AN ESSAY ON THE STATE OF LIBERALISM
For those who live in a society governed by liberalism, it has given them a sense of freedom as well as some degree of power over their destiny, which could lead to the promise of a more enlightened human being. However, the question is whether this power transformed human conscience or enhanced collective maturity? It can be said that liberalism is undeniably preferred over authoritarian methods. It has exerted significant influence on the political and social evolution of the world from the 17th century to the present. The series of changes that have taken place in different but synchronous forms over the past few centuries — modifications and alterations that have transformed the face of the world — were the manifestations of individual liberty that broke the yoke of oppressive laws, customs, and authorities. The currents of Enlightenment, rationalism, modernity, cosmopolitanism, freedom, and democracy could be thought of as progressive phases that transformed one era of civilization to the next, leading humanity to advances in controlling its environment and the forces of nature.
Notwithstanding modern time’s progress, the historical evidence demonstrated that the pursuit of happiness remained a chimera, and mere control of life’s material aspects without the rectitude of conduct disrupted the bounds of moderation and increased the existential anxiety of man.
With the outbreak of two world wars and all their devastating consequences, the bitter experiences of the twentieth century were signs of liberalism’s inability to prevent or mitigate these crises. In any collective entity such as a country, if social interactions are dissociative and animated by the ethos of superiority and power, an internal rift breaks out, and sectarianism increases. The consequences of inner tension naturally reach a boiling point, fomenting internal pressures that, like a volcano, erupts from time to time.
ECONOMIC LIBERALISM
Another concern associated with liberalism is the threat of economic crises, which periodically arise from the heart of economic liberalism. For example, in the 1930s, after the stock market crash of 1929 — which first appeared in the United States, followed by Europe, and left an army of unemployed and hungry — the capitalist system faced one of the most dangerous stages of its life. The economic recession of 2008, which some viewed as sharing the same underlying features as the depression of the 1930s, was another sign that the peril lies within the essence of the capitalist system. The Marxist system that came to power in the Soviet Union and claimed that it could contain this inherent crisis by eliminating competition and the free market also proved to be a mirage that its destructive path left a trail of death and human misery collapsing under its own weight.
The capitalist system has attempted to alleviate the cyclical nature of these periodic crises by creating various financial and banking tools; however, in addition to economic levers, this system needs principled action as well as other mechanisms for stability. The first concern for alleviating periodic economic crises is to consider the moral agency, which can be realized by curbing greed. In his works — The Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments — Adam Smith, known as the father of capitalism, considered the role of ethics in the exchange system to be vital. The earlier interpretations of economics focused more on political economy, which concentrated on the triangle of the mechanisms of exchange, moral conscience, and the political system. Adam Smith coined the term the invisible symbol of a free economy according to which the sum of personal self-interests, influenced by the natural tendencies of the market, the best interest of society is achieved as the upsurge in the economy is also affected.
On the other hand, Adam Smith emphasized the importance of sympathy and moral virtue as well. Since then, a contradiction between the notion of the invisible hand and the ethics of compassion has been noticed. Furthermore, it has been argued that Adam Smith himself acknowledged that certain economic actors might use deceptive behaviors to cheat and manipulate society. How can then self-interest and the greater good of society can be compatible?
I understand that Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments was written in the context of the Judeo-Christian moral virtue and the Greco-Roman traditions, which was the defining spirit or the zeitgeist of his era. He assumed the invisible hand of the economy will always be under a priori assumption that God exists, life after death is real, and human beings are essentially spiritual in nature. Therefore, it is conceivable to add a theological dimension to the contentious relationship between self-interest and sympathy. Adam Smith wrote, “the governing principles of human nature, the rules which they prescribe are to be regarded as the commands and laws of the Deity.” Hence, it is logical to assume self-interest under Deity may evolve into something higher for the service of humanity. That is to say, the invisible hand of the economy becomes functional if the invisible hand of God is in operation.
The Smith proposition envisioned the presence of moral agency as the foundation of his political economy. However, that proposition could not witness a widening shift from self-interest to selfishness, vanity, and the ever-increasing thirst for consumption. Selfishness reinforced by a competitive market present a flawed model Adam Smith never intended to conceptualize.
Generally speaking, wealth can result in public welfare — the good of the people — but Smith himself expressed doubt that this is not always the outcome. He knew that the free market alone could not eradicate poverty or benefit social goals, which often are not the direct recipients of gains in the market, such as environmental protection or scientific research. In other words, personal profit as a stimulus of economic activities must be tempered by goodwill and respect for others. Government intervention and oversight have a limited effect, particularly in a globalized economy. Oversight by national governments also proves to be particularly ineffective in resolving capitalism’s flaws, so the need for a mechanism of international collaboration and adjustment in global finance and trade arises.
Viewing economics as essentially a normative discipline is not considered an aberration but rather a restoration of a historical sentiment. Ethics is perceived to be an essential property of economics and not an external force. It is assumed that the emerging global consciousness can advance a new set of propositions for social and economic theories. We know the mechanism of self-interest has been a part of the natural evolution of humanity. It is, however, contended that the curve of self-interest had exhausted its role in sociocultural history. This emerging reality, far from being wishful thinking, is already born and generating profound changes in the social and economic structures of the global society. Globalization, so far, has been driven by the forces of information technology and free trade. Ethical concerns, however, have made significant inroads into the refinement of these forces. It is now widely accepted that trade and other economic activities are only the means to quest for a meaningful life.
