contribute to society in any meaningful way, morally or intellectually,

so government now needs to step in first with factory legislation and such and eventually with

some sort of taxed distribution and so on. There is an interesting dimension there that I think you hear less of today, which is a connection of a social welfare state, everything from education to health care and on and on, as being not just a matter of justice, maybe not even at all, a matter of justice, but instead a matter of uplift. You're trying to create the conditions for a capable, educated, productive citizenry and something you see in a lot of the early arguments

that's more sort of how I would argue for all of these policies today and more of the argument

“that this needs to be done because it is the only way to have a citizen-recapable of participating”

in liberal democracy, you know, able to fight in your wars, right? Like it's a question of building the capacity of the citizenry. It's very, very concerned with the uplift of the individual. Yeah, absolutely, and it strikes me also that factory legislation at first, for example, again in France was, you know, when it came to women, you know, shortened the workday, make it a little less harsh for them. Why? Because they'll have better breast milk. They'll be healthier and they'll produce

healthier soldiers, basically. Boys will fight in wars. But I want to say there, Germany suddenly starts to play a big role. They're thinkers, they had thinkers who said that this whole idea of free markets and less affair were great theoretically, but weren't working in practice right now. And what you need is to actually study the workers and demographic patterns and prices and salaries and so on and see what's actually going on and then devise policies accordingly.

And these ideas were spread. And we're written about their ideas were translated and talked about in England and France. It's also there at the power of Prussia, right? So Napoleon III thought he could have a little war with Prussia, make him give him some glory and some popularity and low and behold, the exact opposite happened. The Prussia's won very quickly and it was a shock. It was a shock to everybody that France meant to be the most powerful country in Europe could

“be defeated like this and they start to ask why? And they start thinking, well, guess what?”

German soldiers are vaccinated. They're much healthier. They're real, real roads work. Germany is very early to have a state run healthcare program. Exactly. And this catches on again, it's because of, you know. But it doesn't come from the liberals initially. I mean, Bismarck is that team came over here. Exactly. And that's an interesting twist that sometimes the influences on liberalism are not necessarily from within. The first Napoleon is what

made people like Benchmark on the early liberal say like, we need some things that this never

happens again. We need constitutions that stop somebody like Napoleon, a demagogue, a dictator, from coming to power. And then now it's Bismarck. But look at his policies. Look what he's doing to the population, their healthier, their stronger, their more patriotic. This is really when there was what came to be called a new liberalism. And they called it that new liberalism in England where a group of people started to say, now we need to learn from the Germans and we need some

government intervention to help the workers to spread the wealth and that the government has an important role to play in the economy in a Justin and liberal polity. So they learn their lessons the hard way that way. So how then do you have this weird split that makes so much of the conversation about liberalism confusing today where you have a liberalism in much of Europe that means laws a fair that means that you are in many cases opposed to the law for state and you have a liberalism

very much associated with America, maybe coming from Germany, that is the exact opposite, right? You have this debate between the classical liberals like Hayek and then FDR is, you know, the

the central like arguably most important American liberal and they stand in many ways for

I don't want to say entirely opposite things, agree on things like free speech and some other dimensions around rights. But you do have liberalism split into two streams, one of which is profoundly skeptical of the government and sees the government as the source of much tyranny and the other which sees the government and a more generous government as the guarantor of a kind of freedom. Yeah, that's right. In England, eventually the new liberals kind of went out and they drop the new

“and they just called liberals, right? And that's what happens in America. They don't call themselves”

new liberals. They start calling themselves first-progressives and then liberals. And Wilson actually there's a moment you can see where he's saying calling himself a progressive and then he switches

to liberal. It's quite interesting. In France, they never make that move. So liberalism without any

descriptive term before, it means the less a fair liberalism, small government liberalism. And today, in most of the world, that's when liberalism means, right? It's sort of right of center, free markets, small government, whereas in America, colloquially attends to mean

state, bigger role for the state.

