Special Topics in Political Philosophy
LIBERALISM
Fall 2013
T/Th 12:30-1:45
Draper 349
Professor: Dr. David D. Corey
Office Hours: by appt.
Email: David_D_Corey@baylor.edu
REQUIRED BOOKS
Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (Important Books)
L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism & Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
Guido de Ruggiero, The History of European Liberalism, trans. R. G. Collingwood (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1927)
Harold J. Laski, The Rise of European Liberalism (Transaction Publishers, [1936] 1997)
Richard Bellamy, Liberalism and Modern Society: A Historical Argument (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University, 1992)
Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, 1955)
Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York:
W. W. Norton & Co, 1979)
Alan Wolfe, The Future of Liberalism (New York: Vintage Books, 2010)
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Eric Voegelin, “Liberalism and its History,” The Review of Politics 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp.
504-520. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406338
Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” in Isaiah Berlin: Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002).
Richard Bellamy, “Idealism and Liberalism in an Italian 'New Liberal Theorist': Guido de
Ruggiero's History of European Liberalism,” The Historical Journal 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1987),
pp. 191-200. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639311
Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., “Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manque' or Lost Libertarian?” Journal of
Libertarian Studies IV, no. 2 (Spring, 1980): 139-150.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_2/4_2_2.pdf
Philip Abbott, “Still Louis Hartz after All These Years: A Defense of the Liberal Society
Thesis,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 93-109. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3688113 .
RECOMMENDED
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style
McMahon, “Real World Writing” (available upon request)
COURSE OVERVIEW
1
Liberalism can be viewed as a philosophical problem: “What is liberalism?” “What drives its
apparently endless change?” “What will (or should) be its future?” Our business this semester is
to grapple with liberalism in such terms, and we should do so with some urgency. Liberalism—
whatever it is—seems to be in trouble, which is to say that our public life is in trouble. As
Americans we appear to be more politically divided than in the recent past, more financially
strapped, and less sure about our proper role in the world. At the same time, momentous political
issues are being decided in our midst in the name of liberal progress: whether homosexuals have
a right to marry, whether government can compel business owners, against their religious
conscience, to supply certain forms of contraception to their employees. Such questions expose
serious tensions within liberalism, not a battle between liberalism and something else. Are we,
then, facing a “crisis” of liberalism, and could this crisis be fatal? Surely such problems demand
our attention.
While I do not have any final answers about liberalism as a philosophical problem, I do have
some hypotheses (enumerated at the end of the syllabus), and our course is designed in part to
test these. We shall do so collaboratively by analyzing key texts of liberal theory, along with
some seminal studies of liberalism’s history.
The course is structured as a journey through time and space. We begin by planning our trip—
specifying the objects and goals of our search. We then trace liberalism from its sixteenthcentury origins to its twentieth-century manifestations in four separate countries—Britain,
France, Germany and Italy—before at last arriving at the United States. Here we pay special
attention to the New Deal and the rise of the administrative state, before pondering the possible
future(s) of liberalism in American political life.
GOALS
I have three primary goals for students in this class. One is that you come to understand the
meaning of the term “liberalism” in its full complexity, especially by understanding its history.
Second is that you come to appreciate the way different freedoms naturally compete with each
other, perhaps even undermine each other, such that some versions of liberalism are more
coherent and sustainable than others. We shall do this by working up and analyzing a lexicon of
liberal freedoms as we read through the literature on the syllabus. Finally, I expect you to give
some thought, especially at the end of the course, to different possible kinds of liberalism and to
the question of which one(s) might prove most conducive to human flourishing.
Besides these primary goals, I also (as always) have the secondary goal of helping you to
become a clearer thinker and writer. Your papers in this class will thus be evaluated in terms of
substance and style.
ATTENDANCE
As the fruits of this course come largely by way of classroom conversation, attendance is
required. Any student who does not attend at least 75% of all scheduled class meetings will
automatically receive an “F” in the course. Any University-related activity necessitating an
absence from class shall count as an absence when determining whether a student has attended
the required 75% of class meetings. Beyond this, any student who misses more than three
scheduled classes will see his or her final grade substantially affected. I do not distinguish
2
between “excused” and “unexcused” absences, so there is no need to tell me why you were
absent or to worry about a doctor’s note.
