What misconceptions about liberalism are most common? Why did the past of liberalism as the perfect of inspiring people go into oblivion? Why has liberalism gained so many different and contradictory meanings? And what are the historical links between “liberalism” and “democracy”? Leszek Jażdżewski talks to Helena Rosenblatt, a prominent prof. of history, political discipline and French at the postgraduate Center at the City University of fresh York. Her latest book is entitled "A Lost past of Liberalism from Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century" (Princeton University Press, 2018). She is besides the author of the books "Rousseau and Geneva from the First Discourse to the Social Contract" (Cambridge University Press, 1997) and "Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion" (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
Leszek Jażdżewski (LJ): What misconceptions about liberalism are most common?
Helena Rosenblatt (HR): The main misconception is that liberalism is simply a unified, monolithic concept. It is amazing that people seem to have their own individual definitions of what liberalism is. There are many different definitions, leading to serious misunderstandings concerning both the people active and its general history.
Another serious misconception is the view that liberalism is simply a mostly Anglo-American tradition. We frequently hear that liberalism was born in England and then reached America. These narratives tend to favour Anglo-American thinkers. Places like France and Germany are overlooked in this narrative, and French and German thinkers are usually excluded from the canon.
Changing this state of affairs is 1 of the main goals of my book. I decided to tell a communicative about where liberalism truly was born and how it gained so different interpretations and meanings around the world.
LJ: Why is the communicative of liberalism as an inspiring perfect – meaning not only love for freedom and civic awareness, but besides generosity and compassion – forgotten?
HR: Liberalism was clearly a moral perfect from the very beginning. He was profoundly linked to showing generosity. Love for freedom was highly important, but generosity and compassion have always been fundamental elements of liberalism.
Today, erstwhile we talk about liberalism, we focus almost exclusively on the rights of the individual, seeing it as an ideology focused on the rights of the individual. Consequently, this longer, more extended communicative fell out of the narrative.
This change occurred primarily during the Cold War. The emergence of Fascism, Communism and Nazism in Europe, and then the cold war, made it crucial for the West – and especially for the powerful Anglo-American alliance – to separate themselves from totalitarianism and Stalinism. Supporters of liberalism felt compelled to emphasize this peculiar part of the liberal tradition that protects individual rights and property rights. In the face of the Stalinist regime, the dominant message was that liberalism advocated the rights of the individual against the state, viewing the state as dangerous and requiring the protection of citizens from it.
Liberals have always advocated the protection of individual rights, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. However, there erstwhile was a conscious balance between these guarantees and the another side of this philosophy, which emphasizes compassion, generosity, citizenship, responsibilities and responsibility. With the improvement of totalitarianism, the thought that citizens may have responsibilities and obligations, or that governments should engage in managing them, has become a highly dangerous concept.
LJ: Could you describe the first meaning of the word "liberal", which, as you wrote, defined a individual with generous feelings and an open, broad mind, long before the word "liberalism" arose?
HR: The word ‘liberal’ liberal) It originates from ancient Rome and Latin, and its primary core being the ‘liberal’. People frequently say that "liber" means freedom, and it did, but it besides meant generosity.
Being “liberal” in ancient Rome meant having noble qualities and appropriate values of the citizen. The citizen was expected to love freedom, but besides compassion for fellow citizens, citizenship, and generosity, not selfishness. Egoism was seen as a characteristic of slaves. Generosity and commitment to the common good were values defining the citizen.
The applicable noun “liberalism” did not be at the time as a term, as it only appeared around 1813. Before the emergence of “liberalism” there was a noun “liberality”, meaning “honorfulness.” Showing “honor” was about demonstrating these noble values and virtues of the citizen. Over time, it is simply a fundamental meaning, which combines generosity and freedom, that has remained in this concept, even if it has undergone small change over hundreds of years depending on the circumstances.
LJ: How did being a “liberal” begin to depart from these first virtues and take on a different meaning, transforming from individual virtue into a collection of political problems in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?
HR: Originally this word described the value of a peculiar person. Over time, the scope of the usage of this word expanded, so that it began to mean a way of thinking, and yet – a kind of society.
In the United States George Washington spoke of a “liberal” society and a “liberal” constitution. Through the "liberal" constitution, he understood the Tolerance Constitution, open and friendly. At this stage, this did not mean a well-defined set of political or constitutional concepts, but brought with it a sense of nobility rooted in virtue.
