Suchergebnisse

In all of its varieties, traditional liberalism is a universalist political theory. Its content is a set of principles which prescribe the best regime, the ideally best institutions, for all mankind. It may be acknowledged — as it is, by a proto-liberal such as Spinoza — that the best regime can be attained only rarely, and cannot be expected to endure for long; and that the forms its central institutions will assume in different historical and cultural milieux may vary significantly. It will then be accepted that the liberal regime's role in political thought is as a regulative ideal, which political practice can hope only to approximate, subject to all the vagaries and exigencies of circumstance. Nonetheless, the content of traditional liberalism is a system of principles which function as universal norms for the critical appraisal of human institutions. In this regard, traditional liberalism — the liberalism of Locke and Kant, for example — represents a continuation of classical political rationalism, as it is found in Aristotle and Aquinas, where it also issues in principles having the attribute of universality, in that they apply ideally to all human beings.

Liberalism is based upon bold assumptions. It is a political doctrine built upon confidence in the rationality and good will of men. Crisis might well be treated as endemic to any theory so premised. Hence, difficulties caused by the failure of men to act in a manner consistent with such assumptions could be easily anticipated and readily dismissed. The present difficulty seems to go much deeper and to rest upon a questioning of liberal assumptions as valid guides to action.It is but a step from such pragmatic probings to a challenge of the essential philosophic value of liberalism. To lose faith today in the values of liberalism would, I think, be tragic. The liberal tradition is the strongest political heritage of western culture, and particularly of the United States and the British Commonwealth of Nations. What are the essentials of this heritage?The essentials of liberalism are familiar to us all—civil rights, the tolerance of political differences, freedom of opportunity and a career open to talents, belief in the dignity and integrity of human personality, the acceptance of diversity and of compromise. These are the elements, and to many bred in the liberal faith they are taken as universal truths.

Classical liberals, disciples of F. A. Hayek, are described as the most interesting among the Polish dissenters of the 1980s. By 1987 liberals had become the most influential & dynamic intellectual group, contributing to a change in the intellectual climate with a shift in the focus of attention from politics to economics, & a way from a political radicalism rooted in the leftist tradition to a broadly defined New Right. New developments in Poland are considered, & the liberal opposition is described as arguing for the liquidation of socialism without changing its name or infringing on the interests of its ruling elite. The shift to the Right visible in the ranks of the new opposition is explored, & the thinking of two of the chief ideologists, Bronislaw Lagowski & Miroslaw Dzielski, both of the Jagiellonian U of Cracow, is explored. Polish liberals can be accused of extremism in praising the free market & dismissing the merits of mixed economies; this extremism is seen as a sound reaction against the realities that surround them. In an afterword, it is noted that the defeat of the government's program of economic & political reforms in the referendum of 29 Nov 1987 has been a defeat for the liberals & has helped rehabilitate the term socialism. F. S. J. Ledgister

MANY CONTEMPORARY CRITICS OF EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM CLAIM ROUSSEAU AS THEIR PHILOSOPHIC FOREFATHER CITING, TYPICALLY, HIS HISTORICISM AND HIS CONCERN FOR VIRTUE AND THE COMMON OR COLLECTIVE GOOD. MANY PROPONENTS OF MODERN LIBERALISM ATTACK ROUSSEAU AS THE FORERUNNER OF HISTORICISM, AND OF MODERN SOCIALISM, COMMUNALISM, AND THE TYRANNY OF THE COLLECTIVE. THIS ESSAY SUGGESTS THAT BOTH POSITIONS ARE MISTAKEN. ROUSSEAU'S STANCE TOWARDS EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM IS MORE COMPLEX THAN EITHER HIS DEFENDERS OR HIS CRITICS GRASP. IT IS MORE CORRECT TO CHARACTERIZE ROUSSEAU AS ONE WHO DID NOT REJECT BUT RATHER REVISED--IN ORDER TO FULFIL--EARLY MODERN LIBERALISM, AND AS ONE WHO DID SO ON THE BASIS OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES.

British voters have been accused of being bored with government. Perhaps this boredom stems from the voters' assumption that the relationship between citizen & government is similar to that between customer & service provider. This situation lends itself to a consideration of the philosophies of Gillian Rose, Charles Mathewes, & Stanley Hauerwas -- philosophies that focus on the ties between the politics of liberal modernity & the politics of identity. These ties, in turn, are intrinsically related to a rights-based political culture that recognizes minority as well as majority groups. Meanwhile, Rose's work points to the idea that a rights-driven political culture will not necessarily result in the embrace of common values. According to Hegel, at this point it is essential to bring in theology & the "myth" of spirit, & to argue that the Christian Church contributes to the formation of common values. It must also be recognized that the Church plays a role in political campaigns & agenda setting; however, the Church fails to properly model a political system based on comprehensive social exchange. K. A. Larsen