Who in your view are the most important American liberal thinkers? If you're thinking of a

canon of American liberalism, who belongs in it? You of course have to talk about John Rawls and he

“comes very late in there. So I think more than thinkers, I mean, there's John Dewey. It was very important,”

particularly in his liberal education. There are people like I mentioned, I wouldn't call them great innovative thinkers. I mean, John Rawls, you obviously, great philosopher of the 20th century, but on his caliper or on the caliper of John Bach or John Stuart Mill, I don't see any, I hope not, you know, American intellectual, his dorns are going to like he mailed me like crazy saying that I'm being unfair, but I don't think America was notable for its liberal theorists until quite late in the game.

We do have great liberal leaders, I mentioned Lincoln, I mentioned FDR. I just underplayed in our own

tradition. Yeah. And I'd like to use him more on this, because I actually think great liberal practitioners in some ways to be more interesting than great liberal theorists, I find it to be a problem with American liberalism that it is so obsessed with John Rawls. People think that is because I don't like John Rawls, and that's not quite it. I just think that in terms of something that is a hopefully a popular and public philosophy, somebody who's central work is fundamentally

unreadable by the public does not really make sense as a foundation for that, and he's not the foundation for that, right? Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., John Dewey, I do think is actually quite important here, but FDR, you have really remarkable liberal leaders in this country, many of them, I mean, having written remarkable things about how to think about

“liberalism, many of them coming from outside the halls of power. I think liberalism is often”

most interesting when it is in a tense relationship with power, but I'm curious how you see that the tradition and how it altered what American liberalism became and is. Yeah, totally, I think that's wonderful, but if you look at them at the people I look at at the very beginning, you know, there wasn't this great divide between the great thinkers and the great political leaders. I mean, somebody like they're very pragmatic earlier, they want a political figure.

He's a political figure, Benjamin Constone becomes a deputy in the chamber of deputies, John Stuart Mill runs for office, and you know, if you read the speeches, if you read some of the speeches, the wonderful speeches people were making, and those days, you know, drawing on Montesquieu and lock, and they're reading this stuff as well. So there wasn't maybe this great divide between intellectuals and practitioners. What does that tell you in America? What was

“different about it here? And maybe it's worth starting actually with the founders. I think there's”

a lot of interesting, interesting argumentation over how much to think of the American founders as inside the American liberal tradition, as intention with what later becomes a liberal tradition, right? There are obviously claimed by all sides here. How do you think about the founding, and with its profound internal contradictions around freedom and human bondage? I've become more and more interested in American political thoughts and institutions and history,

unfortunately because of the way disciplines and concentrations work. I'm more of an expert on European history, but what I've read about the founding and about the founding fathers and what was going on there just fills me with enormous respect and gratitude. And I think for the wonderful work that they did, being both thinkers and actors and Franklin Jefferson came to Paris and were very much interested also in French matters and vice-versa, the American constitution

influenced early liberals because they thought it was an amazing document. And maybe that's the

thing that's so wonderful is to see exactly those things coming together, the ideas and the practices coming together in the founding fathers to produce this amazing document. That's a very glittering answer, but I think a critic of liberalism would say that what good is your liberalism if it can include slavery in its founding constitution or in more of the European case, what good is your liberalism if it is so interwoven with colonialism? And I mean, there were many, you know,

people who, similarly to many of the liberalities we're talking about here who made space for both

out of proportion. These people, these are early liberals and liberals have never been perfect.

They're often suffer from the same prejudices, the prejudices of their time. There are exclusions there. But how did they grapple with this? I mean, we've talked a lot about

“freedom here. How did they grapple with this? How did they grapple with this? I think there were”

I mean, other people can speak more intelligently about the US constitution and the the position, the slavery within the document and say that this is really a question also. If compromise is a horrible thing to imagine, but I think there was debates going on there and politics going on that are unseemly today and you have John Stuart Mill seeing absolutely atrocious things about how despotism is okay when you're dealing with barbarians or something

talking about a British imperialism in India. You have Tauquville who was okay apparently with burning silos in Algeria that's awful stuff. But at the same time, these people were then from within, this was not a liberal position, I would say, this is as many people were saying you are betraying your own principles and conservatives were also for perhaps even more so for for colonialism, imperialism. It's horrible to say, but racism was rampant. Sexism was rampant.

