reflection

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 1

Four Versions of Progress part 2

Classical Liberalism

We said in the last lecture that Edmund Burke understood progress as gradual reform, not radical change or revolution. Yet we had also noted that Burke supported the American Revolution. You might ask why Burke supported the Americans if he opposed revolution. There are a couple answers. First, recall that Burke viewed the Americans as defending their traditions, not acting radically. He thought the American colonists had developed a tradition of being taxed only by their local colonies, not by the British government in London. Thus Burke viewed the British government’s new taxes on the colonists – Stamp Act (1765), Townshend Acts (1767), Tea Act (1773) – as interfering with the colonists’ traditions. When Americans declared independence in 1776, Burke viewed them as defending their traditions, not acting radically. A second reason Burke supported the American Revolution was because of the ideas of the Revolution. Those ideas – the ideology of the American Revolution – were classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the second of the four Enlightenment ways of thinking.

• Classical liberalism is distinct from Burke’s conservative liberalism.

• But there are similarities between classical and conservative liberalism, which lead Burke to support the American cause.

We can think of the relation between classical liberalism and conservative liberalism this way: these two ways of thinking develop certain distinctions from similar foundations. Let’s start by identifying similar foundations and then we’ll see how the distinctions develop from there.

Similar Foundation 1: Skeptical view of Human Nature

One similarity is the skeptical view of human nature. Recall that Burke had a skeptical view.

• Burke thought the passions and appetites of human desires were dangerously strong. They could easily get out of control and cause social disorder, social decay, and violence.

• He thought history was largely “the miseries brought upon the world” by out of control passions – “by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the train of disorderly appetites.”

• Burke thus thought that society must civilize and restrain human passions, that social order and civil liberty were possible only when humans are willing “to put moral chains upon their own appetites.”

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 2

Classical liberalism shared this skeptical view of human nature with conservative liberalism. Let’s look at examples. The Englishman John Locke was a classical liberal philosopher. He lived before Burke and wrote Second Treatise of Government (1689) and Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).

• Locke views human nature skeptically. He argues that human reason often fails to control human passions; what humans know to be right or good often does not determine their desires or will. As Locke says, “I am forced to conclude that good, the greater good, though apprehended and acknowledged to be so, does not determine the will.”

• Like Burke, Locke thinks that human nature makes social order fragile. Human passions can easily get out of control and create social disorder and violence. Locke’s description of history thus resembles Burke’s description of history. Locke describes history as a series of “furies, war, cruelty, rapine, confusion, etc., which have so wearied and wasted” many and created “such havoc and desolation in Europe” resulting in “the blood of so many millions.”

Other classical liberal philosophers also expressed this skeptical view of human nature, with human passions and desires often getting out of control.

• Decades after Locke, the British authors John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon wrote Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious (1720-23). They too say that “Men are not ruled by principle, but by passion.”

• A generation later, the New Yorker William Livingston published the Independent Reflector (1753). He also views the passions as the prime motives of human behavior. As he says, “we must take men as they are, and if we consult the motives that generally influence their conduct,” we will find “those passions which constitute a part of their nature.”

• Like the classical liberal Locke and the conservative liberal Burke, Livingston thinks that human nature makes social order fragile. He feared how unrestrained passions create social disorder: “the fabric of public peace, harmony, and order will shake and totter.”

Finally, let’s look at the classical liberal philosopher John Adams of Massachusetts. Adams helped edit the Declaration of Independence (1776) before it was published. He wrote Thoughts on Government (1776) and Defense of the [State] Constitutions of the United States of America (1786-87). He eventually became third president of the United States after the American Revolution.

• Adams sounds like Burke when he writes about human nature and the family. Adams wrote that nature “has furnished men with passions.” It is the “duty of private prudence,” meaning the family, to make sure the passions are turned into obligations – “arranged on the side of virtue.”

