What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century
The Lost History of Liberalism challenges our most basic assumptions about a political creed that has become a rallying cry—and a term of derision—in today’s increasingly divided public square. Taking readers from ancient Rome to today, Helena Rosenblatt traces the evolution of the words “liberal” and “liberalism,” revealing the heated debates that have taken place over their meaning.
In this timely and provocative book, Rosenblatt debunks the popular myth of liberalism as a uniquely Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. She shows that it was the French Revolution that gave birth to liberalism and Germans who transformed it. Only in the mid-twentieth century did the concept become widely known in the United States—and then, as now, its meaning was hotly debated. Liberals were originally moralists at heart. They believed in the power of religion to reform society, emphasized the sanctity of the family, and never spoke of rights without speaking of duties. It was only during the Cold War and America’s growing world hegemony that liberalism was refashioned into an American ideology focused so strongly on individual freedoms.
Today, we still can’t seem to agree on liberalism’s meaning. In the United States, a “liberal” is someone who advocates big government, while in France, big government is contrary to “liberalism.” Political debates become befuddled because of semantic and conceptual confusion. The Lost History of Liberalism sets the record straight on a core tenet of today’s political conversation and lays the foundations for a more constructive discussion about the future of liberal democracy.
In this timely and provocative book, Rosenblatt debunks the popular myth of liberalism as a uniquely Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. She shows that it was the French Revolution that gave birth to liberalism and Germans who transformed it. Only in the mid-twentieth century did the concept become widely known in the United States—and then, as now, its meaning was hotly debated. Liberals were originally moralists at heart. They believed in the power of religion to reform society, emphasized the sanctity of the family, and never spoke of rights without speaking of duties. It was only during the Cold War and America’s growing world hegemony that liberalism was refashioned into an American ideology focused so strongly on individual freedoms.
Today, we still can’t seem to agree on liberalism’s meaning. In the United States, a “liberal” is someone who advocates big government, while in France, big government is contrary to “liberalism.” Political debates become befuddled because of semantic and conceptual confusion. The Lost History of Liberalism sets the record straight on a core tenet of today’s political conversation and lays the foundations for a more constructive discussion about the future of liberal democracy.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published September 11, 2018
94 people are currently reading
1493 people want to read
About the author
Helena Rosenblatt
12 books25 followersHelena Rosenblatt serves as executive officer of the Ph.D. Program in History. Her specialty is eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European intellectual history. She is the author of Rousseau and Geneva: From the First Discourse to the Social Contract 1749–1762 (1997) and Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion (2008). She is also the editor of Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (2010) and the Cambridge Companion to Constant (2009); and coeditor, with Raf Geenens, of French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day (2012).
Rosenblatt’s numerous articles have appeared in such journals as Modern Intellectual History, French Historical Studies, History of European Ideas, French Politics, Society and Culture, and Daedalus. A member of the editorial board of Modern Intellectual History, she has also been a fellow at the National Humanities Center. She is currently working on a history of liberalism. Rosenblatt earned her M.A. and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University.
Rosenblatt’s numerous articles have appeared in such journals as Modern Intellectual History, French Historical Studies, History of European Ideas, French Politics, Society and Culture, and Daedalus. A member of the editorial board of Modern Intellectual History, she has also been a fellow at the National Humanities Center. She is currently working on a history of liberalism. Rosenblatt earned her M.A. and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
May 29, 2020
'The Lost History of Liberalism' is a book that excels in almost every area that readers should expect from academic texts today. Dr. Rosenblatt's millennia-spanning perspective provides fascinating insight into liberalism's evolution, and not a single paragraph is wasted in her examination. Her prose is excellent, her arguments well-founded and persuasive, and her conclusions are among the best I've ever read. The book's layout is also excellent, with subchapters and—as trivial as this may sound—vertical bars separating each chapter summary from the body of the text. While cosmetic, these features make 'The Lost History of Liberalism' much easier to absorb, particularly when rereading the text. Any academic would benefit from this book's offerings, and it has already aided me on a project I am writing on Alexis de Tocqueville, who is mentioned several times in Dr. Rosenblatt's stellar chapter on "Caesarism and Liberal Democracy."
Despite these merits, I must report 'The Lost History of Liberalism' might have benefited from a different title. While the "lost" aspect applies primarily to liberalism's "liberal tradition," I expected this book to cover underrepresented, overlooked, and/or outright suppressed liberal thinkers throughout history akin to Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States.' Dr. Rosenblatt's text is devoted almost entirely to European history, and although the United States gets welcome attention, I was disappointed the book did not offer a more global history of liberal philosophies. I expected at least several chapters devoted to Ancient China, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, Africa, and the pre-Columbian Americas. The women's suffrage movement gets some mention, but the movement's most overlooked and subverted figures, namely African-American women, remain absent from this history. I wanted to read about liberal thinkers and practices extant in Mesoamerica, Polynesia, the Eurasian Steppe, and the indigenous tribes of North America centuries before liberalism became an -ism. Perhaps I am being overly-critical, but such was my initial approach to 'The Lost History of Liberalism,' which nonetheless provides a fascinating glimpse into two thousand years of liberal thinking.
Under different circumstances I'd award this book 4.25 stars, but since Goodreads does not offer partial-stars, I'm rounding up. It's an excellent text with a slightly misleading title, but once you look past this, it's a 5-star book. I recommend it.
Despite these merits, I must report 'The Lost History of Liberalism' might have benefited from a different title. While the "lost" aspect applies primarily to liberalism's "liberal tradition," I expected this book to cover underrepresented, overlooked, and/or outright suppressed liberal thinkers throughout history akin to Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States.' Dr. Rosenblatt's text is devoted almost entirely to European history, and although the United States gets welcome attention, I was disappointed the book did not offer a more global history of liberal philosophies. I expected at least several chapters devoted to Ancient China, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, Africa, and the pre-Columbian Americas. The women's suffrage movement gets some mention, but the movement's most overlooked and subverted figures, namely African-American women, remain absent from this history. I wanted to read about liberal thinkers and practices extant in Mesoamerica, Polynesia, the Eurasian Steppe, and the indigenous tribes of North America centuries before liberalism became an -ism. Perhaps I am being overly-critical, but such was my initial approach to 'The Lost History of Liberalism,' which nonetheless provides a fascinating glimpse into two thousand years of liberal thinking.
Under different circumstances I'd award this book 4.25 stars, but since Goodreads does not offer partial-stars, I'm rounding up. It's an excellent text with a slightly misleading title, but once you look past this, it's a 5-star book. I recommend it.
