So, we live in this moment when

illiberalism is winning, when

illiberalism 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. [music]

In some way, I feel liberalism never

really recovered from the Obama era when

it had this grand victory in electing

America's first black president

[cheering] when it had this thoughtful,

deliberate, and frankly quite popular

liberal leader and then it ended in

Donald Trump twice.

>> But 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 that has moral imagination

again. A liberalism that 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 cannon,

reading all these histories of

liberalism, trying to think through like

what in this very very long tradition is

valuable for us right now. One of the

books I came across in this search is

called the lost history of liberalism.

It's by the historian Helena Rosenlat.

One of the arguments it makes is that

before we ever had this word liberalism,

[music]

in fact for thousands of years before

the word, there was this tradition

[music] of being a liberal. And behind

that tradition, there was this virtue

called liberality. [music]

And people thought this virtue was

really, really important. As Rosenblat

writes, "For almost [music] 2,000 years,

it meant demonstrating the virtues of a

citizen, showing devotion to the common

good and [music] respecting the

importance of mutual connectedness."

Liberality was talked about everywhere.

You can read about it [music] in Cicero,

in John Lock, in the letters of George

Washington. And yet, we never talk about

it today. Liberalism as a political

philosophy and movement, it [music]

completely elbowed out. Liberality is a

virtue as an ethic a citizen aspires

[music] to meet. I want to be clear. I

don't think a rediscovery of liberality

[music] is a complete answer to what

ails liberalism, but I do think it's one

piece of the puzzle. I found it

exciting. I think it's one place to

begin [music] an inquiry you're going to

hear a lot more of on this show over the

next year. Helena Rosenlat is a

professor at the cutuny graduate center.

She's the author of liberal values

Benjamin Constant and the politics of

religion as well as the aforementioned

the lost history of liberalism which I

highly recommend. As always my email

esrainshow times.com. [music]

Helena Rosenblot, 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 a niche

hobby I 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 um 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

certain um a certain character

development um that they felt was so so

very important and that a a good

constitution should promote. And and

many of them thought that yes, rights

are important, but they're important

because they allow us to um uh to

actually accomplish our obligations to

uh 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 liberalas or

where does this start for you?

>> Liberalism as a word first of all was

coined um 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? Um,

so this was something very exciting that

I found in in my research. Um, 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 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

um liberalas was the noun that went went

with it. Um 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 your book for me I think a lot

of things are missing in modern

liberalism. My interest in doing this

episode and more that I think are 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 of the books I read about it, some

of the defenses I read of it are so aid.

They like have no blood in them.

>> But 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 the old definitions

of it and and you've have Cicero and

John Lock and John Dunn and um but 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. A good system of government

would help you um 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. when when

when you 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. Uh, so

I kind of uh move rather quickly and I

have to uh make some strategic choices,

but as you mentioned, there's there's

Cicero and Senica and these are these

are well-known names that have had

tremendous influence.

>> What do they say? What is their vision

of liberality? that liberality is about

um reciprocity,

exchange, behaving, gift giving and

reciprocity is is uh fundamental. You

need to know uh you need to be good to

one another. Um very much about what

they would call, you know, citizenly or

I call citizenly virtues, things that

make a commonwealth work and and and

adhere, you know, stay together. That is

not to I don't try to idealize you know

these these thinkers either because you

know you had slavery in in Rome which is

uh so they're talking about a small

group a small group an elite

>> I I think this is quite important and

it's something threaded through your

book um you write at some point that

this idea of being a liberal which comes

way before liberalism as a political

philosophy is designed by and for the

free wealthy and well-connected men who

are in a position to give and receive

benefits in ancient Rome and some other

things that that emerge as the book goes

on. One thing it 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. [laughter]

That's always been braided into the the

issue here. Um and that there was like

uh 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 them the ideal citizens.

And that feels to me actually like a

quite profound

tension at the heart of

>> Yes.

>> the project.

>> Yeah, absolutely. Um, you know, they

don't even always live up to the ideal.

>> Sure don't. [laughter]

>> Uh, and but they had that ideal and they

talked about it. Um, and they designed

an educational system, a liberal arts

education, um, that was supposed to

cultivate these virtues. um this

liberality in elite boys

um but there was a lot expected of the

elite as well you know so I I don't

think it was just mere you know

hypocrisy and that um they were an elite

but they had obligations I'm writing a

book right now about Madame Dal a great

uh early liberal and a and a woman a

powerhouse such a fascinating woman

right at the it was some say that it was

in her salon in her drawing room that uh

liberalism was invented. Her name

appears as a very important sort of

power broker and intellectual in the

early 19th century and then gets dropped

out. Her she is endlessly frustrated by

where are the good men? We need some

good men. Um just not only to uh pursue

the policies that we need but to serve

as examples.

