The most brilliant liberal think tank in the world, the London magazine The Economist, concludes its analysis on the crisis of liberal democracies and on the relaunch of the liberal idea, with a manifesto on the liberal rebirth which falls precisely on the 175th anniversary of its foundation. It is an interesting and also visionary document that should inspire the action of those who still believe in the vitality of liberal democracies and in their ability to respond to the challenges of the present, a present that the traditional parties inspired by those ideals do not know more interpret on a theoretical level and in their political action. The complacency of what they have achieved for themselves and for the societies they have governed is denying them the understanding of reality which is different from what they can imagine. Here because The Economist,, whose explicit endorsement has not brought luck to liberal candidates and programs in recent years, has initiated a profound rethinking of being liberal today. Below we propose some passages from the reflection of the London think-thnak.
An unprecedented progression
Liberalism built the modern world, but the modern world is revolting against the liberal idea. Europe and America are in the throes of a popular rebellion against liberal elites, who are seen as selfish and incapable, or lacking the will to solve ordinary people's problems. In other major countries, the 25-year turn toward freedom and open markets has reversed: China, soon to be the world's largest economy, shows that dictatorships can thrive. Russia is lost.
For "The Economist" all of this is deeply troubling. We were born 175 years ago to promote liberalism, not the "progressivism" of the left of American college campuses or the "ultraliberalism" of the libertarian right, but a universal commitment to individual dignity, open markets, minimal government and for a belief in human progress brought about by debate and reform.
Our founders would be amazed at how today's living conditions compare to the poverty and misery of the 40s. Life expectancy has increased from just under 175 to over 30 in the last 70 years. The proportion of people living below the extreme poverty line has dropped from around 80% to 8% of the population and the absolute number has halved, people living above that line have increased from 100 million to over 6,5 .80 billion. Literacy rates are five times higher and literacy is the prerogative of XNUMX% of the world's population. Civil rights and the rule of law are incomparably more entrenched than they were a few decades ago. In many countries, individuals are now free to choose how to live and with whom to live.
It's not all about liberalism, of course. But while fascism, communism and dictatorships failed throughout the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, liberal societies thrived. One way or another, liberal democracy came to dominate the West and from there it began to spread across the globe.
Don't rest on your laurels
Yet political philosophies cannot live off their past glories: they must also know how to point to a better future. And here liberal democracy faces its greatest challenge. Western voters have begun to question whether the liberal system can still work and even be the right way to govern modern societies. In some polls only 36% of Germans, 24% of Canadians and 9% of French think that the next generation will be better off than theirs. Only a third of Americans under 35 say it is vital to live in a democracy; the share that would like a military government grew from 7% in 1995 to 18% in 2017. Globally, according to Freedom House, an NGO, civil liberties and political rights have declined over the past 12 years: in 2017, 71 countries lost ground , while only 35 earned it.
Despite this illiberal tide, “The Economist” still believes in the power of the liberal idea. Over the past six months, it has celebrated its 175th anniversary with online articles, debates, podcasts and films exploring how to respond to critics of liberalism. A manifesto for a liberal renaissance, a liberalism for the people, is published today.
The poster states that the state can work more for the citizen re-establishing the foundations of taxation, welfare, education and immigration. The economy must be freed from the growing power of monopolies and the restrictions of land use plans that keep people out of the most prosperous cities. And the West must be urged to sustain the liberal world order through the build-up of military strength, reinvigorated through alliances.
All these policies are designed to implement the liberal project. In his moment of triumph, after the collapse of the Soviet UnionHowever, this project has lost sight of its essential values. It is with these that the liberal renaissance must begin.
Liberalism emerged in the late eighteenth century as a response to the turmoil caused by the War of Independence in America, the Revolution in France, and the transformation of industry and commerce. Revolutionaries base their action on the consideration that, in order to build a better world, one must first destroy what exists. On the other hand, conservatives are suspicious of all revolutionary aspirations for universal truth. They try to preserve what is best in society by managing change, usually through a ruling class or an authoritarian leader who "knows what to do".
A machine for change
The belief of true liberals is that societies can change gradually for the better and from the bottom up. They differ from revolutionaries in that they reject the idea that people should be forced to accept someone else's beliefs and actions. They differ from conservatives in that they argue that aristocracy and hierarchy, indeed all concentrations of power, tend to become sources of oppression.
Early liberalism had a troubled and dynamic vision of the world. Nevertheless in recent decades liberals have become too comfortable with power. As a result, they have lost their hunger for reform. The ruling liberal elite see themselves as the product of a healthy meritocracy and believe their privileges are deserved. The reality is not so well defined.
In its best expression, the competitive spirit of meritocracy has created extraordinary prosperity and an anthology of new ideas. In the name of efficiency and economic freedom, governments have opened markets to competition. Skin colour, gender and sexual inclinations have ceased to be a barrier. In emerging markets, globalization has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
And yet the liberal ruling classes have often sheltered themselves from the strains of creative destruction. Quiet professions like lawyers are protected by silly regulations. University professors are also privileged when they preach the virtues of the open society. The world of finance avoided the worst after the financial crisis and the bank bosses were bailed out with taxpayers' money. Globalization was meant to create enough resources to help those most in need, but few of them have seen any dividends.
Liberal meritocracy is closed and exclusive. A recent study found that, from 1999 to 2013, America's top universities admitted more students from the top 1 percent families of any other social group. In 1980-2015, college tuition fees in America increased 17 times more than average incomes. The 50 largest urban areas have 7% of the world's population but produce 40% of global output. But zoning restrictions keep many from living there, especially young people.