January 29, 2024
ENGLISH
Helena Rosenblatt’s “The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century” proposes a different approach to the History of Liberalism.
The author goes through relevant historical facts involving the idea behind the term from early notions in Ancient Rome to its contemporary meaning in the United States. Her focus is on Europe as its place of birth, mainly France, but also Germany, England, and Italy. One of the book’s main goals is it to demystify the idea that Liberalism was born in England and has always been focused on individual rights and interests.
Rosenblatt begins her detailed historical narrative by indicating that a “liberal” citizen in Rome was one who had the virtue of “liberality”: a characteristic identified with generosity. It was, therefore, opposite to individualism and selfishness. Christianity embraced this virtue in the notion of “giving”, very present in the Christian faith. At that time, liberality was a virtue expected of the nobility and aristocracy, as they were those who had the resources to make donations.
The word “Liberalism” did not come up in the Enlightenment. At the time, the term “liberal” continued to be used to designate those who had the means to make donations. The author reminds well that Adam Smith, who was a moral philosopher, did not use the concept of liberty in the individualistic and selfish sense, as it ended up being disseminated more modernly, but in the context of commerce and the detachment of colonies from the metropolises. In the context of the US colony, the word began to be used especially in preaching for separation from England.
The author does not identify the birth of Liberalism in the Puritan Revolution of 1640 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England – in fact, she does not even mention such historical facts. She also reduces the importance of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as supposed founders of the liberal movement. For the author – a historian specializing in the History of France –, “Liberalism” as a political concept, although not named as such, emerged in France, with the French Revolution, even though later political periods, such as the Terror, misrepresented it in a lot of its sense.
With Robespierre's death, the couple Benjamin Constant and Madame de Stäel arrived in Paris, identified by the author as the theorists who solidified the notions of Political Liberalism. At the time, liberal principles meant defending the republican government from counterrevolution, which meant supporting the rule of law and civil equality, constitutional and representative government, and a range of rights, such as the press and religion. Liberalism and democracy became antagonistic: the Terror caused great distrust among theorists that the majority of French men were unprepared to have political rights; the crowds were irrational, violent. The Constant and de Stäel couple defended a government of the best, not democracy. With the increase in inequality in France, Madame de Stäel, for example, once again defended that liberal principles be related to kindness, generosity, compassion.
In the economic sphere, France was also a pioneer on the subject, as was the case with physiocrats, such as Quesnay, and Adam Smith’s followers, such as Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat, defenders of laissez-faire. The book then goes on to focus on the struggle of those who identified with liberal notions for the separation of the Catholic Church and the State; and how this issue opposed liberals, on the one hand, and monarchists, absolutists and the religious, on the other, with emphasis on Napoleon Bonaparte and later relatives who governed France, as well as fervent Catholics and Protestants (there were, however, lineages of Catholics and more “liberal” Protestants).
Despite focusing on France, a country that, according to the author, was the cradle of liberal political ideas, the author also addresses Germany's role in the construction of the concept. In addition to citing important German authors who studied the issue, the author points out the nuances of Liberalism from a German perspective; in general, a more nuanced liberalism, concerned with notions of the common good and a more interventionist State – characteristics that also contributed to a later pejorative image of a Liberalism more susceptible to authoritarianism, especially after the Second World War.
Rosenblatt goes through History demonstrating how the concept of “Liberalism” has had very variable meanings over time, and points out that one of the greatest faults of liberals has always been the lack of consensus on what they defend. It is actually an evil of everything that becomes an object of political dispute, by the way.
In the case of “Liberalism”, the discussions began to include both defenders of laissez-faire and authors more sympathetic to the construction of the common good via the State. In Germany, for example, the authors most committed to laissez-faire were called orthodox, while those who believed in greater State intervention, especially in the matter of helping those in need, were called “new liberals” or “progressives”.
The narrative of how the USA ended up using the term “Liberalism”, through a reductionist interpretation, especially regarding the origins of its central ideas and their scope, is also quite enlightening. What happened in the USA was a radical reinterpretation of the term. For North Americans, liberal ideas would have emerged in England – thus ignoring France and Germany – and in terms of content, they would have focused on individualism and the fight for rights, thus abandoning the virtues of compassion and concern for the common good.
The concept was allegedly disseminated in the USA by Herbert Croly in 1909 and appeared for the first time in North American school books in the 1930s, in a work by George Sabine. Woodrow Wilson claimed that the US borrowed all of its political language from England, including the use of the term “Liberalism” that existed there. Wilson also paid tribute to the Italian Giuseppe Mazzini, a 19th century liberal who stood out for not only preaching individual rights, but also duties to citizens. The use of the term in the USA, according to the author, was consolidated with president Frank Delano Roosevelt, based on the theorist John Dewey. The conflict of ideias centered on the interpretation of whether the USA was a country founded to protect rights (liberal perspective), or virtue (republican perspective).
It is also worth highlighting the way in which John Rawls, in “A Theory of Justice”, consolidated an argument that is very present in the modern conception of “Liberalism”, according to the author: social well-being is achieved to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their own interests. For the author, this concretized the relationship between selfishness and liberalism, as it is understood in the USA. The fact that liberals had defended community and morals for centuries had been forgotten.
The book is also interesting in that it illustrates how important issues and values have currently been treated in discussions about Liberalism, such as the position of women and non-white or European peoples and civilizations. Racism and the lack of consideration of women in the political process were present in liberal thought until not so far ago. Ronseblatt also points out how English liberals were condescending to colonialism, while at the same time condemning imperialism. This play on words revealed that liberals were opposed to “imperialism” by identifying the term with the absolutism and authoritarianism of figures such as Napoleon III in France and Bismark in Germany.
Rosenblatt goes to the root of the belief among English liberals that the English people had assimilated self-government as a legacy of German immigration (hence “Anglo-Saxons”) and therefore understood that colonialism, as long as it was practiced “in a humane way”, could teach the liberal value of self-government to backward peoples and “inferior races”. The truth, as we know, is that even settlement colonies were the scene of much exploitation and massacres of colonized peoples. On the issue of universal suffrage, in fact, it is quite illustrative how much women were ignored in the debates for so long.
Ronseblatt's book is especially interesting in that it proposes to tell a so-called “lost” history: that Liberalism actually emerged in France and received important contributions from Germany and other European countries, and that the term was assimilated in the USA very differently from its origins.