If anyone was against it, if we can, we don't, you know, they were liberal, so basic. This is the other side of it where there's a lot of liberal abolitionism there obviously is like the long effort among liberals to expand the franchise, you know, to women and then to people of other races and, you know, a lot of fights over immigration. You have this interesting moment

in the book where you say maybe the first use of using liberals and now in some designs of

an anti-slavery pamphlet, a liberal. It is a tension. Yeah, for sure. So the thing to remember is that for example, when it comes to women, you know, liberals did not really lobby for women's suffrage until very, very, very late. They were not at all for giving women the vote until it was almost forced upon them. But on the other hand, the women when they did fight for admission into a political rights, they used the terms of liberalism.

They went to the guys and they said, hey, you know, you're not living up to your own principles. You're like an aristocracy and aristocracy of sex. You're acting like despots. We want to participate. We want to also be citizens. We can have the virtues of citizens. So they use that same language to say, we have shared responsibilities and we bring something

“to the table something liberal. So they use the language and I think that's also true with”

Fritric Douglas and other groups that have been prejudiced against and even subordinated and oppressed, that they can use the language of liberalism, use the lofty notions and the ideals to argue for their own rights and their own capacities. What is it in liberalism? What ideals in your view, what thoughts or principles or shared values create this kind of time bomb aspect of it? Would you see go off repeatedly in history where you go back in liberalism and the terms of

liberalism get argued to blow up the constraints of the last liberalism? But as we said at the beginning of this conversation, this begins as a quite aristocratic ideal. Eventually it becomes in many cases a philosophical weapon to expand the terms of inclusion and freedom. What is it that

does that in your view? Well, ideas don't travel in a vacuum. So I would always say that the

facts on the ground change, socioeconomic pressures, changes in the economy, wars, all of this creates conditions, creates conflicts, creates crises that liberals then have to confront and deal with. And that goes to, you know, everybody's talking about the crisis of liberal democracy today and the crisis of liberalism. Well, there's been a succession of crises. Liberalism was born in crisis, the crisis of the French Revolution. And so when these moments happen, when there is extreme

tension, when there is new problems, it can throw liberalism sort of off its culture for a while, all sorts of debates occur, become or heated, confused even. There have been moments in liberal

“ism's history where they literally start and they have lists of articles. What is liberalism?”

What do we stand for? What is true liberalism? No, that's false liberalism. And they have these debates. And as I said before, that can weaken the movement, but it can also bring strength to it, allow it to evolve. This conflict, battle of ideas brings out something new that really responds

moment reminds you of? Yeah, I've even started to think about the original crisis, you know,

“the crisis of Napoleon's despotism. Liberals had had such high hopes for establishing a liberal”

regime based on constitutional rule and representative government with these rights protecting the individual. And then the revolution derailed into this horrible period of the terror. And eventually they thought that Napoleon would come and save the revolution. So there was a lot of hope that this charismatic figure who claimed to want to save the revolution was making all the right noises. He was going to bring peace to France. He was going to bring back order. He was going

to protect all these things liberals had fought for so hard. And then instead he became this despot

and a demagogue. And he used wars, you know, to a divert attention to what he was doing at home. He gave gifts to people. He lined the pockets of his friends. He flattered people gave them power that but at the same time that he amassed power in his own in his own hands. This was profoundly demoralizing to the early liberals that I'm talking about who had this lofty notion of what a freer better, more moral, more humane. World would look like and look what it derailed into.

So what did they learn from that? They learned that you needed certain safeguards in places.

This is really when you get liberalism as a constitutional way of thinking and balance of

power separations of powers, individual rights, how important freedom of press is, how important freedom of religion is, and Napoleon used religion, you know, to buttresses power. So all of these constitutional ideas really came together then. And they, you know, it happened again and again over the course of the 19th century that you have these very clever of charismatic figures who could speak directly to the people. I understand you, I represent you. We don't need these

representative institutions. We don't because I speak directly to you. I am you sort of. I mean,