The transition towards a separate political thought accelerated after Lafayette's return to France. It began with the concept of tolerance, but was yet linked to constitutional principles of thinkers specified as Benjamin Constant. The resulting principles have become constitutional foundations, which we now associate with the fundamental values of liberal democracy.
Since this process took place in France during the revolution, supporters of this thought had to face the monarchy. They so demanded a constitutional monarchy and a typical system. civilian equality played a immense role. The view that everyone has equal civilian rights – although not yet equal political rights – was revolutionary. Supporters of this thought besides demanded freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and yet besides the separation of the church from the state. These basic principles were called "liberal" in France in the 1990s.
This strong emphasis on the function of France may surprise us due to the fact that it is widely believed that "liberalism" is an Anglo-American tradition dating back to Magna Cart's time. However, if you look at the word itself, the theoretical foundation of what we call "liberalism" – accepted as specified by both its supporters and critics – took place originally in France. In fact, erstwhile the word "liberal" was first utilized in a political context in England and America, it was frequently written as "libérale" with a French suffix and accent to point to its abroad origin. This was seen as a completely fresh way of utilizing the term.
LJ: How did liberalism make as a consequence of historical struggle, first with absolutism and then with reactionist forces?
HR: Finally, both Napoleons besides exerted a immense influence on liberalism. Supporters of an thought are, so to speak, shaping by their opponents. The first Liberals did not necessarily consider themselves enemies of the monarch. They aspired to a constitutional monarchy, mostly like English.
Then the revolution got out of control, to their large discontent and terror, turning into a period of terror, and ended with the appearance of Napoleon. This consequence was a tragedy for liberals. The French Liberals initially believed in Napoleon, reasoning that he might be able to bring peace to France and the continent, and thought he would save the revolution. He spoke in the right tone, so most of them actually even supported his coup, but rapidly realized it was a mistake.
The collection of concepts, which developed in 1813 and is called "liberalism", actually aims to prevent the appearance of individual like Napoleon. Unfortunately, this situation repeats what we see even present erstwhile a person, who in rule has been elected democratically or at least approved through a plebiscite – like both Napoleons in France – can pass over the issue of responsibility. specified a leader tells the electorate that he straight represents him, claiming that typical institutions, judicial systems, and papers only hinder progress. specified people are demagogues and dictators.
It was this threat that made liberals specified as Benjamin Constant, Madame de Staël and others want to make a constitutional strategy that would give any authority to the people, answer to them and guarantee that no more despotic rulers would always appear. Despite their efforts, this situation repeated in the case of Napoleon III, which sparked another wave of reaction from the Liberals.
The Catholic Church was another, most likely the most powerful opponent of liberals throughout the 19th century. Papacy was very late in agreeing to freedom of religion, which, as has been mentioned, was a key issue for liberals from the very beginning. This tension is understandable in the case of France, due to the fact that for centuries the Catholic Church supported the absolute monarchy. Interestingly, Protestants are greatly overrepresented in liberal movements in relation to their actual numbers, especially in France, Germany, England and America.
LJ: Given that the past of liberalism is so profoundly linked to French thought and politics, why is the word itself practically excluded present from the French political dictionary, where being "liberal" frequently boils down to the narrow, pejorative meaning of economics?
HR: This word is simply a burden and it is hard to usage it freely. It is not possible to be a “liberal” in France or America without bearing the consequences. Representatives of the U.S. Democratic Party, who mostly rank somewhat to the left of the center, avoid the word "liberal" for diametrically other reasons.
In France, being "liberal" means standing a bit to the right from the centre, which means supporting the free market, globalisation, the limited function of the government and specified issues. In America, this means the opposite, signaling greater government intervention, a welfare state and specified issues. This word has a very different meaning in both countries, making it hard to have a conversation if the participants do not realize the difference.
Both free marketplace liberals and supporters of greater government regulation come from the same current, but at any point they divided into 2 currents in consequence to the industrial revolution, urbanization and related problems. They had 2 different approaches to dealing with the fresh poorness crisis and endemic poorness in cities.
Some Liberals advocated greater government intervention. Others argued that the right solution was a lesepherism-based approach and even greater deregulation. So there were 2 currents, and the 1 who advocated government intervention gained an advantage in America. That is why the word means something different in America and something different in France and most another parts of the world. America is an exception in terms of the common meaning of the word "liberal".
Today's alleged libertarians in America, any of whom call neoliberals, claim to be actual liberals. They keep that democratic liberals abuse this word, and they are the actual classical and orthodox liberals. Meanwhile, the word "neoliberalism" mostly has a pejorative effect and is used, at least in America, as an insult. Nobody truly wants to be called a neoliberal, especially in academia.
LJ: How did the concept of “liberalism” begin to mean so many different and contradictory things? And why did they start to associate them primarily with economics, which did not happen for much of the past of this idea?
HR: That is precisely what happened. I found a wonderful communicative and a quote from Herbert Hoover, who was president at the time of the large crash. He was a actual supporter of the free marketplace and lesiferism, and was very annoyed by the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt utilized this word to describe himself and his politics.
People working for Roosevelt kept calling him “liberal” and claiming that the fresh Deal was “liberal”, and that all of this was “liberal”. There is even a speech in which individual uses the word 10 or 12 times to emphasize even more that it is the supporters of the fresh Deal that are “liberal”. Herbert Hoover simply states that they can keep this word due to the fact that he has had adequate of it and believes that it was ruined by them and deprived of any meaning. He's telling them to go ahead and take them.
So there was this dispute, which is interesting, due to the fact that there was something about that word that attracted people very much. This is simply a word that inactive means generosity and love for freedom, so people wanted to usage it. Now politicians may be avoiding him, which is besides interesting. Words are important; they are tools and rhetoric, so it is worth utilizing them carefully.
LJ: What is the historical link between “liberalism” and “democracy”? In particular, why did the first Liberals not trust direct public power, and how did they yet accept it?
HR: In America, the word “liberal democracy” and “democracy” are utilized interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. It's a small sloppy and lazy. In fact, these concepts do not merge so easily, and their merger took place only later in history.
Democracy is, of course, a much older tradition, reaching for Greece, and originally meant the power of the people. It comes from the words ‘demos’ and ‘cratos’, meaning the power of the people. For about 2 1000 years, it was considered the worst possible kind of government, equivalent to anarchy, due to the fact that it was direct power. Supporters of this thought developed the concept of typical “democracy” rather late.
In the 18th century, people began utilizing the word “democracy” in many different ways. We besides do so due to the fact that we do not always mean a political government or a political system; it can mean an economical strategy that is more accessible and egalitarian. erstwhile the French people said in 1820 that they were “democracy”, of course they did not mean that everyone had the right to vote. They meant civilian equality and that people had the same rights under the applicable law.
During the revolution, erstwhile “liberalism” was born, liberals witnessed how crowds operate. They observed what they thought was irrational behaviour and mob violence. They noted that society not only acted irrationally and aggressively, but was besides prone to manipulation erstwhile a dictator like Napoleon appeared. The direct transfer of power to the people would be very unreasonable and incomprehensible to them.
There was a request for “liberalism” that would in time safe “democracy” and tame it. Supporters of this thought hoped to achieve, through the typical system, the governments of the sages – an aristocracy not based on origin, but on abilities. Typically, this concept active property requirements on voting rights and even stricter requirements on office. It was only in time that Liberals began to accept universal electoral law for men, and even later – universal electoral law besides covering women. Initially, they were not democrats; to any degree they were elite. possibly we can realize this given the general illiteracy and poorness of the population. It did not make any sense for them to have 20 million people to vote, much little to straight pass laws.
LJ: Given that the word "liberalism" is so dynamic and profoundly linked to the political sphere, does it make sense to effort to return to the first meaning of the word "liberal" as meaning generosity? What kind of “liberalism” do we request today?
HR: There is now a clear deficiency of imagination and aspiration. Supporters of this thought are not enthusiastic. In America, where I am at the minute of our conversation, it is hard to affect young people in the democratic process, and most of us feel that we are in a dangerous state of deep decline in terms of the state of our "liberal democracy" right here.
To remind people of specified values is crucial, and people want to hear voices that talk about it. It's not just about the individual's selfish rights. It's more about uncovering something that connects us, something worth fighting for, and something worth defending.
Looking into the past allows us to see that erstwhile there were truly good, very noble people who fought with large commitment and wondered in depth what we call "liberal democracy". It's worth fighting for. We must be generous, sacrifice ourselves for others, and show compassion. This is the essence of the notion of "liberal democracy".
Helena Rosenblatt will be 1 of the guests of this year's edition of the Freedom Games. Learn more on: games of freedom.pl/event/gra-freedom-2026
This podcast was produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movieno Liberal Social and the Liberté Foundation!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are liable for the content nor for any usage of this podcast.
Podcast is besides available on platforms Sound, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify
Dr. Olga Łabendowicz translated from English
Read English at 4liberty.eu