The author provides reasonably convincing historical evidence for her point. It is not possible to discern, however, just by reading this book, whether the protagonism that she attributes to French and German Histories in the construction of the concept, to the detriment of English, is in fact well-founded, given the author's bias as a historian specialist in French History.
Just to remind, she does not even mention the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England, pointed out by many authors as milestones in the development of capitalism and liberalism. In any case, it is an instructive and enriching read due to the grounded historical reinterpretation it proposes.
PORTUGUÊS
“A História Perdida do Liberalismo: Da Roma Antiga ao Século XXI”, de Helena Rosenblatt, propõe uma versão diferente sobre a História do Liberalismo.
A autora percorre fatos históricos relevantes que envolvem a ideia por trás do termo desde as primeiras noções na Roma Antiga até seu significado contemporâneo nos Estados Unidos. O seu foco está na Europa como seu local de nascimento, e principalmente na França, mas também na Alemanha, Inglaterra e Itália. O mote do livro é desmistificar a ideia de que o Liberalismo nasceu na Inglaterra e sempre esteve focado nos direitos e interesses individuais.
Rosenblatt inicia sua detalhada narrativa histórica indicando que um cidadão “liberal” em Roma era aquele que tinha a virtude da “liberalidade”: uma característica identificada com a generosidade. Era, portanto, algo oposto ao individualismo e egoísmo. O Cristianismo abraçou essa virtude na noção de “doação”, bastante presente na fé cristã. Nessa época, a liberalidade era uma virtude esperada da nobreza e aristocracia, pois era quem tinha recursos para praticar doações.
A palavra “Liberalismo” não surge no Iluminismo. Na época, o qualificativo “liberal” continuava sendo usado para designar quem tinha posses para fazer doações. A autora lembra bem que Adam Smith, que era um filósofo moral, não usa o conceito de liberdade no sentido individualista e egoísta, como acabou sendo disseminado mais modernamente, mas no contexto do comércio e do desprendimento das colônias com relação às metrópoles. No contexto dos EUA-colônia, a palavra começou sendo usada especialmente na pregação pela separação da Inglaterra.
A autora não identifica nas Revoluções Puritana de 1640 e Gloriosa de 1688 na Inglaterra o nascimento do Liberalismo – aliás, sequer menciona tais fatos históricos. Reduz também a importância de Thomas Hobbes e John Locke como supostos fundadores do movimento liberal. Para a autora – uma historiadora especializada na História da França –, o “Liberalismo” enquanto conceito político, embora não tenha assim sido nomeado, surgiu na França, com a Revolução Francesa, ainda que períodos políticos posteriores, como o do Terror, tenham deturpado em muito seu sentido.
Com a morte de Robespierre, chega a Paris o casal Benjamin Constant e Madame de Stäel, apontados pela autora como os teóricos que solidificaram as noções do Liberalismo Político. Na época, princípios liberais significavam defender o governo republicano da contrarrevolução: apoiar o Estado de Direito e a igualdade civil, o governo constitucional e representativo e uma série de direitos, como de imprensa e religião. Liberalismo e democracia chegavam a ser antagônicos: o Terror causou uma grande desconfiança nos teóricos de que a maioria dos homens franceses era despreparada para ter direitos políticos; as multidões eram irracionais, violentas. O casal Constant e de Stäel defendia um governo dos melhores, não democracia. Com o aumento da desigualdade na França, Madame de Stäel, por exemplo, volta a defender que os princípios liberais sejam relacionados à bondade, generosidade, compaixão.
No âmbito econômico, a França também foi precursora no tema, como foi o caso dos fisiocratas, como Quesnay, e seguidores de Adam Smith, como Jean-Baptiste Say e Fréd��ric Bastiat, defensores do laissez-faire. O livro então passa a se concentrar na luta dos que se identificavam com as noções liberais pela separação da Igreja Católica e do Estado; e em como essa questão opôs liberais, de um lado, e monarquistas, absolutistas e religiosos, de outro, com destaque para Napoleão Bonaparte e parentes posteriores que governaram a França, bem como católicos e protestantes fervorosos (houve, porém, linhagens de católicos e protestantes mais “liberais”).
Apesar de se focar na França, país que, segundo a autora, foi o berço das ideias liberais políticas, ela também aborda o papel da Alemanha na construção do conceito. Além de citar importantes autores alemães que estudaram o tema, a autora aponta as nuances do Liberalismo sob a ótica alemã; em geral, um liberalismo mais nuançado, preocupado com as noções de bem-comum e com um Estado mais intervencionista – características essas que também contribuíram para a pecha posterior de um liberalismo mais suscetível ao autoritarismo, especialmente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Rosenblatt percorre a História demonstrando como o conceito de “Liberalismo” teve significados bastante variáveis ao longo do tempo e aponta como uma das grandes faltas dos liberais desde sempre a falta de consenso sobre o que defendem. É na verdade um mal de tudo aquilo que vira objeto de disputa política, diga-se de passagem.
No caso do “Liberalismo”, as discussões passaram a abarcar tanto defensores do laissez-faire, quanto autores mais simpáticos à construção do bem-comum via Estado. Na Alemanha, por exemplo, os autores mais afeitos ao laisse-faire foram chamados de ortodoxos, enquanto aqueles que acreditavam em maior intervenção do Estado, especialmente na questão da ajuda aos necessitados, de novos liberais ou progressistas.
Bastante elucidativa também é a narrativa de como os EUA acabaram utilizando o termo “Liberalismo”, valendo-se de uma interpretação reducionista, especialmente quanto às origens de suas ideias centrais e seu alcance. No fundo, o que se passou nos EUA foi uma reinterpretação radical do termo. Para os norte-americanos, ideias liberais teriam surgido na Inglaterra – ignorando assim França e Alemanha — e em termos de conteúdo, teriam foco no individualismo e na luta por direitos, abandonando assim as virtudes de compaixão e preocupação com o bem comum.
O conceito teria sido disseminado nos EUA por Herbert Croly em 1909 e aparecido pela primeira vez nos livros escolares norte-americanos na década de 1930, em uma obra de George Sabine. Woodrow Wilson afirmou que os EUA pegaram emprestado toda a linguagem política da Inglaterra, incluindo o uso do termo “Liberalismo” que existia lá. Wilson também chegou a homenagear o italiano Giuseppe Mazzini, um liberal do século XIX que se destacou por não apenas pregar direitos individuais, mas também deveres aos cidadãos. O uso do termo nos EUA, segundo a autora, consolidou-se com o então presidente Frank Delano Roosevelt, baseado no teórico John Dewey. O embate nos EUA centrou-se na interpretação sobre ter sido o país fundado para proteger direitos (ótica liberal), ou a virtude (ótica republicana).
