Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:15:26.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Present-Day Critics of Liberalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Francis W. Coker
Francis W. Coker
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Liberalism” is a late modern word, appearing first (along with “conservatism,” “socialism,” and “communism”) in the early nineteenth century. Its basic ideas are old. The particular freedoms called for have changed as the denials of freedom have changed. The demands have been for liberation from oppressive political rule or intolerant ecclesiastical authority; or from a status of slavery or serfdom; from restraints embodied in laws and customs that hamper the rise of new productive forces, or from limitations on equal opportunity resulting from narrow concentrations of private economic power; from limitations on voting rights and from interferences with freedom of religion, speech, and association. The constant concern has been with pleas for deliverance from restraints which, although perhaps widely regarded at a given time as a normal part of life, have come to be regarded, by some in the community, as unnatural and intolerable.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1953 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Politics, Barker, Ernest trans. (Oxford, 1946)Google Scholar, Bk. I, Chs. ii and v; Bk. III, Ch. xi; Bk. IV, Ch. iv.

2 For general descriptions and appraisals of traditional liberal ideas, see Watkins, Frederick, The Political Tradition of the West (Cambridge, Mass., 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trilling, Lionel, The Liberal Imagination (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Brinton, Crane, Ideas and Men: The Story of Western Thought (New York, 1950), esp. pp. 373–550Google Scholar; Saunders, John J., The Age of Revolution; the Rise and Decline of Liberalism in Europe since 1815 (New York, 1949)Google Scholar; Heimann, Eduard, Freedom and Order (New York, 1947), Chs. 1, 8, 10, 12Google Scholar; Hallowell, John H., Main Currents in Modern Political Thought (New York, 1950), pp. 84–367Google Scholar and passim.

3 Spengler, Oswald, The Hour of Decision (New York, 1934, translated from the German by Atkins, Charles Francis), pp. 14, 109, 119Google Scholar; Lenin, Nicolai, What Is to Be Done (London and New York, 1929)Google Scholar, and Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade (London, 1929)Google Scholar.

4 On liberalism as a doctrine of human rights, see: Becker, Carl L., Freedom and Responsibility in the American Way of Life (New York, 1945)Google Scholar; MacIver, Robert M., The Ramparts We Guard (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Pennock, J. Roland, Liberal Democracy: Its Merits and Prospects (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Brogan, Denis W., The Free State, Some Considerations on Its Practical Value (New York, 1945)Google Scholar; Russell, Bertrand, Authority and the Individual (New York, 1949)Google Scholar; UNESCO ed., Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations; A Symposium (London, 1949)Google Scholar; Fellman, David, “What is Liberalism?”, Prairie Schooner (Fall, 1945), pp. 204–18Google Scholar. See also Lasswell, Harold D., National Security and Individual Freedom (New York, 1950), esp. Chs. 2 and 7Google Scholar.

5 Kendall, Willmoore, John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority-Rule (Urbana, 1940)Google Scholar, and “Prolegomena to any Future Work on Majority Rule,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 12, pp. 694–713 (11, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, written in reply to an article by McCleskey, Herbert, “The Fallacy of Absolute Majority Rule” in the same journal, Vol. 11, pp. 637–54 (11, 1949)Google Scholar criticizing Kendall's views; Ranney, J. Austin, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: a Commentary,“ American Political Science Review, Vol. 45, pp. 488–99 (06, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ranney, J. Austin and Kendall, Willmoore, “Democracy: Confusion and Agreement,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 430–39 (09, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotations from Kendall alone are from the “Prolegomena” article, except where otherwise indicated.

6 For a discriminating criticism of our system of judicial review as it operates in the protection of civil liberties, see: Commager, Henry Steele, Majority Rule and Minority Rights (New York, 1943)Google Scholar; Cahill, Fred V., Judicial Legislation (New York, 1952)Google Scholar; Latham, Earl, “Theory of the Judicial Concept of Freedom of Speech,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 12, pp. 637–51 (11, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule, p. 129.

8 Aristotle, Politics, Bk. III, Chs. iv, vi, xi; Bk. IV, Chs. i, iv, xi, xiv; Bk. V, Ch. ix. Plato, , The Laws, IV, 715Google Scholar.