“that's what a demagogue does and that's what populism is, right? Is that the, you don't need”

the intermediaries. And they were very worried about this. And the system they came up with, constitutional liberalisms was meant to make it impossible. But that also made them really think more than ever that we needed an educated citizenry. Intellectuals needed to step up. Newspapers needed to step up and educate the public as to what it means to be a citizen of a liberal regime, of a liberal form of government. They wrote articles, I mean, I'm to style wrote novels in which

she was, you could see her trying to foster the right kind of moral inclinations by that. I mean, compassion, generosity, and social ability, understanding, understanding of shared responsibilities that you needed to educate people to this because without it, without an educated, critically minded, alert citizenry, the people will fall prey to unscrupulous actors, demagogues. This was on their minds the whole time because they saw how vulnerable those liberal constitutions could be. They

really depended on them, morally educated, civic minded, and educated, and alert citizenship. I take the current crisis of liberalism to be not any one crisis, but a couple of things, and this is a non-exhaustive list. One is it liberalism in its modern-American form became associated with power and with the status quo and with the reigning institutions as opposed to being seen as a challenge to them. So the more fed up people got, the less liberalism looked like an answer because it was

“increasingly people seem sort of comfortable with how society was working. I think another crisis”

is that individualism has gone very, very, very, very far. And I think the internet and social media and algorithm media and the fracturing of what we know and our bonds from each other and the weakening of civic institutions and religions and labor unions and all these things that but put them and others have documented. I think that there is a crisis of individualism that has become a partially a crisis of meaning, but I also just think requires different ways of thinking

about freedom and I think liberalism in its modern form is very, very skeptical of individual

used to sort of push people out to the margins, society or to blame them for things that have

been done to them, but it also has left it with very little language in which to talk about something that is not just individualism. Maybe on the question of individualism, something you describe in the book is that at other times the liberals actually were quite a verse to that word and they preferred individuality or when I like more personhood. I'm curious why they preferred those words and also what you see in that that might be relevant today. So yes, they've shied away from

that word. Individualism really had an event, it was kind of a synonym for them to selfishness

“and talk for you see uses it that way I think in democracy in America. It's just again it's an”

ism is a very often and a pejorative and individuality is more about becoming the best person you

can be developing yourself, your capacities, of flourishing, individual flourishing. Individualism today we've become very much a narcissistic society unfortunately I think the more choices we have that's better it's about you know I don't want to go on about sounding horrible about us today but I do feel that we're become very inward looking and narcissistic. And what parts of the the sort of liberal past do you think could be helpful and renovating an answer to that?

I really think that people are searching for meaning you mentioned that and I think that in order to go forward we can draw on this history that we have and think and kind of recover this more language of character, of shared responsibilities, of moral improvement looking at all these things that we have now that are people before us for centuries didn't have and think of them as ways see if we can improve ourselves develop our capacities and do good for everyone you know it's funny

when I talk this way I'm I'm constantly aware that I must be sounding silly somehow and it's a reflection of the cynicism that's in the culture right why is it somewhat embarrassing to speak about making or improving ourselves and doing good for society keeping the common good in mind there's something funny there and I and I think that's a shame. Well also it's in there though a question of who gets to decide what the common good is and what happens when we disagree. That's exactly

“right that's exactly right that's the danger but that's why we have to come to a gather at least”

and discuss it and come to some kind of I think people come together they kind of can agree on things that are good for everyone. And then I think there's this question which has been threaded a little bit through our conversation of liberalism's relationship to power and sometimes it is the ideas of people out of power sometimes it's it's people in power but I think particularly as liberalism in America has become you know the movement of people who are

college educated and people benefited more from how the institutions work it's ended up very connected to power and you see that a lot in the sort of rhetoric of people challenging it now

and the sort of counter-revolutionary ideas that the people on the new right have but I'm curious

how you would describe like liberalism's view of power and what you see in like the various liberalisms that you've tracked that they might be useful to time when people feel like very and I think quite understandably skeptical of institutions and and frustrated with the feeling that society is taking a direction that they don't have much influence over. Yeah absolutely liberalism is