Vale o destaque também para a forma como John Rawls, em “Uma Teoria da Justiça”, consolidou um argumento bastante presente na concepção moderna de “Liberalismo”, segundo a autora: o bem-estar social é atingido na medida em que os indivíduos sejam livres para perseguir seus interesses próprios. Para a autora, isso concretizou a relação entre egoísmo e liberalismo, da forma como é entendido nos EUA. O fato de que os liberais haviam defendido a comunidade e a moral por séculos fora esquecido.
O livro é também interessante na medida em que ilustra como questões e valores caros atualmente foram tratados nas discussões sobre Liberalismo, como a posição da mulher e dos povos e civilizações não brancos ou europeus. O racismo e a não consideração da mulher no processo político foram presentes até recentemente no pensamento liberal. Ronseblatt aponta também como liberais ingleses foram condescendentes com o colonialismo, ao mesmo tempo em que condenavam o imperialismo. Esse jogo de palavras revelava que os liberais se opunham ao “imperialismo” pela identificação do termo com o absolutismo e o autoritarismo de figuras como Napoleão III na França e Bismark na Alemanha.
Rosenblatt vai na raiz da crença entre os liberais ingleses de que o povo inglês tinha assimilado o autogoverno como herança da imigração alemã (daí “anglo-saxões”) e por isso entendiam que o colonialismo, desde que praticado “de forma humana”, poderia ensinar o valor liberal do autogoverno aos povos atrasados e às “raças inferiores”. A verdade, como se sabe, é que colônias mesmo de povoamento foram palco de muita espoliação e massacres sobre os povos colonizados. Na questão do sufrágio universal, aliás, é bastante ilustrativo o quanto as mulheres foram ignoradas dos debates por tanto tempo.
O livro de Ronseblatt é especialmente interessante ao propor contar uma história dita “perdida”: a de que o Liberalismo teria surgido na verdade na França e recebido contribuições importantes da Alemanha e de outros países europeus, assim como teria sido assimilado de modo muito diferente nos EUA com relação a suas origens.
A autora fornece evidências históricas razoavelmente convincentes de seu ponto. Não é possível discernir, no entanto, apenas pela leitura deste livro, se o papel de protagonismo que ela dá à História francesa e alemã na construção do conceito, em detrimento da inglesa, é de fato fundamentado, dado o viés da autora como historiadora especialista em História francesa.
Relembre-se que ela nem sequer menciona a Revolução Puritana e a Revolução Gloriosa na Inglaterra, apontadas por muitos autores como a pedra angular da História do capitalismo e do liberalismo. Trata-se, de todo modo, de uma leitura instrutiva e enriquecedora pela releitura histórica fundamentada que propõe.
Helena Rosenblatt’s “The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century” proposes a different approach to the History of Liberalism.
The author goes through relevant historical facts involving the idea behind the term from early notions in Ancient Rome to its contemporary meaning in the United States. Her focus is on Europe as its place of birth, mainly France, but also Germany, England, and Italy. One of the book’s main goals is it to demystify the idea that Liberalism was born in England and has always been focused on individual rights and interests.
Rosenblatt begins her detailed historical narrative by indicating that a “liberal” citizen in Rome was one who had the virtue of “liberality”: a characteristic identified with generosity. It was, therefore, opposite to individualism and selfishness. Christianity embraced this virtue in the notion of “giving”, very present in the Christian faith. At that time, liberality was a virtue expected of the nobility and aristocracy, as they were those who had the resources to make donations.
The word “Liberalism” did not come up in the Enlightenment. At the time, the term “liberal” continued to be used to designate those who had the means to make donations. The author reminds well that Adam Smith, who was a moral philosopher, did not use the concept of liberty in the individualistic and selfish sense, as it ended up being disseminated more modernly, but in the context of commerce and the detachment of colonies from the metropolises. In the context of the US colony, the word began to be used especially in preaching for separation from England.
The author does not identify the birth of Liberalism in the Puritan Revolution of 1640 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England – in fact, she does not even mention such historical facts. She also reduces the importance of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as supposed founders of the liberal movement. For the author – a historian specializing in the History of France –, “Liberalism” as a political concept, although not named as such, emerged in France, with the French Revolution, even though later political periods, such as the Terror, misrepresented it in a lot of its sense.
With Robespierre's death, the couple Benjamin Constant and Madame de Stäel arrived in Paris, identified by the author as the theorists who solidified the notions of Political Liberalism. At the time, liberal principles meant defending the republican government from counterrevolution, which meant supporting the rule of law and civil equality, constitutional and representative government, and a range of rights, such as the press and religion. Liberalism and democracy became antagonistic: the Terror caused great distrust among theorists that the majority of French men were unprepared to have political rights; the crowds were irrational, violent. The Constant and de Stäel couple defended a government of the best, not democracy. With the increase in inequality in France, Madame de Stäel, for example, once again defended that liberal principles be related to kindness, generosity, compassion.
In the economic sphere, France was also a pioneer on the subject, as was the case with physiocrats, such as Quesnay, and Adam Smith’s followers, such as Jean-Baptiste Say and Frédéric Bastiat, defenders of laissez-faire. The book then goes on to focus on the struggle of those who identified with liberal notions for the separation of the Catholic Church and the State; and how this issue opposed liberals, on the one hand, and monarchists, absolutists and the religious, on the other, with emphasis on Napoleon Bonaparte and later relatives who governed France, as well as fervent Catholics and Protestants (there were, however, lineages of Catholics and more “liberal” Protestants).
Despite focusing on France, a country that, according to the author, was the cradle of liberal political ideas, the author also addresses Germany's role in the construction of the concept. In addition to citing important German authors who studied the issue, the author points out the nuances of Liberalism from a German perspective; in general, a more nuanced liberalism, concerned with notions of the common good and a more interventionist State – characteristics that also contributed to a later pejorative image of a Liberalism more susceptible to authoritarianism, especially after the Second World War.
Rosenblatt goes through History demonstrating how the concept of “Liberalism” has had very variable meanings over time, and points out that one of the greatest faults of liberals has always been the lack of consensus on what they defend. It is actually an evil of everything that becomes an object of political dispute, by the way.