>> Uh a question echoing through history

right now. [laughter]

>> Yeah. Um, 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

um explain one reason liberals have

always been so shocked and uh repulsed

by Donald Trump himself. Not just

Trumpism or the Republican party, but

but him,

>> which is like quite deep in the like the

liberal theory and an inheritance I'm

not even sure people totally realize

that they have absorbed is [snorts] a

sense that to make a country work,

people have to behave in a certain way

towards 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 like a profound

challenge to to what liberalism what

liberalism believes of how you make a

society work.

>> I think in many ways he is proving that

there was something um important in

that. But 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.

>> Yeah.

>> I think there's juice in that today.

>> Yeah. No, absolutely. And um the the

fact that they're elitists, I mean think

I think you mentioned that uh liberals

throughout their history have tended to

be elitist but they demanded a a lot.

there were a lot of obligations and they

took that extremely seriously. There's a

section in in my book where I talk about

Lincoln and how much he was admired by

liberals who are very uh worried about

this this problem of elites uh you know

perhaps not uh being able to show people

how to behave and to be the kind of

leaders that a liberal society needs.

And they thought you know at that point

they thought maybe a liberal democracy

would fail there. there was no real

example of it lasting. Um you know the

would the American uh example of this

exceptional example actually uh work um

and liberal and Lincoln showed that it

could and he did it in this uh beautiful

way that kind of made people uh

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 they those kinds

of leaders are very hard to find.

>> What is liberal in the liberal arts?

It's the the purpose of the liberal arts

uh education is really to form leaders

to form freedom loving and moral leaders

and giving them the tools uh rhetoric

and history and some science for sure

but it's supposed to train citizens uh

really through engagement with the

classics. In the early times, there was

a lot of emphasis on being able to speak

in public um to speak in a convincing

way in public. And this is all really to

convince people to uh 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. Um but the ideas were

pretty beautiful and I think we could we

could uh learn something from them.

Well, the ideas are the 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 working, not so much

what it is for. It's almost taken as

evident that the purpose of education is

to prepare you to get a job.

>> That's right.

>> 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 uh students to get jobs. These

were considered uh menial menial tasks

for they liberal arts was for the

leaders uh in the time. So it was for

and and the citizens were the leaders.

uh so uh of society in in Rome in

medieval period as well it was always

about uh something other than preparing

you for a job. Isn't it funny that today

when people uh try to defend the

humanities which are you know under

siege uh in many universities u frankly

u and they try to advocate for a liberal

arts education that they say oh well

actually um there's proof that having a

liberal arts education will get you that

job. So it's it's that whole discussion

about what a citizen um of a democracy

um means what what it means to be a

citizen. What are the values? What is

our common language? Uh what does it

mean to be a citizen of a democracy? Uh

all of these uh questions that are so 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 um that politics doesn't

work? People don't like it. People don't

want to be told what they have to do to

to be a citizen. What is your

>> That's a great That's a That's a great

question. Um as a historian, I I always

um apologize for saying history is

complicated, so usually there's not just

one answer to that. Uh terrific

question.

>> Just give me the one that best serves my

current purposes.

>> [laughter]

>> 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 it happened during uh the

the cold war let's say I mean this is uh

and it's that's pretty recent in in the

history that I describe in my book right

but this idea of disciplining the self

or the or talking about the collectivity

about your duties about um any

government or state making um getting

involved in forming citizens a public

education system that forms citizens

started to have a a scary kind of ring

to it when you've seen fascism and

communism and I liberals uh wanted to

show like oh we're not that we're not

going in that direction um we are uh not

about the state forming citizens. Uh we

are about individual rights about

property rights in particular and I

think that really gave probably the

impetus uh to something that was

probably happening already.

>> What's interesting to me about this is

that the critiques you hear today of

liberalism go back quite a long way. you

have this

>> uh part of the book where you're

describing fights in England in the

1830s

>> and the conservatives uh what they say

about the liberals even then is that

critics of liberalism accused it of

meaning the exact opposite of

liberality. They accuse liberals of

being selfish, egoistic, only interested

in the gratification of their individual

desires. So, you know, you're describing

this tradition that is focused on, you

know, personal cultivation and the

liberal arts. So, at 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 tell you

not to? When does that enter into the

fray?