CLASS FORMAT AND GRADE STRUCTURE
The purpose of our class sessions is not to repeat what is in the readings, but to understand the
readings more deeply. We do this through conversation, and our conversations will be only as
fruitful as you are prepared to offer insights and appreciate the insights of others. All this
presupposes careful reading and reflection at home before every class. In fact, the backbone of
the course (and the major determinant of your grade) is the time you spend engaged in careful,
reflective reading outside of class. There is no substitute for this. If you read consistently and
well, you will have no difficulty with (and should even enjoy) the five ways in which your grade
will be determined:
Participation: 10%, based on the contributions you make to classroom conversations.
“Contributions” refers not only to the frequency with which you speak, but also the
quality of your reflections. It will moreover be based on attendance, insofar as repeated
absences will subtract substantially from this grade.
Quizzes and study questions: 20%, based on your cumulative score minus your three
lowest quiz grades. Quizzes are designed to assist you in reading consistently and well.
Essays: 40%, based on the cumulative values of the two equally weighted essays. Essays
will be 5-7 pages in length.
Final Exam: 30%, will cover factual material from the readings. It will thus consist of
multiple-choice and other objective indicators of your knowledge. The exam will be held
on Saturday, December 14, 2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Your grade will be calculated according to the following scale: (100 - 90%) = A, (89 87%) = B+, (86 - 80%) = B, (79 - 77%) = C+, (76 - 70%) = C, (69 - 60%) = D, (59 - 0%)
=F
3
-----------------------------------------------------------------COURSE SCHEDULE
-----------------------------------------------------------------I. Formulating our Questions, Hypotheses and Method
8/27
Ludwig von Mises, “On the Term Liberalism,” in Liberalism, pp. 198-201.
Eric Voegelin, “Liberalism and its History,” The Review of Politics 36, No. 4
(Oct., 1974), pp. 504-520. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406338
II. “Classical” Liberalism of the Austrian School
8/29
Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, pp. 1-60 (Intro and ch. 1)
9/3
Mises, Liberalism, pp. 60-105 (ch. 2)
9/5
Mises, Liberalism, pp. 155-193 (chs. 4-5)
III. The Rise of “Social Liberalism” or “New Liberalism”
9/10
Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, Liberalism, pp. 1-67 (chs. 1-6)
9/12
Hobhouse, Liberalism, pp. 67-121 (chs. 7-9); Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of
Liberty”(1958) in Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969), available here: http://www.wiso.unihamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptso
fliberty.pdf
IV. Liberalism Studied Comparatively and Historically: England, France, Germany &
Italy; From the Sixteenth-century Origins to the Twentieth-century Crisis.
9/17
Guido de Ruggiero, History of European Liberalism, pp. 1-93 (“Introduction: The
Eighteenth Century”); Richard Bellamy, “Idealism and Liberalism in an Italian
'New Liberal Theorist': Guido de Ruggiero's History of European Liberalism,”
The Historical Journal 30, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 191-200. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639311
9/19
Ruggiero, Hist. of European Liberalism, pp. 93-157 (“English Liberalism”)
9/24
Ruggiero, Hist. of European Liberalism, pp. 158-210 and skim pp. 211-274
(“French Liberalism” and “German Liberalism”)
9/26
Ruggiero, Hist. of European Liberalism, pp.347-94 (“What Liberalism Is,”
“Liberalism & Democracy,” “Liberalism & Socialism”): David Little
10/1
No reading and no class. Work on papers.
10/3
Ruggiero, Hist. of European Liberalism, pp. 395-443 (“Church & State,”
“Freedom & Nationality,” “The Crisis of Liberalism,” and “Conclusion”)
10/8
10/10
10/15
10/17
Harold J. Laski, The Rise of European Liberalism, pp. 1-90 (“Background”)
Laski, Rise of European Liberalism, pp. 91-179 (“Seventeenth Century”)
Laski, Rise of European Liberalism, pp. 180-269 (“Age of Enlightenment”)
Laski, Rise of European Liberalism, pp. 270-303 (“Aftermath”); Arthur A.
Ekirch, Jr., “Harold J. Laski: The Liberal Manque' or Lost Libertarian?” Journal
of Libertarian Studies IV, no. 2 (Spring, 1980): 139-150.