In the case of “Liberalism”, the discussions began to include both defenders of laissez-faire and authors more sympathetic to the construction of the common good via the State. In Germany, for example, the authors most committed to laissez-faire were called orthodox, while those who believed in greater State intervention, especially in the matter of helping those in need, were called “new liberals” or “progressives”.
The narrative of how the USA ended up using the term “Liberalism”, through a reductionist interpretation, especially regarding the origins of its central ideas and their scope, is also quite enlightening. What happened in the USA was a radical reinterpretation of the term. For North Americans, liberal ideas would have emerged in England – thus ignoring France and Germany – and in terms of content, they would have focused on individualism and the fight for rights, thus abandoning the virtues of compassion and concern for the common good.
The concept was allegedly disseminated in the USA by Herbert Croly in 1909 and appeared for the first time in North American school books in the 1930s, in a work by George Sabine. Woodrow Wilson claimed that the US borrowed all of its political language from England, including the use of the term “Liberalism” that existed there. Wilson also paid tribute to the Italian Giuseppe Mazzini, a 19th century liberal who stood out for not only preaching individual rights, but also duties to citizens. The use of the term in the USA, according to the author, was consolidated with president Frank Delano Roosevelt, based on the theorist John Dewey. The conflict of ideias centered on the interpretation of whether the USA was a country founded to protect rights (liberal perspective), or virtue (republican perspective).
It is also worth highlighting the way in which John Rawls, in “A Theory of Justice”, consolidated an argument that is very present in the modern conception of “Liberalism”, according to the author: social well-being is achieved to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their own interests. For the author, this concretized the relationship between selfishness and liberalism, as it is understood in the USA. The fact that liberals had defended community and morals for centuries had been forgotten.
The book is also interesting in that it illustrates how important issues and values have currently been treated in discussions about Liberalism, such as the position of women and non-white or European peoples and civilizations. Racism and the lack of consideration of women in the political process were present in liberal thought until not so far ago. Ronseblatt also points out how English liberals were condescending to colonialism, while at the same time condemning imperialism. This play on words revealed that liberals were opposed to “imperialism” by identifying the term with the absolutism and authoritarianism of figures such as Napoleon III in France and Bismark in Germany.
Rosenblatt goes to the root of the belief among English liberals that the English people had assimilated self-government as a legacy of German immigration (hence “Anglo-Saxons”) and therefore understood that colonialism, as long as it was practiced “in a humane way”, could teach the liberal value of self-government to backward peoples and “inferior races”. The truth, as we know, is that even settlement colonies were the scene of much exploitation and massacres of colonized peoples. On the issue of universal suffrage, in fact, it is quite illustrative how much women were ignored in the debates for so long.
Ronseblatt's book is especially interesting in that it proposes to tell a so-called “lost” history: that Liberalism actually emerged in France and received important contributions from Germany and other European countries, and that the term was assimilated in the USA very differently from its origins.
The author provides reasonably convincing historical evidence for her point. It is not possible to discern, however, just by reading this book, whether the protagonism that she attributes to French and German Histories in the construction of the concept, to the detriment of English, is in fact well-founded, given the author's bias as a historian specialist in French History.
Just to remind, she does not even mention the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in England, pointed out by many authors as milestones in the development of capitalism and liberalism. In any case, it is an instructive and enriching read due to the grounded historical reinterpretation it proposes.
PORTUGUÊS
“A História Perdida do Liberalismo: Da Roma Antiga ao Século XXI”, de Helena Rosenblatt, propõe uma versão diferente sobre a História do Liberalismo.
A autora percorre fatos históricos relevantes que envolvem a ideia por trás do termo desde as primeiras noções na Roma Antiga até seu significado contemporâneo nos Estados Unidos. O seu foco está na Europa como seu local de nascimento, e principalmente na França, mas também na Alemanha, Inglaterra e Itália. O mote do livro é desmistificar a ideia de que o Liberalismo nasceu na Inglaterra e sempre esteve focado nos direitos e interesses individuais.
Rosenblatt inicia sua detalhada narrativa histórica indicando que um cidadão “liberal” em Roma era aquele que tinha a virtude da “liberalidade”: uma característica identificada com a generosidade. Era, portanto, algo oposto ao individualismo e egoísmo. O Cristianismo abraçou essa virtude na noção de “doação”, bastante presente na fé cristã. Nessa época, a liberalidade era uma virtude esperada da nobreza e aristocracia, pois era quem tinha recursos para praticar doações.
A palavra “Liberalismo” não surge no Iluminismo. Na época, o qualificativo “liberal” continuava sendo usado para designar quem tinha posses para fazer doações. A autora lembra bem que Adam Smith, que era um filósofo moral, não usa o conceito de liberdade no sentido individualista e egoísta, como acabou sendo disseminado mais modernamente, mas no contexto do comércio e do desprendimento das colônias com relação às metrópoles. No contexto dos EUA-colônia, a palavra começou sendo usada especialmente na pregação pela separação da Inglaterra.
A autora não identifica nas Revoluções Puritana de 1640 e Gloriosa de 1688 na Inglaterra o nascimento do Liberalismo – aliás, sequer menciona tais fatos históricos. Reduz também a importância de Thomas Hobbes e John Locke como supostos fundadores do movimento liberal. Para a autora – uma historiadora especializada na História da França –, o “Liberalismo” enquanto conceito político, embora não tenha assim sido nomeado, surgiu na França, com a Revolução Francesa, ainda que períodos políticos posteriores, como o do Terror, tenham deturpado em muito seu sentido.
Com a morte de Robespierre, chega a Paris o casal Benjamin Constant e Madame de Stäel, apontados pela autora como os teóricos que solidificaram as noções do Liberalismo Político. Na época, princípios liberais significavam defender o governo republicano da contrarrevolução: apoiar o Estado de Direito e a igualdade civil, o governo constitucional e representativo e uma série de direitos, como de imprensa e religião. Liberalismo e democracia chegavam a ser antagônicos: o Terror causou uma grande desconfiança nos teóricos de que a maioria dos homens franceses era despreparada para ter direitos políticos; as multidões eram irracionais, violentas. O casal Constant e de Stäel defendia um governo dos melhores, não democracia. Com o aumento da desigualdade na França, Madame de Stäel, por exemplo, volta a defender que os princípios liberais sejam relacionados à bondade, generosidade, compaixão.
