Abstract: There are few isms in political theory that have as many prefixes as liberalism: classical, commercial, economic, Great Society, neo-, political, republican, social, sociological … the list is very long. This speaks to the centrality of a liberal tradition in Western thought. Simply put, the West has evolved from a pre-liberal era in which claims to power were grounded in blood (monarchy), metaphysics (religion), racial or national superiority (fascism) or class supremacy (communism) to one in which government was legitimate only if it derived its power from the consent of those it governed. Thus, 500, 100 or even 25 years ago, such governments were relatively few; now they are legion (see Fukuyama 1992: 49-50; and Doyle 1997: 261-4). To be sure, liberal regimes are not identical. They do, however, tend to share a concern with the appropriate limits of governmental power. It is no accident that liberal International Relations (IR) theorists have elevated the explanatory power of individuals in world politics, since these are the 'units', the progress and protection of which is the first duty of the state (see Rosenau 1992: 276-8). Unlike realists, liberals rarely define themselves against core principles. Realists have,among others, Hans Morgenthau (1904-80) to define their paradigm. He went so far as to enumerate 'six principles of political realism' (Morgenthau 1993: 4-16). Liberals have no such enumeration. That American neoconservatives (see Singh, Chapter 3 in this volume) and their detractors can both claim to be liberal is indicative of the rather slippery and fuzzy boundaries within which liberal theorists operate. Nevertheless, while we cannot identify liberal laws or principles, it is appropriate to speak of important liberal traits or assumptions. The individual, or more particularly groups of individuals, receive considerable attention in liberal IR theory. Men and women, and their supposed rationality and decency, have tended toward the improvement and progress of societies over time. This assumption might be contrasted with that of realists who understand human nature to be essentially fixed. Thucydides, writing in the fifth century BC, remains central to the realist canon because people and states have not changed in their fundamental natures (see Thucydides 1974). For liberals, states are not autonomous entities; they are amalgamations of people with different tastes and interests that are reflected in their governments. As people change, so do their governing institutions. For liberals, international relations evolve and improve, for realists, they are static and prone to conflict. Liberals explain peace, realists predict war. Much follows from such divergent premises. Liberals are generally hopeful that theworld can be and has been made better; progress is a self-evident liberal truth. Forrealists, progress is a chimera. Historical elitism is basic to liberal politics and analysis. It is a prejudice to which the United States is especially prone. Inscribed on the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC are the following words:I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Publication Year: 2009
Publication Date: 2009-06-19
Language: en
Type: book-chapter
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot