Response history

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 1

Modern Ideologies – Modern Liberalism

No Natural Rights In this lecture we continue our discussion of modern ideologies. We examine Modern Liberalism, which is distinct from Classical Liberalism. As part of our discussion, we’ll compare these two ideologies. As we’ve seen, Classical Liberalism began in the 1700s and developed in the centuries that followed. Modern Liberalism began in the 1800s and also developed in the following centuries. Modern Liberal ideas influenced the authors below from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s. Their books highlight that Modern Liberal ideas developed over time and remain with us today as a living intellectual tradition. In reading the list, recall how we ended last lecture. We distinguished a government which governs society in the Classical Liberal sense from a State which leads and directs society in a Modern Liberal sense. Notice how many of the titles below include the word “State” – as well as words like “new” and “democracy.”

• Johann Bluntschli, The Theory of the State (1875)

• John Bates Clark, The New Economics (1886)

• Woodrow Wilson, The State (1889)

• Franklin Giddings, Democracy and Social Organization (1898)

• Leonard Hobhouse, Liberalism (1911)

• Walter Weyl, The New Democracy (1912)

• Mary Parker Follett, The New State (1918)

• John Dewey, The Democratic State (1927)

• Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State (1982)

• Edward Steiner, Shaping Modern Liberalism (1993)

• Neil Jumonville and Kevin Mattson, Liberalism for a New Century (2007) The fact that Modern Liberals often use of words like “state,” “new,” and “democracy” tells us something about their thinking. We noted in the last lecture that a State cannot be based on the Classical Liberal idea of individual natural rights. So the first thing we realize is that Modern Liberals disagree with Classical Liberals about natural rights.

• Classical Liberals emphasize natural rights which protect the individual from powers in society like social norms, public opinion, and government.

• Modern Liberals reject the idea of natural rights. Here are a few quotes from Modern Liberals rejecting natural rights.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 2

• Mary Parker Follett rejected the idea of natural rights protecting the individual from society. She wrote, “Democracy has meant to many ‘natural rights,’” but individuals “can have no rights apart from society or independent of society or against society.”

• John Dewey agreed that individuals do not have rights which protect them from society. He said that “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.” There is, of course, no such kingdom. Dewey was being sarcastic. He was making fun of the idea of natural rights.

• Woodrow Wilson also made fun of natural rights. He called such rights nonsense: “a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual.”

To understand why Modern Liberals reject natural rights, we have to explore the idea of democracy and the idea of human nature.

What is Democracy? What is Human Nature?

Classical Liberals and Modern Liberals both believe in democracy. But they think of democracy differently. Classical Liberals think of democracy as democratic politics. For them, democratic politics means peaceful conflict, the peaceful competition for power – political parties and candidates compete against each other for power. The majority is crucial. The majority of votes determines elections. The majority of representatives in government passes laws. But there are two key points here for Classical Liberals:

1. The power of the majority is limited by the natural rights of individuals. A majority in government cannot simply pass laws violating these natural rights – free speech, press, religion, assembly, private property, etc. Natural rights limit the power of the majority and thus limit the power of government.

2. Classical Liberals view democratic politics as peaceful conflict because they see conflict as rooted in human nature. Human beings are naturally diverse. They naturally have different opinions, divide into different groups, and develop different interests. These opinions, groups, and interests often lead to conflict – what one Classical Liberal called “mutual animosities.” These conflicts exist because they are rooted in human nature. They cannot be eliminated – “the causes of faction cannot be removed,” as one author put it. Here’s a key point: the conflicts will inevitably be expressed. The only question is whether the conflicts are expressed violently or non-violently. Classical Liberals see democratic politics as a non-violent way to express these conflicts through parties, campaigns and elections – with the power of those who win elections limited by the natural rights of individuals.

Modern Liberals think of democracy differently. They think of democracy as a way of overcoming divisions, a way to create an all-inclusive community, a kind of complete togetherness. John Dewey expressed this hope for democratic consensus when he said that

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 3

democratic “society is an organic union.” The Modern Liberal Richard Rorty similarly described democracy as a “consensus among human beings” – a “cooperative commonwealth.” Modern Liberals think of democracy as a unified community which overcomes divisions because Modern Liberals have a different view of human nature than Classical Liberals.