No âmbito econômico, a França também foi precursora no tema, como foi o caso dos fisiocratas, como Quesnay, e seguidores de Adam Smith, como Jean-Baptiste Say e Fréd��ric Bastiat, defensores do laissez-faire. O livro então passa a se concentrar na luta dos que se identificavam com as noções liberais pela separação da Igreja Católica e do Estado; e em como essa questão opôs liberais, de um lado, e monarquistas, absolutistas e religiosos, de outro, com destaque para Napoleão Bonaparte e parentes posteriores que governaram a França, bem como católicos e protestantes fervorosos (houve, porém, linhagens de católicos e protestantes mais “liberais”).
Apesar de se focar na França, país que, segundo a autora, foi o berço das ideias liberais políticas, ela também aborda o papel da Alemanha na construção do conceito. Além de citar importantes autores alemães que estudaram o tema, a autora aponta as nuances do Liberalismo sob a ótica alemã; em geral, um liberalismo mais nuançado, preocupado com as noções de bem-comum e com um Estado mais intervencionista – características essas que também contribuíram para a pecha posterior de um liberalismo mais suscetível ao autoritarismo, especialmente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Rosenblatt percorre a História demonstrando como o conceito de “Liberalismo” teve significados bastante variáveis ao longo do tempo e aponta como uma das grandes faltas dos liberais desde sempre a falta de consenso sobre o que defendem. É na verdade um mal de tudo aquilo que vira objeto de disputa política, diga-se de passagem.
No caso do “Liberalismo”, as discussões passaram a abarcar tanto defensores do laissez-faire, quanto autores mais simpáticos à construção do bem-comum via Estado. Na Alemanha, por exemplo, os autores mais afeitos ao laisse-faire foram chamados de ortodoxos, enquanto aqueles que acreditavam em maior intervenção do Estado, especialmente na questão da ajuda aos necessitados, de novos liberais ou progressistas.
Bastante elucidativa também é a narrativa de como os EUA acabaram utilizando o termo “Liberalismo”, valendo-se de uma interpretação reducionista, especialmente quanto às origens de suas ideias centrais e seu alcance. No fundo, o que se passou nos EUA foi uma reinterpretação radical do termo. Para os norte-americanos, ideias liberais teriam surgido na Inglaterra – ignorando assim França e Alemanha — e em termos de conteúdo, teriam foco no individualismo e na luta por direitos, abandonando assim as virtudes de compaixão e preocupação com o bem comum.
O conceito teria sido disseminado nos EUA por Herbert Croly em 1909 e aparecido pela primeira vez nos livros escolares norte-americanos na década de 1930, em uma obra de George Sabine. Woodrow Wilson afirmou que os EUA pegaram emprestado toda a linguagem política da Inglaterra, incluindo o uso do termo “Liberalismo” que existia lá. Wilson também chegou a homenagear o italiano Giuseppe Mazzini, um liberal do século XIX que se destacou por não apenas pregar direitos individuais, mas também deveres aos cidadãos. O uso do termo nos EUA, segundo a autora, consolidou-se com o então presidente Frank Delano Roosevelt, baseado no teórico John Dewey. O embate nos EUA centrou-se na interpretação sobre ter sido o país fundado para proteger direitos (ótica liberal), ou a virtude (ótica republicana).
Vale o destaque também para a forma como John Rawls, em “Uma Teoria da Justiça”, consolidou um argumento bastante presente na concepção moderna de “Liberalismo”, segundo a autora: o bem-estar social é atingido na medida em que os indivíduos sejam livres para perseguir seus interesses próprios. Para a autora, isso concretizou a relação entre egoísmo e liberalismo, da forma como é entendido nos EUA. O fato de que os liberais haviam defendido a comunidade e a moral por séculos fora esquecido.
O livro é também interessante na medida em que ilustra como questões e valores caros atualmente foram tratados nas discussões sobre Liberalismo, como a posição da mulher e dos povos e civilizações não brancos ou europeus. O racismo e a não consideração da mulher no processo político foram presentes até recentemente no pensamento liberal. Ronseblatt aponta também como liberais ingleses foram condescendentes com o colonialismo, ao mesmo tempo em que condenavam o imperialismo. Esse jogo de palavras revelava que os liberais se opunham ao “imperialismo” pela identificação do termo com o absolutismo e o autoritarismo de figuras como Napoleão III na França e Bismark na Alemanha.
Rosenblatt vai na raiz da crença entre os liberais ingleses de que o povo inglês tinha assimilado o autogoverno como herança da imigração alemã (daí “anglo-saxões”) e por isso entendiam que o colonialismo, desde que praticado “de forma humana”, poderia ensinar o valor liberal do autogoverno aos povos atrasados e às “raças inferiores”. A verdade, como se sabe, é que colônias mesmo de povoamento foram palco de muita espoliação e massacres sobre os povos colonizados. Na questão do sufrágio universal, aliás, é bastante ilustrativo o quanto as mulheres foram ignoradas dos debates por tanto tempo.
O livro de Ronseblatt é especialmente interessante ao propor contar uma história dita “perdida”: a de que o Liberalismo teria surgido na verdade na França e recebido contribuições importantes da Alemanha e de outros países europeus, assim como teria sido assimilado de modo muito diferente nos EUA com relação a suas origens.
A autora fornece evidências históricas razoavelmente convincentes de seu ponto. Não é possível discernir, no entanto, apenas pela leitura deste livro, se o papel de protagonismo que ela dá à História francesa e alemã na construção do conceito, em detrimento da inglesa, é de fato fundamentado, dado o viés da autora como historiadora especialista em História francesa.
Relembre-se que ela nem sequer menciona a Revolução Puritana e a Revolução Gloriosa na Inglaterra, apontadas por muitos autores como a pedra angular da História do capitalismo e do liberalismo. Trata-se, de todo modo, de uma leitura instrutiva e enriquecedora pela releitura histórica fundamentada que propõe.
October 28, 2021
One to file under 'it is what it is,' since there are two gaping holes in the entire project. But they're methodological, intentional holes, and not errors. It's a weird feeling.
Rosenblatt has written something like a concept history of 'liberal,' but in a kind of Wittgensteinian way, so 'liberal' means whatever you use it to mean. This creates great tedium in some chapters, which are just lists of what people have used 'liberal' to mean. In others, it works pretty well.
It's well written, and easy to breeze through, but perhaps too easy. It can be hard to miss the point of the narrative, which is really quite pointed. For instance, a raging conservative I'm friends with on GR gave this one star, even though the entire point of this book is to vindicate the otherwise nonsensical American conservative claim that liberals are all backdoor collectivists. Rosenblatt wants to show that liberalism doesn't just mean capitalist individualism, which is the way the term is often used today. Instead, she argues, for most liberals most of the time it meant something much more like (classical) republicanism, with its stress on virtue and public-mindedness. It's much easier to turn that into backdoor collectivism than the liberalism of someone like Hayek.