>> Right at the beginning. You know, we've

um it's been shown that liberalism, the

actual word was first a porative, a term

of insult. It was uh coined as I said in

1811 but by the enemies of the liberals

because of what had happened in the

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 foreigness. It's

something dangerous. It's something

it has to do with you know the

revolution and we don't want that right?

all of this getting rid of noble

privileges creating um uh which we would

call civil equality isn't that a great

thing they would say no that's removing

uh the privileges that they had had very

for such a long time so that's being

selfish that's not being magnanimous um

and so they the Catholics mainly

Catholic counterrevolutionaries

uh immediately started denouncing

liberals for being selfish because they

were taking away their privileges right

I mean they had a whole slew of of

insulting terms that they used as

synonyms for liberals. Um, anarchists,

they're against the family, they're uh

sexually deviant, uh, all of this

because it seemed like they wanted to

free up all the and in some ways rightly

so, um, free up all the constraints of

the old regime. Throughout the 19th

century, the Catholic Church was

probably the most powerful enemy of

liberalisms. The popes one after the

other, you know, just uh spewed, you

know, the most vile kind of, if I may

say, uh, rhetoric about liberals, about

how very bad and sinful the world they

liberalism is sin. I mean, there were

works there were works that came out

like that. So, and I think actually, you

know, interestingly enough, today's

criticisms, for example, by post

liberals and so on,

>> which are many of them are the Catholic

actually reviving some of that language

and using very old arguments.

>> I I've sat here with Patrick Denine. I

mean, not literally in this room, but on

this podcast and you know, I was like,

well, you know, what is your where is

this coming from with you? And he's like

one of these post-lberal close to JD

Vance and he's like, well, you know, the

left wants to destroy the family. Yeah.

like I don't think we do but but that is

his view of it.

>> Yeah.

>> Um how much is the tension between

the Catholic Church and liberals or

liberalism? How much is it around what I

think of is like 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 as developing in a

way that is pro-social. Um, if I were to

be uh, 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, liberality to to actual

arguments for for toleration and then

how that begins to put, you know,

liberals in tension with religious

authorities.

>> Yeah, absolutely. um many key liberals,

you know, the this founding group that I

talk about in in France, um Madame Dal

and Banja Con um were actually

Protestants and the Protestants were way

over represented in terms of numbers in

liberal movements throughout French

history. Um [snorts]

and the reason here is, you know,

Protestants in France wanted to be

tolerated to be actually recognized as

citizens, which they weren't, right?

[snorts] Um but um so so this is a key a

key um one of the key sort of

developments in the history of of

liberalism when it moves from being just

what we were talking about the virtues

of a like a Roman citizen or a or a

Christian um nobleman who should give to

the poor and be liberal and magnanimous

[gasps] to now you're starting to say

that we have to be accepting of of

difference and this is definitely to

democratize the and you start using

liberal uh not to just um define or

describe an individual who's magnanimous

but a whole society clubs can be liberal

because they allow different types of

members. Um, religions can be liberal

when they are tolerant and and you can

understand them. The church, the

Catholic church in particular gets gets

uh very worried about this uh when

you're going to be um uh [snorts]

accepting uh that it's not the one

religion. But before we go into the

Catholic Church's reaction, I I want to

spend a moment on this because from

where we sit now

in the 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'd like you 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 you know religion is

like a fundamental divide in societies

and the stakes are very high for you

know people who believe. So just tell me

a little bit about what is the situation

into which this argument over religious

toleration is entering. Well, you know,

today we're here very much about, you

know, celebrating difference and

diversity is a is a great thing,

including a religious uh diversity. Um,

but [snorts] what I found, and one might

find this somewhat troubling, is that

these Protestants that I'm talking

about, the early founders of of

liberalism really, uh, did not advocate

toleration for toleration's sake because

they are very uh uh hostile to or

disdainful towards what they call

superstition and dogmas. So dogmas have

held people back in their opinion. Uh

the church of course in in France they

were in charge of education. They're in

charge of censorship. They basically

find and you can see this in Adam

Smith's Wealth 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 um

sort of fight among themselves and this

is going to lead to a purification uh of

religions and eventually people are

going to become liberal Protestants like

they are or unitarians type um or or

deists, you know, have a religion.

They're not anti-religious, but the way

you please God is by being good to your

fellow citizen, by doing [clears throat]

good to the to the community, not

necessarily praying certain times of of

the day or doing certain rituals or

believing in certain dogmas um but being

good. So you could see also that certain

not just the Catholic church but certain

Orthodox churches would be upset by this

because because uh literally if this is

the case, what do you need churches for?

you can believe in God and be a good

person uh without going to church. I

>> I want to look more closely at something

you said early 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. Um,

one of the other books on liberalism

I've quite liked is Edmond Faucets's uh,

liberalism the life of an idea I think

is the subtitle and he makes more than

you do of the idea that central to

liberalism is the idea that in a

conflictrridden disputatious society

that you can turn difference into

something constructive through

argumentation through the exchange of

ideas that tolerance and other things

that are built on it freedom of speech

etc. that 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

tears societies apart but into something

that refineses them and makes them

better and helps people find truth and

progress and a way forward. How do you

think about that?

>> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I'm so glad you

brought that up because it's a really

important um central uh aspect of of

liberalism is this kind of optimism. If

you accept this kind of uh this

toleration, progress will be the result.

People will improve, society will

improve. We need this sort of battle of

of ideas um to refine ourselves and our

way of of thinking and uh and there'll

be a 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's kind of it seems so so

naive this belief, you know, in the arc

of history, the march of history they

talked about the whole time. Um, I mean,

they weren't naive and they weren't um

silly. Uh, I know one of the the guys

who's sort of a hero in my in my book is

uh Banjo Con and he said, "We need

pleasing illusions. We need pleasing

illusions to make us better."

>> Well, also 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.

>> Sometimes you have failed to do well.

Sometimes you failed to live up to your

own virtues. Some some of the collapse

in confidence uh 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 but I want to get it something that

exists in there as a shadow side.

One thing that is very present in your

book is the contempt many liberals in

the 1700s 1800s

have for religion or certainly religions

that they don't belong to. Right. As you

say, backwards superstitious. Um, and

this comes right up into the modern era,

right? where there's a real feeling

among the religious that liberals look

down on them, you know, among

evangelical Christians and and and and

others that they won't even that they

try to use a state to change their

behavior. Um that, you know, you can't

even refuse to bake a cake for a couple

that is getting married of the same sex.

And so there there is this critique of

liberalism that 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

>> and it creates backlashes. But it is

this very hard problem like this paradox

of tolerance. How do you tolerate people

who don't want to be tolerant? How do

you then not become intolerant?

>> Yeah.

>> Can you trace a bit of that?

>> I don't know if they ever solved that

problem. They were very [laughter]

>> No, I mean, one has to if if you really

get 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 was such formidable

obstacles, such strong enemies um and

such intolerance of their views. Uh it

really serious stuff to to um think of

the Catholic Church coming back into

power, the counterrevolutionaries.

You know what what would happen to you?

So do you tolerate them? Do you allow

them to use the free press to uh to uh

attack constitutional government? At

[snorts] what point do you censor? We

struggle with this today. Um and and

they certainly did then as well. What

what in your view is the first society

or state in which something that we

would now recognize as liberalism takes

power? When when does it move from a

theory outside power uh oh

>> yeah as a political philosophy not as a

virtue into something that is being

wielded by those with authority. We have

it, you know, famously in 1830, um

there's a revolution that brings what's

considered a liberal uh a liberal

government into power and uh it it

unfortunately fails in the 1848

revolution in France 1830.

>> Uh what happens in the French

Revolution, it's the rise of the

bourgeoisi. It's the fact that the no

nobles um the the privileges of the

nobility are overturned and you have uh

you know rule of law civic equality and

actually you know Marx talks about this

um communists uh talk about this as

being the bourgeoa kind of revolution

and and how terrible it is because it

became very quickly um considered a

selfish regime a money money-driven

machine.

>> Let's stay on Markx for a minute. What

is his critique of liberalism?

Liberalism is really the rule of the

bourgeoisi. Yeah. It's middle class,

it's money. If you look at France, he

also was really much looking at France,

right? Everybody's looking at France.

What's going on with the success of

revolutions? It's like a laboratory of

political ideas, right? So this is a a

bourgeoa revolution to them and it's and

it's liberals who carry these ideas

forward. And but what happens in Mark's

thought is of course once they become

take over power, they're going to

exploit the workers and uh just make

more and more money and exploit the

workers until they will rise up and

you'll have the communist revolution and

the takeover. But the thing is that

there's no way around it. You you need

the liberals to take power. You need the

bourgeoa in Marxist

>> in Marx's view. So he's not anti this

precisely. He's just this is this is the

motor of history. is going to be

superseded by a liberal.

>> Where does liberalism begin to become

interested in or associated with the

actual redistribution of resources in

society from the rich to the poor? where

does it become connected to social

welfare states and you know when you

talk about FDR and that later liberalism

right and a lot happens between you know

what we've been discussing in there at

some point this moves away from just

being uh a set of approaches to a

marketplace of ideas or you know

individual virtue and it becomes

connected to a view that power needs to

be redistributed and money and security

need to be redistributed when does that

begin to happen

>> right so you're right in the the Early

liberals were really uh mostly concerned

with a um uh creating a political system

um getting rid of the divine right of

kings and having constitutional

representative government with

guarantees for individual rights,

freedom of speech, freedom of religion

uh and private property rights. um rule

of law obviously very important but as

they're also uh pragmatic people and

over time with the industrial revolution

with urbanization they see new problems

arise right the idea that there is

poorerism a new word that 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 just uh deregulation