• Classical Liberals do not think it is possible to overcome divisions because of human nature. They say that conflict is rooted in human nature – “sown in the nature of man,” as one Classical Liberal put it. In fact, Classical Liberals say that attempts to overcome divisions may lead to tyranny because divisions are inevitable and “overcoming” them really means violating the rights of those with different views. “Removing the causes of faction,” one Classical Liberal said, means “destroying the liberty” of individuals. Democracy is thus not about overcoming conflict, but peacefully expressing it. The conflict is expressed in campaigns and elections, and continues to exist after elections as the losing party prepares for the next election. Meanwhile, the power of the winning party is limited by the natural rights of individuals.

• Modern Liberals acknowledge divisions and conflicts in history. But they think human nature has evolved and improved and can now overcome divisions. They believe in “man’s condition as a progressive being,” as one Modern Liberal put it. Woodrow Wilson explained improvements in human nature this way: “man has grown more and more human with each step” of history, we have become “men upon a new scale and with added qualities.” Richard Rorty made the same point. He said that Modern Liberalism is “making a new sort of individual possible” – “a new conception of what it is to be human.”

Modern Liberals thus believe that the human condition can evolve to overcome divisions, and create a sense of unity and shared purpose in society. Modern Liberals reason like this:

• Divisions are not rooted in human nature, but simply reflect an earlier human condition – the time of the “older theories of democracy,” as one Modern Liberal explained.

• But that time is over and Modern Liberals propose “our new theory of democracy.”

• This new democracy promises to overcome divisions and create an all-inclusive community, a democracy which speaks with one voice. This one voice does not express competing interests, but expresses the unified will of the community.

• The new democracy, in John Dewey’s words, is “possessed of one will” – “the unified will of the community.”

Modern Liberals sometimes describe this unified will in religious terms, like it’s the will of a spiritual entity. Dewey called democratic society a “spiritual organism.” Another Modern Liberal called it “spiritual democracy.” Follett put it this way in 1918: “The enthusiasts of democracy today are those who have caught sight of a great spiritual unity.” In 2012, the Modern Liberal Eldon Eisenach made the same point in promoting a “future for liberalism that includes religious spirit and moral purpose.” Other times, Modern Liberals use language like “social consciousness.” Either way, it means the same thing – a society in which human nature has evolved into a new condition which can

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 4

overcome divisions and expresses a unified will – a society which can speak with one voice and share the same “social consciousness.” Let’s pause here and summarize: By now, you should understand that a Modern Liberal view of human nature (it can evolve and improve) leads to a Modern Liberal view of democracy (create a spiritual unity or shared consciousness). With this understanding, we can now see more clearly why Modern Liberals reject the Classical Liberal idea of natural rights.

• Remember, natural rights protect the individual from powers external to him/herself – powers in society like social norms, political majorities, or government – because these powers often interfere with the individual’s right to free speech, religion, assembly, private property, etc.

• But Modern Liberals want individuals to participate in, not be protected from, the spiritual unity or shared consciousness of society. The goal, Dewey explained, is “the participation of the individual in the social consciousness.”

o Rather than protecting individuals from powers in society, Dewey wants those powers to form the minds of individuals, so they conform to the same social consciousness: “individuals can achieve unity only as the dominant energies of community life are incorporated to form their minds.”

o Wilson explained it this way: “to bring the individual with his special interests, personal to himself, into complete harmony with society with its general interest.”

Bringing the individual into harmony with society strikes a Classical Liberal as coercing the individual, forcing the individual to conform to society and thus interfering with his/her individual rights. This is why one Classical Liberal said that “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests” requires coercion, requires “destroying the liberty” of individuals. For the Classical Liberal, • human nature has not improved

• divisions have not been overcome

• and there is no “spiritual unity,” “shared consciousness,” or “unified will” in society. These phrases are just ways that particular groups try to present themselves and their interests as representing all of society. These groups may be the majority or they may not. They may win the next election or they may not. Either way, the Classical Liberal argues, they cannot force individuals into harmony with society. They cannot interfere with the natural rights of individuals.