LIBERALISM AND MORALS OF HISTORY
In examining liberalism, one must take a historical perspective on the matter. Thus, its past, present, and future should be examined, and how its evolution was influenced by social, economic, and political factors.
By virtue of viewing it in the context of the evolution of history, past events will be critiqued in the context of the beliefs, rules, and behaviors that shaped people’s lives in the past. Those behaviors will remain morally responsible to the judgment of history. However, historical understanding can shed light on the universality of moral conflict and the ever-advancing process of moral development. Historical consciousness can also temper any generation’s self-righteous attitude and transform it into a reflective process to bring its own self to account. The ones who condemn the evils of history are subject to the same criteria they judge the past.
The tempo of social and cultural change does not accept any ideology as the endpoint of history. Everything is constantly changing and evolving. Today’s reality will give way to a broader reality tomorrow. Looking at liberalism historically helps us have a realistic view of the progress of political thought in history and not confuse it with fundamentalist thinking.
THE EXISTENTIAL DIMENSION OF SOCIAL CHANGE AND IDENTITY POLITICS
Assessing political and social processes and systems requires us not to lose sight and ignore human nature. Not all the historical changes can be attributed to economic relations and the political systems; rather, one must also regard the inner dynamics of human life. Plato understood well that in the search for justice and freedom, one must pay attention to psychology, education, and spiritual discipline as merely changing the political system cannot bring justice and freedom. Human nature is the same in every corner of the globe. It has universal needs, such as the need for food and shelter.
Similarly, instinctual needs such as sexual desire do not vary based on culture or country of origin. Ambitions and aspirations, such as the wish for personal success or prosperity of offspring, are also general principles. Likewise, selfishness and jealousy, the desire to dominate and influence are human characteristics and are the same in every corner of the world. Historically, people have shown jealousy and selfishness or forgiveness and sacrifice, either under liberalism or under the ideology of Marxism. It is true that the political and social systems, to some extent, shape these motives. They make them weaker or stronger, but it is a mere illusion to consider them as the main factor or the shaper of these motivations. Marxism claimed that a new race of man would be created by an overnight replacement of the political system. As the Iron Curtain fell, the world saw that the people who lived under that system were no different from those who lived under capitalism in their basic motives, needs, and aspirations. We all sail in the same ship, and a common storm has swept the ship. We all have weaknesses and strengths.
Any human being can have a moral free-fall or alternately act heroically. Let us not draw a halo of sanctity around anyone or any group based on religion, national origin, race, class, or gender, and let respect for humanity replace the politics of identity. Any oppression associated with religion, race, class, gender, or other identifying factors cannot be rooted out as long as it remains within its differentiated boundaries. It must find a universal character and common sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole. The solution also demands a process based on education and profound modification of conduct toward the world at large.
Adding an existential perception of human nature and condition to social change allows us to shape the organic evolution of society from within and not through employing political force and cultural intimidation.
LIBERALISM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Liberalism would reach a dead-end or stalemate if considered as a perfected phenomenon or the ultimate ideology in the process of social progress. Liberalism is destined to be transformed by immutable laws of change and decay. Viewed otherwise, liberalism itself can descend into a fanatical doctrine.
Liberalism grew as a political philosophy or government system based on nationalism; therefore, the question remains: Were the concepts and values of liberalism to remain in the realm of just one state, government, or nation, or was it destined for all societies and systems? If the universality of freedom and the equality of all human beings or citizens are universal principles, does not this require a new mentality and value system to transcends nationalism?
Values such as freedom, equality, and respect for personal property, in a world whose components are inevitably interdependent need a mechanism that will adapt those values to global conditions. However, in doing so, liberalism faces a series of questions such as: How to resolve challenges that liberalism poses to political and legal aspects of religious beliefs? How to make nationalism and internationalism compatible? What are philosophical, political, and legal changes needed to establish respect for human rights as the organizing principle of international relations? How to modify alarming polarization and partisanship in democratic systems?
These challenging questions have no easy answer. However, at the heart of each challenge, a need for consensus building is clearly manifested. Dividing people into right versus left, religious versus secular, conservative versus liberal, nationalist versus internationalist will undoubtedly result in internal conflict, leading to chaos and world consuming crisis. If each camp persists in one-sided absorption to its own view, the tendency toward extremism will increase. Creating a global consensus may need nonpartisan consultative agencies to advance a unifying discourse based on synthesizing these dividing perspectives. A vital element of any consensual model rests squarely on the rhythm of continuity and change, stability and progress. That eternal truths of the past need not be discarded but reconciled with the steady and ever-advancing movement of civilization. That universal values are different from antiquated traditions of the past.
The division and partisanship have brought, over time, destructive forces that are eroding the standards of civility. Fallen standards appear to have constructed a dichotomy in the mental and moral life of contemporary society. On the one hand, traditional and religious beliefs, and on the other, liberal and secular interpretations of the world appear to have defeated the possibility of peace and reconciliation and turned the body politic into irreconcilable entities. Liberalism should be praised for its respect for dissenting thoughts, which can impede the ascent of hegemony. The unique contributions of liberalism to modern civilization have enabled it with the potential ability to play a historical role in perilous currents of the world. In doing so, first, liberalism should be careful not to fall into fanatical dogma, political obfuscation, or the temptation of becoming the 21st shibboleth. Second, it must gather strength from its sociocultural heritage, including the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the Enlightenment, to venture to transform the partisanship duality mentioned above into a discursive framework for coexistence before it is too late.