4
10/22
10/24
10/29
Richard Bellamy, Liberalism & Modern Society: A Historical Argument, pp. 1104 (“Introduction: From Ethical to Economic Liberalism,” “Britain: Liberalism
Defined,” and “France: Liberalism Socialized”)
Bellamy, Liberalism & Modern Society, pp. 105-156 (“Italy: Liberalism
Transformed”
Bellamy, Liberalism & Modern Society, pp. 157-261 (“Germany: Liberalism
Disenchanted,” “Contemporary Liberal Philosophy: Liberalism Neutralized,” and
“Conclusion: From Liberal Democracy to Democratic Liberalism”
V. The Fate of Liberalism in the United States
10/31
Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America, pp. 3-66 (Part I: “Feudalism and
the American Experience”)
11/5
Hartz, Liberal Tradition in America, pp. 228-59 (“Progressives and Socialists”)
11/7
Hartz, Liberal Tradition in America, pp. 259-84 (“The New Deal”); Philip
Abbott, “Still Louis Hartz after All These Years: A Defense of the Liberal Society
Thesis,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 93-109. Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3688113
11/12
11/14
11/19
11/21
11/26
11/28
12/3
12/5
Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United
States, pp. 3-66 (Part I: “The Ideology and Decline of Liberal Ideology in the
United States)
Lowi, End of Liberalism, pp. 67-126 (Part II: “Why Liberal Governments Cannot
Plan”)
Lowi, End of Liberalism, pp. 127-197 (into Part III: “Why Liberal Governments
Cannot Achieve Justice”
Lowi, End of Liberalism, pp. 198-236 (“Interest Group Liberalism and Poverty:
The End of the Welfare State”)
Lowi, End of Liberalism, pp. 271-314 (“Beyond Liberalism”)
No Class (Thanksgiving). Reading: Alan Wolfe, The Future of Liberalism, read
roughly 90 pp. per session.
Wolfe, Future of Liberalism
Wolfe, Future of Liberalism
5
Draft of Essay Questions (so you know what to expect):
Essay 1:
Is there any discernible pattern to the historical evolution of liberal freedoms? If so, what is
it, and what if any anomalies do you see?
—or—
Identify and describe two different historical forms of liberalism in terms of the specific
freedoms they most avidly espouse and analyze the compatibility or incompatibility of these
two liberal forms.
Essay 2:
Is American liberalism in crisis? If so, what is it? And what should be the future of liberalism
in our country?
—or—
Is liberalism inherently anti-Christian? Or can liberalism be constituted in such a way as to
be compatible with Christian belief and practice?
6
Hypotheses:
(1) Liberalism is a political disposition to place the project of expanding human freedom at or
near the top of the policy agenda. It is not a platform but a process of expanding freedom. As
certain freedoms become politically secure, citizens press for others, apparently ad infinitum.
Liberalism is this process, not any particular phase of it. Liberalism is by definition dynamic and
revolutionary.
(2) Liberalism has a more-or-less intelligible history. It is the story and the pattern of the quest
for freedom after freedom. That pattern is not strictly necessary, but neither is it random. In
general the history of liberalism moves from the most existentially crucial freedoms (physical
security, freedom of movement) to less crucial ones. But the process is not perfectly linear
because historical contingency has much to do with whether one freedom or another is agitated
for in any given time and place. Nevertheless, the abolition of slavery would, on my hypothesis,
precede the enfranchisement of women (as in fact it did), just as physical freedom precedes
political freedom in order of existential need.
(3) As liberalism evolves, the incorporation of new freedoms often occurs at the expense of older
ones. Not all freedoms are compatible. When, over time, the most basic freedoms are eroded by
the press for new, less existentially crucial ones, we have what I call “upside-down liberalism.”
Upside-down liberalism appears unsustainable.
(4) The liberal process in politics tends to transform citizens’ view of government’s role. Modern
liberals understand the role of government chiefly as “problem-solving,” (rather than as a neutral
umpire or a custodian of civic health). And the most meaningful “problem” for government to
solve is that of advancing the movement toward greater and greater freedom.
(5) Liberalism carries with it marked assumptions about such things as the nature of God, man,
history, and human happiness. Happiness is thought to be frustrated only by hindrance. The
march of freedom is therefore expected to deliver happiness. Liberalism thus goes hand-in-hand
with a radical progressivism according to which everyone is expected to assist in (or at least not
frustrate) the emancipation of humankind from ignorance, inequality, injustice, and unhappiness.
(6) In a liberal society, various opposition groups emerge. These have a difficult time explaining
why the process of expanding freedom should ever be arrested. Eventually they lose. However,
sometimes the opposition takes the sophisticated form of accepting the march of freedom while
trying to temper it in various ways. This is the significance of Tocqueville in the history of
political thought.
(7) As liberalism progresses, the conflicts between and among different sets of freedoms go
largely undetected by average citizens. We thus end up with outcomes that are not thought
through or perfectly desirable.
(8) Some groupings of liberal freedoms are more coherent and sustainable than others. We
should therefore study the conflicts within liberalism in order to propose forms of liberal life that
are most fitting for human flourishing.
7