Modern Liberals see things differently. They see freedom not as rights protecting the individual from powers in society, but as individuals participating in the powers of society – participating in creating society’s shared consciousness, participating in building society’s spiritual unity or democratic consensus. Freedom, Follett said, “is everyone building the single life.” It is everyone joining “the process of coming to share in the social consciousness.” This requires, another author explained, the development of one’s personality “in harmony with all others.” Dewey put it this way. He described freedom as “the realization of personality through the

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 5

formation of a higher and more complete unity among men.” Follett made the same point more simply: “my true self is the group-self.” We have now come to a point where we can see why Modern Liberals use words like “State” and “new” in the title of their books – The State, The New State, The New Democracy, The Democratic State, The New Economics. The Modern Liberal views freedom not as the freedom of individual rights but as the freedom of the people collectively to direct the power of the State. Freedom is the expression of the people’s collective will, the expression of their spiritual unity. The logic goes like this:

• If individuals participate in creating spiritual unity in society – “the unified will of the community” – then true freedom is the expression of this spiritual will through the State. True freedom for the individual is being part of the collective will – part of expressing the people’s organic will through a new kind of Democratic State.

Let’s explore this Modern Liberal idea of freedom. Let’s explore it in practical terms by asking, What is this Modern Liberal State? What exactly does it do?

The Modern Liberal State When we think about the Modern Liberal idea of freedom – the people’s collective will expressed through the State – we have to consider what the State is and what exactly it does. The Modern Liberal State can, and has, developed in different ways. We’ll explore some of those ways below. Let’s start with this point:

• Classical Liberals emphasize principled limits on the authority of government.

• Modern Liberals do not emphasize principled limits on the authority of the State. No principled limits on the State – “public authority” – is what Woodrow Wilson meant when he recommended that “all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view.” Notice that Wilson identified what could be a principled limit on the State – individual rights. But he said individual rights should be “put out of view.” Mary Parker Follett made the same point. “The old idea of natural rights,” she said, “is ruled out.” This does not mean Modern Liberals think the State can do anything. Wilson recommended that “the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise.” So the State should not do what is “unwise.” But what is considered “unwise” is debatable and can change. The social consciousness or will of the people might think that something is unwise today, but then think that same thing is wise next week, next month, or next year. “Unwise” does not provide principled limits on State authority the way “natural rights” do. But, as Follett said, natural rights are ruled out for Modern Liberals.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 6

Without clear principled limits on its authority, the State can perform many functions. Wilson called these many functions the State’s “universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests.” Depending on what functions it performs, the Modern Liberal State can develop in different ways. Let’s look at two of those ways. They are

1. a Welfare State

2. a Welfare State with some socialist policies Let’s look at a Welfare State. We’ll look at two functions a Welfare State performs: redistributing money and managing the economy. Let’s start with redistributing money. Modern Liberals, Herbert Croly said, promote the idea of the State “making itself responsible” for the “distribution of wealth” in society. The redistribution of wealth often means putting higher taxes on those with higher incomes and redistributing some of that tax money to those with lower incomes. The American State redistributes between 1 and 2 trillion dollars every year this way. One example is Medicaid – government health insurance for low-income Americans. Over half a trillion dollars is redistributed through Medicaid to low-income Americans each year. Other State programs redistribute another trillion dollars or so. But the redistribution sometimes works the other way. It sometimes transfers money from those with less wealth on average to those with more wealth on average. An example is Social Security – government pension for retirees. Social Security taxes employee wages and redistributes that money to retirees. Yet retirees on average have more wealth than employees on average, though there are exceptions. A second function of a Welfare State is managing the economy. To understand this, recall what we said in the last lecture. We said that Classical Liberals favor a free market economy.

• The more an economy is a free market, the more privately owned companies and consumers – not the State – decide what to produce, what prices to pay, and how much to consume.

• This means a free market is decentralized. It is based on millions of individuals making independent decisions about production, prices, and consumption. It is not planned or managed by a State.

But Modern Liberals think the economy needs to be managed by the State. They do not think the production of goods and services can simply be based on the voluntary decisions of millions of companies and consumers. Though Modern Liberals do not necessarily promote State ownership of the economy, which is Socialism, they believe the State needs to manage important parts of the economy. This usually means the State regulates the production and prices of goods and services. Let’s consider health care services like hospitals and MRI machines. The State often regulates these services by limiting their production – i.e., limiting the amount of hospitals and MRI

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 7

machines. Limiting supply of these health care services keeps prices up (limited supply means higher prices). For example, New York State’s regulation of health care services includes what it calls the Certificate of Need process. Below is a quote from the New York State Department of Public Health. It explains that the State regulates the production of health care services – ‘governs establishment, construction, renovation, acquisitions of health care facilities.’