isn't working for these people they're

stuck And with our core values of

generosity and freedom lovingness,

obviously this is not these people are

not free. Um they're not a able to

morally refine themselves or to

contribute to society in any meaningful

way uh morally or intellectually. So uh

government now needs to now needs to

step in first with factory legislation

and such and eventually with some sort

of in tax distribution and so on. There

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 healthcare 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 and

something you see in a lot of the early

arguments about it is it it is not you

see less of the argument, at least in in

my reading,

>> that society is unfair. Um that's more

sort of how you know I would you know

argue for a lot of these policies today

and more of the argument that

>> this needs to be done because it is the

only way to have a citizenry capable of

participating in liberal democracy you

know able to fight in your wars right

like it's a a question of building the

capacity of the citizenry it's very very

concerned with like the uplift of the

individual. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And

it strikes me also um that factory

legislation

uh at first uh for example uh again in

France was uh you know when it came to

women you know shorten the workday make

it a little less harsh for them. Why? Um

because they'll have better breast milk.

They it's it's uh they'll be healthier

and they'll produce healthier soldiers.

basically boys who will fight in wars.

What I want to say there is that Germany

suddenly starts to play a big role. Um

their thinkers they had thinkers who

said that this whole idea of free

markets and less effair were great

theoretically but weren't working in

practice right now. And what you need is

to actually study um the workers and

demographic patterns and prices and uh

salaries and so on and come and and see

what's actually going on and then devise

policies accordingly. And these ideas um

were uh spread through to uh and were

written about their ideas were

translated and and talked about in

England and France. But one of the

really critical moments not just about

ideas um great articles and and theories

being developed in Germany it's also

there the power of Prussia right so it

was a big shock the prank FrancoRussian

war was a huge shock u Napoleon III

thought he could have a little war with

Prussia make him um you know give him

some glory and some popularity and lo

and behold the exact opposite happened.

The Prussians won very quickly and it

was a shock. It was a shock to one to to

everybody that France meant to be the

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 uh vaccinated. Um they're

much healthier. Their their railroads

work.

>> Germany is very early to have a

state-run healthcare program.

>> Exactly. And this catches on again. And

it's because of you know

>> but it doesn't come from the liberals

initially. I mean Bismar is a key key

mover here.

>> Exactly. And that's it's an interesting

uh twist that sometimes the um

influences on liberalism are not

necessarily from within. The first

Napoleon is is what made people like man

the early liberals say like we need

something so that this never happens

again. We need constitutions that stop

somebody like Napoleon, a demagogue, a

dictator from um from coming to power.

And then now it's Bismar, but look at

his policies. Look what he's doing to

the population. They're healthier.

They're stronger. They're more

patriotic. This is really when there was

what's called what came to be called a

new liberalism. And they called it that,

new liberalism in England. Uh where uh a

a group of people started to say, "No,

we need to learn from the Germans and we

need some government intervention to

help the workers to spread the wealth."

um and that the uh government has an

important role to play in the economy in

a just and and liberal um polity and

this is you know so they learned 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 lz 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 it's the exact

opposite they agree on you know things

like free speech and and and you know

some other dimensions around rights but

you do have liberals 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. What happens then is

in in England the eventually uh the new

liberals kind of win out and they drop

the new and they're 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. 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 uh the

less a fair liberalism small government

liberalism. And today in most of the

world um that's what liberalism mean

right it's sort of left right of center

free markets small government whereas in

America colloquially it tends to mean

big government nobody says therefore big

government but more interventionism more

of a redistributive state bigger role

for the state

>> who in your view are the most important

American liberal thinkers if you're if

you're thinking of a cannon of American

liberalism

>> well that's interesting it well that's

interesting I mean you you of course

have to talk about John RS um and he

comes very late in late in the so I

think more than thinkers I mean there's

John Dwey who's very who's very

important particularly in his you know

educa liberal education there are people

like uh I mention um that I wouldn't

call them great innovative thinkers I

mean John RS obviously great philosopher

of the 20th century but on his caliber

or on the caliber of of of of John

Lockach or John Stewart Mill. I don't I

don't see any. I hope not. You know,

American

uh intellectual [clears throat]

historians aren't going to like email me

like crazy saying that I'm being unfair,

but I I don't think uh America was

notable for its liberal theorists until

uh quite late in the game. We do have

great liberal leaders. I mentioned

Lincoln. I mentioned

>> this is underplayed in our own

tradition.