So, okay, we should stop complaining about Locke and then saying we're complaining about liberalism. Point granted. And the 'how liberalism came to mean neo-liberalism' section is nice. But those holes: there's no suggestion here of how you can have *both* public spiritedness *and* individual liberty, which, Rosenblatt shows, most 'liberals' have wanted. Because there's no engagement with ideas, it's hard to understand how anyone could have thought what they said that they thought. This doesn't even get into the obvious philosophical issues with this kind of history: did people mean what they said? Were they using these words to express their convictions, or something else (class interest, political ambitions, unconscious drives, whatever)?
But answering those questions is not the point of this enjoyable, short, easy to read, and quite convincing book. Unfortunately.
Rosenblatt has written something like a concept history of 'liberal,' but in a kind of Wittgensteinian way, so 'liberal' means whatever you use it to mean. This creates great tedium in some chapters, which are just lists of what people have used 'liberal' to mean. In others, it works pretty well.
It's well written, and easy to breeze through, but perhaps too easy. It can be hard to miss the point of the narrative, which is really quite pointed. For instance, a raging conservative I'm friends with on GR gave this one star, even though the entire point of this book is to vindicate the otherwise nonsensical American conservative claim that liberals are all backdoor collectivists. Rosenblatt wants to show that liberalism doesn't just mean capitalist individualism, which is the way the term is often used today. Instead, she argues, for most liberals most of the time it meant something much more like (classical) republicanism, with its stress on virtue and public-mindedness. It's much easier to turn that into backdoor collectivism than the liberalism of someone like Hayek.
So, okay, we should stop complaining about Locke and then saying we're complaining about liberalism. Point granted. And the 'how liberalism came to mean neo-liberalism' section is nice. But those holes: there's no suggestion here of how you can have *both* public spiritedness *and* individual liberty, which, Rosenblatt shows, most 'liberals' have wanted. Because there's no engagement with ideas, it's hard to understand how anyone could have thought what they said that they thought. This doesn't even get into the obvious philosophical issues with this kind of history: did people mean what they said? Were they using these words to express their convictions, or something else (class interest, political ambitions, unconscious drives, whatever)?
But answering those questions is not the point of this enjoyable, short, easy to read, and quite convincing book. Unfortunately.
November 24, 2018
The things this book gets right : It is certainly comprehensive in its coverage of the rise of liberalism in Europe, and to an extent in America. It emphasises again and again the point that liberalism was never a ideological monolith, often cannibalising itself with every incarnation, from laissez faire to overtly socialist. The book is meticulously researched and well-written.
The things this book doesn't get right: Perhaps to prevent this book from becoming excessively large, the author has completely ignored the rest of the world beyond France, UK, Germany, and the US. There isn't even a cursory telescopic glance at the literature emerging from other countries. Also, sometimes the research and the names can get a little overwhelming, and one can lose track of who said what. Also, no overarching narrative - but perhaps that's deliberate.
The things this book doesn't get right: Perhaps to prevent this book from becoming excessively large, the author has completely ignored the rest of the world beyond France, UK, Germany, and the US. There isn't even a cursory telescopic glance at the literature emerging from other countries. Also, sometimes the research and the names can get a little overwhelming, and one can lose track of who said what. Also, no overarching narrative - but perhaps that's deliberate.
April 28, 2021
If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
......
Amazon Reviews
extremely interesting
Excellent book for everyone who wants to get a deeper knowledge of "liberalism", a word often misused - sometimes unintentionally - by many people.
After having read the book and having seen the evolution if the use of this term, I even wonder if it is meaningful to use the word "liberal" to define someone's political orientation...to understand why, I suggest you to read this very clear book!
....
Absolutely Fascinating
Keep in mind that this really is the history of a word, above all, and an idea only secondarily. So if you are well versed in the topic, you will be frustrated that the author has given short shrift to your favorite thinker. That said, as a history of word usage, it is a beautiful map of the way the term has been employed in European and American political culture. I can't say that it shifted my understanding of the essential issues, but it does leave me more careful in making unsupportable claims concerning the embedded meaning of the term itself. The research is vast here.
.....
Fantastic and accessible history of Liberalism
Unlike other political theorists and historians, Rosenblatt chose not to focus on creating a single definition of Liberalism and on surrounding that definition with a canon of philosophers, political theorists, and texts that would support that definition.
Instead, Rosenblatt decided to focus on tracing the history of the meaning of Liberalism and how the word was used by individuals who claimed to be Liberal at one point or another. The result is a far more eclectic and diverse history of Liberalism than the small and more traditional body of works that touch on the history of Liberalism.
Rosenblatt starts by outlining the usage of the term in Ancient Greece and Rome. Liberality in that time period connotated a person of aristocratic status who was generous and well learned.
This definition did not change much in the middle ages, when the term became more associated with the idea of the ideal Christian citizen who valued charity, generosity, and Christian values.
By the time of the Enlightenment the term also began to be associated with “liberal sentiments” and figures who valued open-mindedness, civic duty, generosity, religious tolerance to various extents, and open inquiry.
However, the more modern associations that we now ascribe to Liberalism came to be during the period after the French Revolution where Liberals, such as Benjamin Constant, began to reconceptualize Liberalism as championing representative government, protections for individual rights, promotion of morality and civic duties, separation of church and state, and a fairly general disdain towards the traditional role of Catholicism in European affairs.
This did not mean that all Liberals supported Democracy. On the contrary, many Liberals were concerned that extending the right to vote to the masses would result in disaster and rule by the easily manipulated and uneducated masses.
Liberalism was also extremely concerned with the spread of socialist and communist ideas. By the mid-19th century Liberals had become “obsessed” with endowing society with moral and ethical obligations to counter the rise of the subversive socialist and communist challengers.
At this time, Liberalism also became associated with the doctrine of Laissez Faire, or what political theorists now call “classical liberalism” or the doctrine of limited or nonexistent government intervention in the marketplace. Although the author makes it clear that not all liberals supported Laissez Faire and there was widespread controversy over the role of the state in the economic sphere.
Liberalism, as a colloquial term, only came to the United States in the late 19th century and early 20th century. In the beginning of liberalism’s introduction to the U.S. there was considerable disagreement over what the term actually meant.
