Liberalism, Democracy, and the State: Reclaiming the Unity of Liberal Politics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Liberal political thought has fractured into “classical” and “modern” camps. This division is rooted in differing reactions to the rise of capitalism and democracy, which are institutional outgrowths of liberal principles, unanticipated by its seminal thinkers. Both “classical” and “modern” liberalism are led astray by classifying liberal democracy as a kind of state. But democracies are not states; they are selforganizing systems. When the nature of this error is grasped, a more coherent liberal vision emerges, where the key tension in liberal society is between selforganizing systems and instrumental organizations. Possibilities in public policy take on new dimensions as well.
The world we know is largely the institutional outcome of liberalism's political triumph, first in the West and increasingly worldwide. Yet today liberal thought is deeply divided against itself and, in this division, often unable to comprehend a world in many ways its product. This division grows primarily from tensions between two liberal institutions: liberal, or representative, democracy and the market, and also from the near universal failure of liberals to grasp democratic government's unusual systemic character. Tensions between liberal democracy and the market are central issues, whereas the character of democratic government receives far less attention. Yet how the first issue is evaluated depends in part on understanding the last. Liberalism has strengthened the intellectual, legal, economic and political status of individuals within society, emphasizing equality of status for all people.
- Research Article
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2001
I would like to thank Duane Oldfield, William K. Muir, Robert Hawkins, Walter Nicgorski, and two referees for their helpful comments and suggestions, all of which helped improve this paper.
1. Mises, Ludwig, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 270–73;Google ScholarKirzner, Israel,“Self-Interest and the New Bashing of Economics: A Fresh Opportunity in the Perennial Debate?” Critical Review 4 (1990);CrossRefGoogle ScholarBuchanan, James and Vanberg, Viktor J., “The Market as a Creative Process,” Economics and Philosophy 7 (1997)Google Scholar.
3. For classical liberalism, see Anderson, Terry L. and Leal, Donald R., Free Market Environmentalism (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.1991)Google Scholar; for modern liberalism see Marshall, Will, ed., Building the Bridge: 10 Big Ideas to Transform America (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1997)Google Scholar; Gore, Al, Earth in the Balance (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992)Google Scholar; Schwarz, John E., America's Hidden Success: A Reassessment of Twenty Years of Public Policy (New York: W. W. Norton., 1983)Google Scholar.
4. Dahl, Robert, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press.1982)Google Scholar.
5. Hayek, F. A., The Mirage of Social Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1976)Google Scholar.
7. Jefferson, Thomas, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. and intro. Koch, Adrienne and Peden, William (New York: Random House.1948), p. 497Google Scholar.
9. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1987, The Organization of Local Public Economies (Washington, D. C)Google Scholar.
10. Kemmis, Daniel, Community and the Politics of Place (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.1990)Google Scholar.
12. Dionne, E. J. Jr., They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate the Next Political Era (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 292–95Google Scholar; Putman, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), pp. 397–401Google Scholar.
13. Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Parsons, Talcott (New York: Free Press, 1964), p. 156Google Scholar.
14. Pitkin, Hanna, Wittgenstein and Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), p. 312Google Scholar.
15. Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), p. 220Google Scholar; Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, The War Trap (New Haven: Yale University Press.1981), p. 159Google Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations (New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1965), pp. 25–26Google Scholar; Etzioni, Amatai, Political Unification (New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1965), p. 329Google Scholar.
16. Hintze, Otto,“The State in Historical Perspective,” in State and Society, ed. Bendix, Reinhard.(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), p. 155Google Scholar.
20. Pelinka, Anton, Politics of the Lesser Evil: Leadership, Democracy and Jaruzelski's Poland (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1999), p. 204Google Scholar.
22. Hayek, F. A., Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 77–106Google Scholar; New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 179–90Google Scholar; Lachmann, Ludwig, The Market as an Economic Process (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google Scholar.
24. Polanyi, Michael,“The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory,” in Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. Grene, Marjorie (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Ziman, John, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Scientific Belief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Hull, David, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Tussman, Joseph, Obligation and the Body Politic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
26. Aristotle, , Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp. 4–7;Google ScholarCrick, Bernard, In Defense of Politics (Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1964), pp. 140–61Google Scholar; Pitkin, Hanna, Wittgenstein and Justice, pp. 328–32Google Scholar, diZerega, Gus, Persuasion, Power, and Polity: A Theory of Democratic Self-Organization (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2000).Google Scholar
28. For examples of this error, see, Dahl, Robert, A Preface to Democratic Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956), p. 63;Google ScholarMichels, Robert, Political Parties (New York: Free Press.1961), p. 365.Google ScholarContrast with Scott, James C., Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 79.Google Scholar
35. Wilson, James Q., Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It (New York: Basic Books, 1989), pp. 376–79Google Scholar.
36. Thus the error of Hayek, F. A., The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: Regnery, 1960), pp. 256–58Google Scholar.
38. Dahl, Robert, After the Revolution? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 15–16Google Scholar.
44. diZerega, “Equality, Self-Government, and Democracy.”
45. Heclo, Hugh, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment,” in The New American Political System, ed. King, Anthony (Washington, D. C: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), pp. 94–95Google Scholar.
49. Dwyer, Janet and Hodge, Ian, Countryside in Trust: Land Management by Conservation, Recreation and Amenity Organizations (Chichester: John Wiley ańd Sons, 1996)Google Scholar.
50. McKean, Margaret A., “Management of Traditional Common Lands (Iriaichi) in Japan,” in Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1992)Google Scholar; Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 58–69, 88–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.