>> Yeah. Um, and I'd like to say more on

this because I actually think great

liberal practitioners in some ways to me

are more interesting than great liberal

theorists. I find it to be a problem

with American liberalism that it is so

obsessed with John RWS and people thinks

that's people think that is because I

don't like John RWS

>> and that's not quite it. I just think

that um in terms of something that is a

hopefully a popular and public

philosophy

>> uh somebody whose central work is

fundamentally unreadable by the public

does not really make sense as a as a

foundation for that

>> and he's not the foundation for that

right Frederick Douglas Abraham Lincoln

Martin Luther King Jr. Yeah. Um John

Dwey 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 uh 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 I'm curious how you see that that

tradition and how it altered what

American liberalism

>> Yeah. became and and and is.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Totally. I think that's

wonderful. But if you look at them at

the people um I look at at the very

beginning, you know, there wasn't this

great divide between, you know, the

great thinkers and the great um

political leaders. I mean, somebody like

they were very pragmatic earlier.

They're

>> Crow is a political figure.

>> He's a political figure. Benjamin

Michael Stone becomes a a deputy in the

chamber of of of deputies. Uh John

Stewart Mill uh runs for office. Uh so

there isn't this and and you know if you

read the speeches if you read some of

the speeches the the wonderful speeches

people were making in those days you

know drawing on Montescu and and Lock

and they're they're draw you know

they're reading the stuff as well. So

there wasn't maybe this great um divide

between intellectuals and practitioners

and

>> what does that tell you in America? What

was different about it it here? And

maybe it's worth starting actually with

the founders. I think there's a a lot of

interesting

um you know I think there's interesting

argumentation over how much to think of

the the American founders as inside the

American liberal tradition as in tension

with what later becomes the liberal

tradition. Right. There are obviously

claimed by all sides here. How do you

think about the the founding and with

its profound internal contradictions

around freedom and human bondage? I I've

become more and more interested in in

American political thought and

institutions and history. Uh

unfortunately because of the way um

disciplines and uh concentrations work,

I'm more of an expert on 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 you know I would you know

for for the wonderful work that they did

being both thinkers and actors and uh

Franklin and Jefferson came to Paris and

were very much interested also in in

French matters and vice versa. Um the

American constitution influenced early

liberals because uh you know they

thought it was an amazing amazing

document. Um, and maybe that's the thing

that's so wonderful is to to to see

exactly those things coming together,

the ideas and the practices coming

together in the in the founding fathers

to produce this amazing document.

>> That's a very glittering answer. But 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 certainly believed in many

liberal ideas we're talking about here

who made space for both of those

practices within their liberalism,

>> right? Um well, I don't mean to again

idealize these um out of proportion.

These pe people these are early liberals

and liberals have never been perfect.

They're uh often suffer from the same

prejudices, the prejudices of their

time. There are um 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?

>> Uh um 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 of

compromise. It's a horrible thing to

imagine, but I think there was uh

debates going on there and and pol

politics going on that are unsemly

today. And uh you have John Stewart Mill

saying absolutely uh atrocious things

about how desperatism

um how desperatism is okay when you're

dealing with barbarians or something.

Talking about British imperialism in

India. You have Tokville who was okay

apparently with burning silos

um in in Algeria. that lock you know

awful stuff but at the same time um

these uh 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 even

perhaps even more so for for colonialism

imperialism

it's horrible to say but racism was

rampant um sexism was rampant

um if anyone was against it, if we can,

we don't, you know, they were liberals

basically.

>> Well, this is the other side of it too

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

and and and then to um you know, 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 uh using

liberal as a noun somebody signs an

anti-slavery pamphlet a liberal

>> right

>> it is a tension.

>> Yeah for sure. So the thing to remember

is that for example when it comes to

women uh no you know liberals did not

really lobby for women's uh suffrage

until very very very late. they were not

um you know at all for for giving women

the vote until it was almost forced upon

them. But on the other hand, the women

when they did fight for uh admission

into uh 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,

an aristocracy of of sex. You're acting

like death spots. um 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 um 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 Frederick Douglas um uh and uh

other uh groups that have been

prejudiced against and even uh

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 uh

capacities. What what what is it in

liberalism that what ideals in your

view? What thoughts or principles or or

or shared values create [snorts] this

kind of time bomb aspect of it which you

see go off repeatedly in history where

um you know 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 and and freedom.

What is it that does that in your view?

>> Well, you know, ideas don't travel in a

vacuum. So, I would always say that the

facts on the ground change. um

socioeconomic pressures, uh the yeah,

changes in the economy, wars, all of

this creates conditions, creates

conflicts, creates crisis um that

liberals then have to confront and deal

with. And and that goes to, you know,

everybody's talking about the the crisis

of liberal democracy today and the

crisis of liberalism. Well, there

there's been a succession of crisis.