• “New York's Certificate of Need (CON) process governs establishment, construction, renovation and major medical equipment acquisitions of health care facilities.”

The purpose of the State regulating the production of health care services is to limit the supply of those services. As the Department of Public Health explains, it limits supply by “limiting investment”:

• “CON provides the Department of Health oversight in limiting investment in duplicate beds, services and medical equipment.”

The State says it is limiting supply – “limiting investment” – to prevent “duplicate” beds, services, and equipment. Duplicate means limiting what the State decides is too many hospitals, services, and equipment. But what does “too many” mean? To think this through, one might consider whether we had too many – “duplicate” – hospital beds and protective equipment during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The Modern Liberal State also regulates the production and prices of other goods and services.

• Through much of the 20th century, the American State regulated airline and telephone services – significantly limiting airline flights, for example – though these regulations were reduced in late 20th century.

• The American State also regulates the most important price of all – the price of money – by controlling interest rates. Interest rates are the cost to borrow money. Controlling interest rates affects virtually all prices in the economy.

• An important issue our society debates today is how much the Modern Liberal State should regulate the production and prices of energy. This too will affect virtually all prices in the economy since energy is required for the production of all goods and services. If the State reduces the production of energy – which increases its price – it increases the price of all other goods and services.

We could mention other examples of the Modern Liberal Welfare State redistributing money and managing the economy (production and prices), but let’s now consider a second way the Modern Liberal State can develop – a Welfare State with some socialist policies. To explore this version of a Modern Liberal State, let’s return to our example of health care services. As you read below, keep this point in mind: when a Modern State creates some kind of socialized system of health insurance or health care, it often funds that system with higher

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 8

taxes paid by everyone at the same rate regardless of their income. These are called broad- based taxes because the taxes are broad – paid by everyone. The American State includes socialized health insurance. An example is Medicare – government health insurance for senior citizens. This health insurance is largely paid for by a broad-based tax – a tax on the wages of all employees. All employees pay the same tax rate regardless of their income. The American State spends about two-thirds of a trillion dollars each year on Medicare. As we think this through, consider the difference between health insurance and health care:

• Medicare is government or socialized health insurance. It is not government or socialized health care. The insurance helps pay for the health care, but the actual care – the health care services – is often provided by private hospitals and doctors. The American State does not own and operate the entire health care system.

• But the American State does own and operate Medicare. And because Medicare is the largest health insurance system in the country, the rate of its payments to hospitals and doctors for the health care of seniors has a huge impact on health care prices overall. When you combine this fact with the State’s regulation of the production of health care through Certificate of Need laws, you can see the American State plays a large role in the production and prices of health care – i.e., health care is one of the most highly regulated industries in the nation.

Other Welfare States with some socialist policies include socialized health care. An example is the United Kingdom (Great Britain) whose system is called the National Health System (NHS). The NHS is socialized, but not all aspects of British health care are socialized – i.e., owned and operated by the State. Though many hospitals are owned by the State, there are some privately owned hospitals too, so it’s not a completely State owned and operated system. Other countries with different versions of socialized health care include Sweden and Canada. These health care systems are not operated by the central State in the nation’s capital. Rather, each region of the country operates a regional health care system. In all these cases, the health care systems are funded by broad-based taxes, meaning taxes paid by everyone at the same rate regardless of their income. And in each case, the system limits the production of health care service in order to control costs. One way to limit the production of services is to have longer wait times to see a specialist, or longer wait times to have tests performed (like an MRI), or to have a surgery. To summarize: Modern Liberal ideas about democracy, human nature, and freedom lead to Modern Liberal ideas about the State. Modern Liberal States are Welfare States which redistribute money and manage the economy. And these Welfare States often have some socialist policies. But Modern Liberal States do not own and operate most of the economy, which is Socialism. Rather, Modern Liberal States depend on most of the economy being privately owned –

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Modern Liberalism - 9

capitalism – because private ownership generates the wealth which the State uses to redistribute and to fund its socialist policies.

• But If you think this through, you can see that the line between Modern Liberalism and Socialism can potentially blur.

• The more a Modern Liberal State with some socialist policies adds more socialist policies, the closer it gets to Socialism. Or the more a Modern Liberal State regulates the production and prices of private companies, the more the State acts as if it owns the companies.