9 For Locke, see the Second Treatise of Government, secs. 16, 22, 49, 87, 88, 95–99, 116, 131, 134–42, 222. For Jefferson, see the Declaration of Independence, his Notes on the State of Virginia (1789), and his first Inaugural Address (1801).

10 Modern Democracies (New York, 1921), Vol. 1, p. 59Google Scholar; Vol. 2, pp. 121, 521.

11 Reflections on Government (Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 26, 175, 196Google Scholar.

12 Modern Democracies, Vol. 2, Ch. 64 and pp. 393–95Google Scholar.

13 Modern Democracies, Vol. 2, pp. 11, 27, 84Google Scholar; and see Radcliffe, Cyril John, The Problem of Power (London, 1952), pp. 61–64, 85–87Google Scholar.

14 Modern Democracies, Vol. 2, pp. 390–91Google Scholar.

15 The Nature and Destiny of Man, 2 vols. (New York, 1941–1943), Vol. 1, p. 273Google Scholar. See also Reflections on the End of an Era (New York, 1934)Google Scholar; An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (New York, 1935), pp. 140–50, 171–79Google Scholar; Children of Light and Children of Darkness (New York, 1944)Google Scholar.

16 Christianity and Power Politics (New York, 1940), p. 156Google Scholar.

17 The Irony of American History (New York, 1952), p. 143Google Scholar.

18 Eliot, T. S., “Religion and Literature” and “Catholicism and International Order,” in his Essays, Ancient and Modern (New York, 1936)Google Scholar. The following account of Eliot's specific criticisms is based chiefly on The Idea of a Christian Society (New York, 1940)Google Scholar Ch. 1.

19 The following summary of Eliot's ideas on the structure and functions of a Christian society is based chiefly on The Idea of a Christian Society, pp. 23 ff. See also his Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (London, 1948), pp. 13–20, 28–34Google Scholar, Chs. 4–5, and pp. 122–24; For Lancelot Andrewes: Essays on Style and Order (London, 1928)Google Scholar, Ch. 8.

20 Professor Hallowell's views on the moral and practical defects of modern liberalism and his proposed reforms are set forth in his Main Currents in Modern Political Thought (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; see especially pp. 558–70, 612–24, 662–73.

21 Ibid., p. 613.

22 Ibid., pp. 614–15.

23 Ibid., pp. 689–91, quoting from Temple, William, Christianity and the Social Order (London, 1942)Google Scholar.

24 Professor De Grazia's eloquent pleas for the restoration of the idea of community are set forth at length in his The Political Community: A Study of Anomie (Chicago, 1948)Google Scholar. See especially his preface and pp. 176–90.

25 De Grazia's ideas on the evils of toleration and his proposed cure are emphatically set forth in an address on “Toleration and Forgiveness: the Ability to Judge Good from Evil,” in Vital Speeches, Vol. 16, pp. 149–53 (12 15, 1949)Google Scholar.

26 Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (Modern Library ed.), pp. 47, 83, 91, 102Google Scholar.

27 London Times, May 24, 1935, p. 17, and October 5, 1938, p. 9.

28 Main Currents in Modern Political Thought, pp. 326, 613, 614, 678.

29 For Lancelot Andrewes, Ch. 5 and at p. 89.

30 The Idea of a Christian Society, p. 61.

31 Ibid., p. 43.

32 The Irony of American History, pp. 25, 43, 46, 63, 80.

33 Ibid., Ch. 6 and p. 174.

34 Hocking, William E., What Man Can Make of Man (New York and London, 1942), pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

35 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Irony of American History, pp. 157–58Google Scholar.

36 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Irony of American History, p. 156Google Scholar.

37 Linton, Ralph, The Cultural Background of Personality (New York, London, 1936), pp. 5, 15–16, 23–25, 36Google Scholar; The Study of Man (New York, London, 1945), pp. 91–96, 273–74Google Scholar. For similar views by a religious writer, see Temple, William, Christianity and the State (London, 1928), pp. 99, 101–2, 108, 124–25Google Scholar.

38 Eliot, T. S., For Lancelot Andrewes (1928), p. 42Google Scholar.

39 Earl Latham, in article cited in note 6, above; and see generally Holcombe, Arthur, “Natural Limits to the Power of Numerical Majorities” and “The Paramount Principle of the Political Mean” in his Our More Perfect Union (New York, 1950), pp. 23–36 and 400–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.