Liberals have had to confront.

Liberalism was born in crisis, the

crisis of the French Revolution. And so

when these moments happen, when there's

extreme tension, when there is new

problems, uh it can throw liberalism

sort of off its kilter for a while, uh

all sorts of uh debates, uh occur,

become more heated, um confused. Even

there have been moments in liberalism's

history where they literally start and I

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

that can that can weaken the movement,

but it can also bring strength uh to it,

allow it to evolve uh these this

conflict, a battle of ideas, brings out

something new that really responds to

the crisis that's on the ground.

>> Are there specific moments in liberalism

history that this moment reminds you of?

I've even started to think about the

original crisis uh you know the crisis

of of of

Napoleon's desperatism the uh liberals

had had such high hopes for establishing

a liberal uh regime based on

constitutional rule and uh

representative government with these uh

rights uh protecting the individual

[snorts] and then the revolution went uh

derailed into this horrible period of

the terror and eventually was kind of

they thought that Napoleon would come

and 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.

[snorts] And then instead he became this

despot and a demagogue.

and uh he um used wars, you know, to

divert attention to what he was doing at

home. He um gave gifts to people. He

lined the pockets of his friends. Um he

uh flattered people um gave them uh

power that uh but but at the same time

that he amassed power in his own in his

own hands. This was profoundly

demoralizing

um to uh the early liberals that I'm

talking about who had this lofty notion

of what uh freer, better, more moral,

more humane world would look like and

look what it um derailed into.

>> So what did they learn from that?

>> They learned that uh you needed certain

safeguards in place. This is really when

you get like liberalism as a um

constitutional

uh uh way of thinking uh balance of of

power, separations of powers, uh

individual rights, freedom, how

important freedom of presses, how

important freedom of religion is.

Napoleon used religion, you know, to to

uh Buttress's power. Uh so uh all of

these constitutional

uh ideas really came together then and

they you know it happened again and

again over the course of the 19th

century that you'd have these very

clever charismatic figures who could

speak directly to the people. I

understand you. I represent you. It I

don't need these we don't need these

representative institutions. We don't I

because I speaks 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 you don't need the

intermediaries

and [snorts] 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. We

needed uh the 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.

um they wrote articles. Madame Daly

wrote novels in which she was um you

could see her trying to

foster the right kind of moral

inclinations. By that I mean compassion,

generosity,

socialility, understanding,

understanding of shared responsibilities

that you needed to educate people to

this because without it without an

educated critically minded, alert

citizenry, you can easily the people

will fall prey to uh unscrupulous

actors, demagogues. was on their minds

the whole time because they saw how

vulnerable those liberal constitutions

could be. They really depended on a

morally educated, civic-minded and

educated and alert citizenship.

>> I take the current crisis of liberalism

to be not any one crisis but but but a

couple of things and this is a

non-exhaustive list.

One is that liberalism in its modern

American form became associated with

power and with the status quo

>> and with 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 who

seemed sort of comfortable with how

society was working.

I think another crisis is that [gasps]

individualism has gone very very very

far.

>> Uh and I think the internet and social

media and algorithmic media and the

fracturing of what we know and and our

bonds from each other and the weakening

of civic institutions and religions and

you know labor unions and you know all

these things that that you know Bob

Putnham and others have documented.

I think that there is a like a like 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. Um, and I think liberalism in

its modern form is very very skeptical

of individual responsibility

>> and communal obligations because it has

seen those used for oppressive reasons

or used to sort of push people out to

the margins of society or to blame them

for things that have been done to them.

But it also has left it with very little

language.

>> That's right.

>> Um, 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 liberals actually were quite

averse to that word and they preferred

individuality or one I I like more

>> personhood.

I I'm curious why they preferred those

words and also what you see in that that

might be relevant to today.

>> So yes, uh they shied away from that

word. Individualism um really had an

meant was kind of a synonym for them to

selfishness. It's it's um uh and and

Toqueville you'll see uses it that way I

think in democracy in America. It's it's

just again it's an ism. Isms are very

often pjoratives and individuality is

more uh about you know becoming the best

person you can be uh developing yourself

your capacities of flourishing

individual flourishing. individualism

today we're have become very much a

narcissistic society unfortunately I

think the more choices we are have

that's that's better um it's 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

inwardlooking and narcissistic

[snorts]

>> and and what parts of the the sort of

liberal past do you think could be

helpful in renovating an answer to that.

>> I really think that people are uh

looking searching for meaning. You

mentioned that and I think that u in

order to go forward we we can draw on

this uh history that we have and think

and and kind of recover this this moral

language of of character of shared

responsibilities

of uh moral moral improvement. looking

at all these things that we have now

that our um people before us for

centuries didn't have and think of them

as ways to see if we can improve

ourselves uh 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 our improving

ourselves and and uh doing good for

society, keeping the common good in

mind? There's something uh funny there.