“best when it criticizes power that's how it was delimits authority and allows human flourishing”

for sure and now there is at least this sense and I think it's probably true that liberals largely have I don't know if they control media and universities but have a huge influence and power and that is somehow self-perpetuating which translates into political power as well. I think the worst part of that is a kind of condescension or kind of disconnect between these liberal elites that we recognize are there but they're disconnect between the common man sort of regular people

and I think that is a betrayal of liberal principles really because this is not we talked in the beginning about elites and leaders and this is not what liberal elites are supposed to be doing so I think that and I'm an educator I suppose part of this liberal elite. I was going to say we're all human. Yeah so Makopa I mean I think we can do a a better job here and returning to these principles. One thing that I think is useful here and it's not a full answer but it's one reason I found

around the morality and an ethic of generosity towards your fellow citizen. Yes they were initially

framed as you know things the aristocracy should practice but like a lot of things in liberalism we've tried to expand that and you know we now believe in liberal democracy not liberal aristocracy

“and I think that having a I think it's going to be very very hard in this period to have a”

relationship of generosity in a very divided country that politics is very hard to practice well right now. And the liberals who've done it really well right you think about say you know Barack Obama in 2008 you know are really able to on the one hand hold a vision of moral progress which is can be a divisive vision and also hold a vision of an ethic of generosity and decency towards you know both of the people we agree with and the people we don't agree with and

I think when you know the liberal elites as you describe them and not wrong way but I think in general one place that that elites of you know all parties and persuasions tend to go very wrong is in losing that sense that they are part of a citizenry and instead seeing themselves as leaders who know what is best for everybody else and balancing those commitments instead of liberals and the commitment to moral progress right to expanding freedom you know to giving people

a better life and the commitment to the kinds of virtues needed to make a complex society thrive without people feeling oppressed or condescended to or pushed out by you I think that balance is not one policy that does it it's a very very difficult balance but I think the great liberals figure how to do that well I mean you talked about Lincoln earlier and I mean he to think about somebody holding together opposites right leading a civil war bloodiest wherever on American

soil and also doing so within an ethic of constantly trying to reach out and see that there is some solidarity on the other side of this there's some way to rediscover bonds of commonality I mean it's why speeches are read today not because they're blood thirsty but because I missed all that blood they're not that's absolutely true it is very difficult and we're living in a very difficult moment a true crisis and we're so polarized but I think giving up on liberals I know

that's not what you're saying but those post liberals that we mentioned a while back ago I mean I think it's dangerous to start talking about moving beyond liberalism or giving up on liberalism liberalism has gone through these crises before and I think it can survive and come out of this even stronger and better if we renew some of these ideas but as you in particular have said you know we have some liberals have to deliver you know with the affordability crisis that you've written

about with health care with the environmental degradation with concrete problems that liberals aren't solving so I think we have to find ways to do that but to inspire people is important too I think there's a yearning young people we live in a very materialistic culture there's so much emphasis

“on you know what you can buy and how you should look and how you should dress I think people are”

looking for also some moral uplift I think it's a good place to end always a final question

what are three books you'd recommend to the audience okay I'm always influenced by in such a good way the work of Sam Moine I don't know if you know his work I think he's coming out with a new book that I'm looking forward to but I would like to recommend liberalism against itself which really picks up on some of the themes also from my last chapter and it's about cold war liberalism and sort of why we went wrong in the cold war why liberals went wrong very interesting the second one is a

fun read which is Alex Liffever's liberalism is a way of life and it's just a delightful basically telling us that we're all liberals whether we know it or not he draws on comedy shows and TV series and sort of just a lovely uplifting book and then last but certainly you know at least it's thinking with machines we haven't had a chance to talk about AI but everybody's talking about it now

“and if there's so many books out but if you want to read one book I think that's the one it's”

a Sant dar it's a story of his life with AI he was one of the first to teach it and to bring it to all street and so he talks about it's evolution over time and they go to the bad the risks and the benefits and full disclosure he's my husband I was a lot to do

liberals always scratching each other's back Helena Rosenblatt thank you very much this episode

by Michelle Harris with Kate Sinclair our senior audio engineer is Jeff Gelb with additional

“mixing by Johnny Simon our executive producer is Claire Gordon the show's production team also”

includes Annie Galvan Roland who Marie Cassione Marina King Kristen Lynn Emma Calbeck

and Yon Kobel original music by Amin Sahoda and Pat McCusker audience tragedy by Shannon Busta

the director of opinion shows is Annie Rose Strasser