• Adams continued: the passion of “ambition is natural to the human soul.” When it is civilized and turned into an obligation – “when it receives a happy turn” – “it is the source of private felicity [family] and public prosperity [community, city, nation].”

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 3

• But Adams warns about ambition when it is not restrained and civilized: “when ambition errs” – when it gets out of control – it “produces private uneasiness and public calamities” – i.e., social disorder and violence.

• Like Burke, Adams says that civil liberty is “civil” liberty, meaning ordered liberty or liberty in an ordered society. Adams thinks civil liberty is possible only when the passions are restrained and civilized into a social order. He thus identifies moral restraints on passions as necessary for freedom. As he says, “it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” Without such restraints, liberty turns into social decay.

To summarize: Conservative liberalism and classical liberalism both have a skeptical view of human nature. Both ways of thinking viewed society as fragile because human passions can easily get out of control and create social disorder and violence. Both thus thought it was necessary to restrain and civilize human passions in order to have civil liberty.

Similar Foundation 2: Restrain Democracy

Democracy allows for the expression of human passions. Since conservative liberals and classical liberals seek to restrain and civilize human passions, they also seek to restrain the expression of those passions in democracy.

• In other words, this second similarity between conservative liberalism and classical liberalism (restrain democracy) follows from the first (restrain passions).

Let’s be more specific. Democracy depends on majorities. Majorities win elections. Majorities pass laws. But what if you are not in the majority? What if 52% of people vote for a candidate or a law which you oppose? You are in the minority – the 48%.

• Here’s an important question: If you are in the minority, do you have any rights which the majority cannot violate, any rights which the majority cannot vote to take away?

• If you say “yes,” that you have rights which the majority cannot simply pass laws to take away, then your rights restrain the majority; your rights restrain democracy.

• Keep in mind: restrain democracy does not mean eliminate democracy. Rather, restrain democracy means that while the majority has important power – win elections and pass laws – the majority does not have unlimited power. A person’s individual rights limit the majority and thus restrain democracy.

Conservative liberals and classical liberals emphasize the need to restrain democracy. They think that unrestrained democracy means unrestrained majority passions. And those passions, once set free, will create disorder and oppression.

• The conservative liberal Burke says it this way: “Of this I am certain, that in a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.”

• Burke calls democratic oppression “popular persecution” because it is carried out by most of the population, the majority.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 4

• Interestingly, Burke argues that a democratic majority could oppress the minority “with much greater fury” than a king could. As he says, majority “oppression of the minority will extend to far greater numbers, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single scepter” – i.e., a king.

• Think about that. Most of us probably would not want to be ruled by a king. Burke is asking us to consider the following: Are our individual rights better protected in a democratic society than under a king if democracy is not restrained?

James Madison was a classical liberal from Virginia. He helped write the U.S. Constitution (1787) and ratify the Bill of Rights (1791). He eventually became the fourth president of the United States after the American Revolution.

• Like Burke, Madison emphasizes the need to restrain democracy – restrain the majority. In a famous essay he wrote called Federalist #10 (1787), Madison calls the majority “overbearing.”

• He explains that majority passions violate personal security and rights, making democracies turbulent and violent. As he says, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short lived in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

• Madison and others who wrote the U.S. Constitution understood the history of democracies, starting with the first democracy in ancient Athens. That democracy put no restrictions on majority power. It became unstable and dangerous. As Madison explains, “passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason” – i.e., passion overpowers reason. “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

• As a result of this thinking, the U.S. Constitution (1787) did not create a democracy. It created a constitutional republic. Republic means citizens vote for representatives in government. Voting is the democratic part of the system. It’s where the majority has power. But the constitutional part includes individual rights. This part limits the majority. It restrains democracy from violating the security and rights of individuals.

Let’s summarize: We have discussed the similar foundations of conservative liberalism and classical liberalism. Both had a skeptical view of human nature and, as a result, both thought it important to restrain democracy. Now let’s see how these two ways of thinking develop certain distinctions from these similar foundations.

