THE SPIRIT OF LIBERALISM THE SPIRIT OF LIBERALISM Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 1978 Copyright © 1978 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Mansfield, Harvey Claflin, 1932- The spirit of liberalism. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Liberalism. I. Title. JC571.M3285 320.5Ί 78-7809 ISBN 0-674-83312-0 CONTENTS Preface vii 1 Liberal Democracy as a Mixed Regime 1 2 Defending Liberalism 16 3 Disguised Liberalism 28 4 Liberalism in Moderation 52 5 The Right of Revolution 72 6 Cucumber Liberalism 89 Notes 117 Index 127 PREFACE This book has been written in defense of liberalism by a friend of liberalism. Consisting of essays published over the last six years, it was provoked partly by the deliberate provocations of the New Left but even more by the failure of liberals to defend them- selves. It was easy enough to recognize the tricks of confrontation politics, to become accustomed to the merry speech of the con- fronters and to learn to shrug them off; but to watch liberals wilt and flounder under the insults and attacks of the New Left was matter for wonder as well as indignation. I consider the cause of this liberal failure to be in liberalism as it has developed and not in institutions or events. It was neither indulgent universities nor a morally dubious war but the liberals' own inner uncertainty that caused them such anxiety and left them so diminished in spirit. From having been the aggressive doctrine of vigorous, spirited men, liberalism has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism, which in time degenerates further into a habitual or involuntary tremor even when the threat is removed. Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty? It should have been no surprise, although of course it was, that the liberals were taken so easily by the New Left. Liberals had had their most powerful cannons mounted in fixed emplacements so that they could shoot only toward the Right. Suddenly an at- tack came from the Left: some prominent liberals were killed outright; others were captured, and then tortured in the modern manner, brainwashed, and compelled to give speeches praising their enemies. While liberal leaders were misbehaving in this via Preface way, most ordinary liberals lacked even the elementary sullen un- cooperativeness which is the least one expects of prisoners of war. Now that the New Left has subsided, moreover, liberalism has not recovered. On the contrary, the spectrum of respectable, in- tellectual opinion has in important respects shifted to the Left, and as former zealots of the New Left have settled into bourgeois comfort and well-paid jobs, they have been forced to sacrifice fewer of their former opinions than they had feared and others had hoped. They are allowed to retain without reproach their pure belief in egalitarianism while benefiting from certain posi- tions now available to them, soon available to all, wearing the appearance of exemptions, to be sure, but necessary for the peri- od of transition to full and equal freedom for each and all. These former zealots are also allowed to continue their inconsistent pro- motion of sexual liberation and of women's liberation without a calling to account. They are further permitted to teach without contradiction their opinion that anti-communism is illiberal and in particular to propagate the canard that anti-communism after World War II was chiefly inspired by Joseph McCarthyism. This opinion has had its effect: the hard-won lessons of a whole gener- ation of anti-Communist liberals have been dissipated as Ameri- cans have once again been provided with an exhibition of silly enthusiasm for a Communist regime, this time the People's Re- public of China. It almost seems that any Communist regime indicating a willingness to accept the adulation of liberal intellec- tuals and businessmen will have it, either for ideological purity or for practical moderation, depending on its current phase. In- deed, it has proved possible simultaneously to approve of China for the one and the Soviet Union for the other. Above all, the old New Left has not abandoned the doctrine of self. On the contrary, that doctrine has proved its usefulness in versatility. Whereas a few years ago it was the fashion to project the self outwards by speaking out in protest, thus shocking the bourgeoisie, the erstwhile conscience-mongers have become trend setters, working with the system and going "into" this or that. Self-expression can have its moments of introversion, if not of in- trospection, as well as bursts of demonstration. But such introver- sion is as far from healthy, liberal self-interest as were the protests designed to outrage liberals. Going "into" something is not the Preface ix pursuit of an interest in which a free man takes pride as he makes himself independent; it is absorption in a diversion from the re- sponsible work of supporting oneself and one's family. "Working within the system" means using it for illiberal ends and to prevent the system from working as a whole. In sum, the New Left has be- haved more quietly but its mood is not penitent; and liberals have been so grateful for the change in behavior that they do not per- ceive, much less quarrel with, the illiberal opinions that persist. If all this sounds intolerant, then the reader has caught my tone rather than taken my point. The liberal practice of tolera- tion requires a distinction between the tolerable and the suitable, because a liberal ought not to like everything he should tolerate. He should like only what accords with liberalism, as opposed to what is illiberal, for liberalism is a distinct doctrine with follow- ers, friends, and enemies like other doctrines. One distinctive fea- ture of liberalism is the practice of toleration toward enemies as the principal part of a policy to persuade or isolate them. But the practice of toleration does not compel the liberal to become a mere agreeable fellow, much less an indiscriminate lover of all mankind and all nature. The "wishy-washy liberal" is a corrup- tion of liberalism, as anyone may see by trying to imagine that name applied to John Locke or Thomas Jefferson. To be tolerant in his actions the liberal must be ready to be intolerant in tone. Although he may have the better arguments, arguments do not speak on their own. Liberal arguments require spokesmen, and if liberals do not defend liberalism, hardly anyone else will and no one will do so effectively. To defend liberalism, liberals must be critical of the enemies they tolerate and speak up against them. The true liberal speaks up; he does not speak out. Speaking up implies a period of watch- ing or listening to what one disagrees with, followed by a surge of indignation and a persuasive rendition of one's opinion. Speaking out is an impulse, soon a routine, of self-expression regardless of what others have done or said and heedless of the means to per- suade them. Of course a liberal, no more than anyone, cannot persuade when speaking in an angry tone, but neither can a liberal persuade without a firm sense of the difference between the liberalism he is persuading to and the illiberalism he is per- suading from. This firm sense must control his judgment as to