Liberal politicians are wrapped up in preserving the status quo and they have forgotten what radicalism is. Just remember how, in her campaign to become president of the United States, Hillary Clinton hid the lack of big ideas behind a storm of little things. The candidates for the leadership of the British Labor Party in 2015 lost not because Jeremy Corbyn is a great politician but because he was indistinguishably insignificant. Liberal technocrats continually come up with smart political solutions, but remain very distant from the people they intend to help. This creates two classes: the decision makers and the decision makers, the thinkers and the thinkers, the politicians and the recipients of policies.
The foundations of freedom
Liberals have forgotten that their founding principle is civic respect for all. In the'editorial for our centenary, written in 1943 when the war against fascism was still raging, he fixed it in two complementary principles. The first is freedom: "it is not only right and wise but also profitable ... to let people do as they please". The second is the common interest: "human society ... is an association for the well-being of all".
Today, liberal meritocracy is not comfortable with that inclusive definition of freedom. The ruling class lives in a bubble. He attends the same colleges, marries among them, lives in the same neighborhoods, and works in the same places. People away from positions of power should benefit from growing material prosperity. Instead, with productivity stagnation and fiscal austerity following the 2008 financial crisis, this promise of liberal societies has come undone.
This is one reason why trust in traditional parties is corroding. Britain's Conservatives, perhaps the most successful party in history, today raises more money from wills than it does from donations from the living. In the first election of unified Germany, in 1990, the traditional parties had obtained more than 80% of the vote; the latest poll gives them just 45%, against 41,5% for the far right, far left and the greens.
Voters are retreating into group identities defined by race, religion or sexuality. As a result, the second principle, the common interest, has fragmented. Identity politics can also be a valid response to discrimination, but as identities multiply, the politics of each group collides with the politics of others. Instead of generating useful compromises, the debate becomes an exercise in tribal outrage. Right-wing leaders, in particular, exploit the insecurity generated by immigration as a means of winning support. And they use smug leftist arguments about political correctness to fuel leftist electorate perceptions of being looked down upon by their own parties. The result is polarization. Sometimes polarization leads to paralysis, sometimes to the tyranny of the majority. At worst, it encourages far-right authoritarians.
The withdrawal from the geopolitica
The liberals are also defeated in the field of geopolitics. Liberalism spread in the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries following the first British naval hegemony and, later, with the economic and military rise of the United States. Today, by contrast, the retreat of liberal democracies is taking place as Russia plays the role of taster and China asserts its growing global power. Yet rather than defend the system of liberal alliances and institutions created after World War II, America neglects them and even, under President Donald Trump, undermines them. This impulse to withdraw is based on a misunderstanding.
As historian Robert Kagan points out, America did not go from interwar isolationism to postwar efforts to contain the Soviet Union, as is often assumed. Rather, having seen how the chaos of the 20s and 30s spawned fascism and Bolshevism, postwar statesmen came to the conclusion that a world without leadership was a threat. In the words of Dean Acheson, Secretary of State in the Truman administration, America could no longer sit "in the living room with a loaded gun, waiting."
Therefore the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not suddenly make America secure. If liberal ideas are not the basis of the world, geopolitics risks becoming the struggle for the balance of power, that merciless struggle for the sphere of influence that European statesmen already experienced in the 19th century. This state of affairs resulted in the muddy battlefields of Flanders. Even if the peace holds today, liberalism will suffer in the face of growing fears of the emergence of foreign enemies who will drive people into the arms of strongmen and populists.
The reinvention of liberalism
It's time for a reinvention of the liberal idea. Liberals need to spend less time proving their critics crazy and bigoted and more time fixing what's gone wrong in their vision and behavior. The true spirit of liberalism is not self-preserving, but radical and disruptive. The Economist was founded to fight the campaign to repeal the agricultural products laws (Corn Law), which levied tariffs on imports of grain and other dictated in Victorian Britain. Today comically it seems this issue only appears as a minor annoyance. But in 1840, 60% of factory workers' income was used to buy food and a third to procure bread. We were born to take the side of the poor against the nobility who grew grain. Today, in the same spirit, liberals need to side with a new precariat in the fight against the new patricians.
Liberals must face today's challenges vigorously. If they succeed in prevailing, it will be because their ideas are unrivaled in their ability to spread freedom and prosperity.
They must rediscover their faith in individual dignity and self-esteem by limiting their privileges. They must stop mocking nationalism, but claim it for themselves and fill it with their own content of inclusive civic pride. Rather than transferring power to centralized ministries and uncontrolled technocracies, they should transfer it to regions and municipalities. Instead of treating geopolitics as a zero-sum game between the great powers, America should drop its trio of aces: military might, democratic values, and allies.
The best liberals have always been pragmatic and conciliatory. On the eve of the First World War, Theodore Roosevelt challenged the robber barons who ran the country's big monopolies. Although many early liberals feared mass action, they embraced democracy. After the Depression in the 30s, they recognized that the state can play a limited role in managing the economy. Also to get rid of fascism and communism, after the Second World War, liberals helped install the welfare state.
Liberals must meet today's challenges with equal vigor. They have to accept criticism and welcome debate as an irreplaceable resource of their movement. They should be bold and hungry for reform. Young people, especially, have a world to claim.
When The Economist was founded 175 years ago, our first director, James Wilson, promised "a tough competition between an intelligence that pushes forward and an unworthy and timid ignorance that hinders progress". We renew our commitment to that race. And we call on liberals everywhere to join us.