Distinction 1: Separation of Powers

Burke views the British system of government as having evolved over time. He thinks that evolution produced an important achievement – balance. The balance was between three parts

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 5

of society: 1) a King with limited powers, 2) the nobility represented in Parliament’s House of Lords and 3) property owning commoners represented in Parliament’s House of Commons. This sense of balance in government and society was part of Burke’s conservative liberalism. As classical liberalism developed, it emphasized competition more than balance. Classical liberals began to see competition as playing positive roles in government and society. Let’s start with competition in government. Every government has three powers:

• The power to make law – legislative power

• The power to execute or enforce law – executive power

• The power to apply law to particular cases – judicial power Throughout history, including today, most governments combine these powers in one way or another. Countries with a prime minister combine the first two powers by making the executive dependent on the legislative power. In socialist countries, the executive usually controls the legislative or judicial powers. During the Enlightenment, classical liberals began to think of the three powers differently. They argued for separating the three powers into three separate branches of government. Although each branch had a different kind of power, each was co-equal, meaning each was equal in power to the other two. This became known as the separation of powers.

• The French philosopher Montesquieu promoted the separation of powers in his famous book, The Spirit of the Laws (1748).

• Americans then wrote the separation of powers into the U.S. Constitution (1787). The point of the U.S. Constitution is not to balance different parts of society like the 18th century British system. Rather, the point of the U.S. Constitution is to separate the powers of government so the three co-equal branches compete with each other for power. Let’s again refer to James Madison of Virginia to see how classical liberalism promotes competition in government. In Federalist #10 (1787), Madison writes these famous words, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Madison’s logic is this:

• Everyone in government has the human passion of ambition. They are all ambitious for power. Whatever power people in government have, they want more.

• So how do we prevent the ambition for power in government from leading to the abuse of power?

• The solution: separate the powers of government into three co-equal branches. Set the system up so the three branches compete by trying to take power from each other. As each branch competes – trying to take power from the other two – each branch limits the power of the others. Since they are co-equal, none of three branches will dominate.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 6

Sometimes we call this competition for power “checks and balances.” This makes it sound like the balance which Burke praises in the 18th century British system. But it is distinct. This distinction between conservative liberalism and classical liberalism developed from a similar foundation. Follow the logic:

• The 18th century British system restrains democracy with balance. It balances the most democratic part of government (House of Commons) with non-democratic parts – a King and a nobility (House of Lords).

• But there is no King or nobility in the American system. The most democratic part of government is the House of Representatives, but the Senate and President are also elected through democratic processes.

• The American system restrains democracy by separating the powers of government more fully than the British system. Indeed, most governments combine the three powers of government in one way or another. The American system is distinct in the way it separates the three powers of government. This separation of powers is a classical liberal idea.

With the above discussion, we have established a basis for understanding classical liberalism’s view of progress, which involves natural rights and commerce. As we explore that view, keep in mind how it builds on classical liberal ideas we discussed above: restrain human passions, restrain democracy, separation of powers.

Distinctions 2 & 3: Natural Rights & Commercial Society

Classical liberalism emphasizes individual natural rights – the idea that individuals are born or “endowed” with certain rights. This idea of natural rights is in the American Declaration of Independence (1776). The Declaration states “that all men are created equal.” It then explains that “equal” means equal natural rights: all “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The rights are “endowed” or built into human nature. Examples of natural rights include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. These are listed in the First Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791). Natural rights limit government.

• These rights are natural because they do not come from government or society.

• They come from human nature, from the natural capacities of the human mind.

• As a result, natural rights limit government. They prevent government from interfering with our natural abilities to speak, to practice religion, or to assemble with others to share ideas.

Consider how natural rights and the separation of powers complement each other in classical liberalism.

• Both ideas limit government.

• Both ideas restrain the passions of politicians in government by limiting their powers.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 7

• Both ideas restrain the passions of the majority which try to pass laws interfering with the rights of individuals.

With these classical liberal ideas in mind – restraining human passions, restraining government, separation of powers, and individual natural rights – we are now ready to consider classical liberalism’s understanding of progress. For classical liberals, progress comes from individuals exercising their natural rights.

• This focus on natural rights distinguishes classical liberalism from conservative liberalism. The conservative liberal Burke mentions but does not emphasize natural rights.

• However, the classical liberal focus on natural rights relates to something Burke does emphasize – civil society.

Recall how for Burke progress is not led or directed by politicians or government, but happens in civil society – that free space in society between the family and government.

• Burke wants to make civil society as wide as possible, so neighborhood and community organizations could thrive; so schools, religions, self-help groups, civic associations, and businesses could thrive.

• For Burke, a just society provides that space – civil society – for people to decide for themselves what social practices and institutions improve their lives.

• People using the free space of civil society to improve their lives allows for the possibility of progress.

Classical liberals agree with Burke that progress is not directed by politicians or government, but occurs in civil society. Classical liberals, though, add three distinct points to this argument. We’ve already discussed two of those three:

• Classical liberals separate the powers of government more than Burke. This separation puts stricter limits on government, preventing politicians from controlling the free space of civil society.

• Classical liberals emphasize natural rights so individuals are legally protected from government interference when they exercise their freedoms in civil society.

Now for classical liberalism’s third distinct point – Commerce.

• Commerce is the production and selling of goods and services.

• Click here and here for maps of global commerce in the 18th century. The arrows in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans represent the shipping of goods around the world.

We said above that for classical liberals progress comes from individuals exercising their natural rights in civil society. This includes the natural rights of speech, religion, and assembly. It also includes the individual’s natural right to use his/her talents to acquire and possess private property – i.e., the natural right to private property.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 8

• Commerce is a primary way of acquiring private property. An individual earns money – property – by producing and selling goods and services others value and thus buy.

• Classical liberals want civil society to be as free as possible so individuals can use their talents to produce and sell goods and services in order to acquire and possess private property.

• For the classical liberal, then, it is not politicians or government which bring progress. Rather, progress comes from individuals exercising their natural rights in civil society – the rights of speech, religion, and assembly, and the right to use one’s talents to acquire private property.

To be clear, Burke also supported commerce. The distinction between a conservative liberal like Burke and a classical liberal like Madison is not that one supported and the other opposed commerce. Rather, the distinction is one of emphasis. A classical liberal more strongly emphasizes commerce as a competitive and dynamic economic system. Remember how classical liberals promote competition in government – separation of powers. Classical liberals also promote competition in civil society – a dynamic competitive economy. They believe that competition between producers and competition between sellers will lead to better goods and services for consumers – i.e., progress. Madison explains classical liberal thinking on this point. His logic is this:

• Individuals are born with equal natural rights, but unequal talents. Madison calls these unequal talents “diversity in the faculties of men.”

• Individuals have an equal natural right to use their unequal talents to create things – to produce and sell goods and services – in order to acquire private property (money).

• These unequal talents prevent society from having one overall economic interest. The unequal talents, in Madison’s words, are an “obstacle to a uniformity of interests.”

• Instead of one overall economic interest, society will have “various and interfering interests” – i.e., a competitive economy.

In short, Madison is describing a modern commercial society with all kinds of competing interests. Madison describes these competing interests this way: “A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes.” Classical liberal saw commerce as a key to progress.

• They wanted to restrict government by separating its powers so civil society would be as free as possible for individuals to exercise their natural rights.

• One of those natural rights was the freedom of individuals to use their unequal talents to produce goods and services in order to acquire private property for themselves.

• Notice this means that classical liberal progress is not led or directed by anyone in particular. Rather, progress is the result of millions of individuals exercising their natural

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 2 - 9

rights, millions of individuals using their own talents in civil society. Progress is the product of decentralized human actions, not the product of political decisions made in government.