And I and I think that's that's a shame.

>> Well, also isn't there though a a a

question of well, 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 that's the that's a

danger. But that's why we have to

[snorts] uh come to a gather at least

and discuss it and come to some kind of

I think I think people come together.

they kind of can uh 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 u

movement of people who are college

educated and people benefited more from

how the institutions worked, it's ended

up very uh connected to to power.

>> Yes. And you see that a lot in the sort

of rhetoric of of people challenging it

now and the sort of counterrevolutionary

ideas that that the people on the new

right have. But I'm curious how you

would describe like liberalism's view of

power. um and what you see in like the

various liberalisms that that you've

tracked that it might be useful at a

time when people feel like very and I

think quite understandably skeptical of

institutions and and and frustrated with

the feeling that society is taking a

direction that they don't have much

influence over.

>> Yeah, absolutely. Liberalism is is best

when it uh criticizes power. That's how

it was limits authority and allows human

flourishing.

uh uh for sure and and uh now there is

at least this sense and I think it's

probably true that liberals

largely have a I don't know if they

control media and universities but have

a huge influence in power and that it's

somehow perpetuating um

self-perpetuating which translates into

political power as well. I think the the

worst part of that is a kind of

condescension or kind of disconnect

between these liberal elites that we

recognize are there um but their

disconnect between the common man um

sort of regular people and I think that

is a betrayal of of liberal principles

really because um 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 I'm an educator. I'm

I suppose part of this liberal elite.

>> I was going to say we're all human.

>> Yeah. So uh mulpa I mean I think we can

do a better job here and and returning

to these these principles. Well, I one

thing that I think is useful here and

it's not a a full answer, but it's one

reason I I found some inspiration in

your book is that I do think some of the

very early ideas that get talked about

around liberality 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 is

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 the

people we agree with and the people we

don't agree with. And I think when um

you know the liberal elites as you've as

you describe them and not wrongly 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 in instead seeing

themselves as leaders who know what is

best for everybody else and balancing

those you know commitments inside of

liberalism. commitment to moral

progress, right? To expanding freedom,

um, you know, to, uh, giving people a

better life and the commitment to the

kinds of virtues needed to to make a

complex society thrive

without people feeling

oppressed or condescended to or pushed

out by you. I think that balance, it's

not, there's not one policy that does

it. It's a very, very difficult balance.

It is.

>> But I think the great liberals forget

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 a civil war,

bloodiest war ever 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, that there's some

way to rediscover bonds of commonality.

I mean, it's why his speeches are read

today, not because they're bloodthirsty,

but because amidst all that blood,

they're not.

>> That that's absolutely true. Uh it is

very difficult and we're living in a

very um difficult moment, a true crisis.

Um, and we're so polarized, but I think

giving up on liberals, I know that's not

what you're saying, but um, th those

post- liberals that we mentioned a while

back ago, um, I mean, I think it's

dangerous to start talking about moving

beyond liberalism or giving up on

liberalism.

Liberalism um has gone through these

crises before and I think it can survive

it can survive and come out of this even

stronger and better uh if we renew with

some of these these ideas. But um as you

particular in particular have said you

know we have some we had liberals have

to deliver you know with the

affordability crisis that you've written

about with with um health health care

with the environmental degradation with

uh concrete problems that liberals

aren't solving. So I think we have to do

we have to do find ways to do that but

to inspire people is important too. I

think there's a yearning young people uh

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 um also some moral

uplift.

>> I think it's a good place to end. Always

our final question. What are three books

you'd recommend to the audience?

>> Okay. Um I am always uh I'm always um

influenced by in such a good way uh the

work of Sam Moy. I don't know if you

know his 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. Um the second one is a is a

fun read um which is Alex Leferber's

Liberalism as a way of life and it's

just uh delightful basically telling us

that we're all liberals whether we know

it or not. Uh he he draws on uh comedy

shows and TV series and sort of uh just

just just a lovely uplifting book. Um,

and then, uh, last but certainly not

least, is thinking with machines because

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 um, you want to read one book, I

think that's the one. It's Basant Dar.

Um, it's a story of his life um, with

AI. He was one of the first to teach it

and to bring it to Wall Street. And so

he talks about it's its um evolution

over time and the good and the bad, the

risks and the benefits. And uh full

disclosure, he's my husband. I'm I hope

I was allowed to do that.

>> Liberals always scratching each other's

back. Helena Rosenlat, thank you very

much.

>> Thank you. [music]

[music]

[music]