Some Americans, influenced by German and later British Liberalism, stressed that the doctrine of Liberalism advocated for government intervention to aid and ameliorate the social and economic conditions of those less fortunate.
Others, chiefly those now associated with conservative thought, such as Hayek, Von Mises, and Niebuhr, railed against this view of Liberalism and tended to conceive of Liberalism in its classical sense as a doctrine advocating limited government intervention and regulation.
Ultimately, the efforts of the “interventionists”, such as John Dewey and the association of Liberalism with Roosevelt’s new deal program, won out over their Classical Liberal rivals.
However, the attacks by conservative intellectuals against Liberalism during the Cold War caused Liberalism to become reconceptualized as a defense of specific individual rights.
By this point, most Liberals had abandoned the focus on civic engagement, morality, and ethical duties to society that had played such a prominent role in the Liberalism of the 19th century.
This “lost of history of Liberalism”, or Liberalism’s traditional focus on ethics, duty towards society, and civic mindedness, is what the author contends has been largely downplayed in both the history and modern conceptualizations of Liberalism.
In navigating a topic that is both contentious and widely misunderstood, Rosenblatt does a splendid job of characterizing the history of liberalism while managing to remain both objective and detached. Rosenblatt, to her credit, also does not shy away from Liberalism’s egregious support for eugenics, racism, and colonialism. If I had one criticism of the book, it would be that I wish it were longer and more comprehensive. At just under 300 pages, there are sections that I feel could have been greatly expanded and I wish the author had included a little bit more on the economic component of Liberalism and its association with Laissez Faire economics. I also don’t have the intellectual background to seriously debate Rosenblatt’s selective focus in the book and therefore readers with an abundance of learning on the topic may have specific grievances and concerns. In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the political history and development of Liberalism. It provides a welcome alternative to the more esoteric scholarly anthologies and polemics that seem to either advance a very particular idea of liberalism or resort to denouncing Liberalism as the source of all social and political ills. Whatever your modern political affiliation, academic background, or interests, this book is an easily accessible read and has certainly offers new perspectives on the topic.
.....
Full of interesting facts without disintegrating into a round of Triple Jeopardy.
.....
This is a wonderful history of the word liberalism, that helps to challenge the old dichotomy between anglophone liberalism and continental republicanism.
.....
Professor Rosenblatt has written an outstanding history of the changing meanings of liberal and liberalism throughout history. Her research is excellent and her writing is very accessible.
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
......
Amazon Reviews
extremely interesting
Excellent book for everyone who wants to get a deeper knowledge of "liberalism", a word often misused - sometimes unintentionally - by many people.
After having read the book and having seen the evolution if the use of this term, I even wonder if it is meaningful to use the word "liberal" to define someone's political orientation...to understand why, I suggest you to read this very clear book!
....
Absolutely Fascinating
Keep in mind that this really is the history of a word, above all, and an idea only secondarily. So if you are well versed in the topic, you will be frustrated that the author has given short shrift to your favorite thinker. That said, as a history of word usage, it is a beautiful map of the way the term has been employed in European and American political culture. I can't say that it shifted my understanding of the essential issues, but it does leave me more careful in making unsupportable claims concerning the embedded meaning of the term itself. The research is vast here.
.....
Fantastic and accessible history of Liberalism
Unlike other political theorists and historians, Rosenblatt chose not to focus on creating a single definition of Liberalism and on surrounding that definition with a canon of philosophers, political theorists, and texts that would support that definition.
Instead, Rosenblatt decided to focus on tracing the history of the meaning of Liberalism and how the word was used by individuals who claimed to be Liberal at one point or another. The result is a far more eclectic and diverse history of Liberalism than the small and more traditional body of works that touch on the history of Liberalism.
Rosenblatt starts by outlining the usage of the term in Ancient Greece and Rome. Liberality in that time period connotated a person of aristocratic status who was generous and well learned.
This definition did not change much in the middle ages, when the term became more associated with the idea of the ideal Christian citizen who valued charity, generosity, and Christian values.
By the time of the Enlightenment the term also began to be associated with “liberal sentiments” and figures who valued open-mindedness, civic duty, generosity, religious tolerance to various extents, and open inquiry.
However, the more modern associations that we now ascribe to Liberalism came to be during the period after the French Revolution where Liberals, such as Benjamin Constant, began to reconceptualize Liberalism as championing representative government, protections for individual rights, promotion of morality and civic duties, separation of church and state, and a fairly general disdain towards the traditional role of Catholicism in European affairs.
This did not mean that all Liberals supported Democracy. On the contrary, many Liberals were concerned that extending the right to vote to the masses would result in disaster and rule by the easily manipulated and uneducated masses.
Liberalism was also extremely concerned with the spread of socialist and communist ideas. By the mid-19th century Liberals had become “obsessed” with endowing society with moral and ethical obligations to counter the rise of the subversive socialist and communist challengers.
At this time, Liberalism also became associated with the doctrine of Laissez Faire, or what political theorists now call “classical liberalism” or the doctrine of limited or nonexistent government intervention in the marketplace. Although the author makes it clear that not all liberals supported Laissez Faire and there was widespread controversy over the role of the state in the economic sphere.
Liberalism, as a colloquial term, only came to the United States in the late 19th century and early 20th century. In the beginning of liberalism’s introduction to the U.S. there was considerable disagreement over what the term actually meant.
Some Americans, influenced by German and later British Liberalism, stressed that the doctrine of Liberalism advocated for government intervention to aid and ameliorate the social and economic conditions of those less fortunate.
Others, chiefly those now associated with conservative thought, such as Hayek, Von Mises, and Niebuhr, railed against this view of Liberalism and tended to conceive of Liberalism in its classical sense as a doctrine advocating limited government intervention and regulation.
Ultimately, the efforts of the “interventionists”, such as John Dewey and the association of Liberalism with Roosevelt’s new deal program, won out over their Classical Liberal rivals.
However, the attacks by conservative intellectuals against Liberalism during the Cold War caused Liberalism to become reconceptualized as a defense of specific individual rights.
By this point, most Liberals had abandoned the focus on civic engagement, morality, and ethical duties to society that had played such a prominent role in the Liberalism of the 19th century.
This “lost of history of Liberalism”, or Liberalism’s traditional focus on ethics, duty towards society, and civic mindedness, is what the author contends has been largely downplayed in both the history and modern conceptualizations of Liberalism.
In navigating a topic that is both contentious and widely misunderstood, Rosenblatt does a splendid job of characterizing the history of liberalism while managing to remain both objective and detached. Rosenblatt, to her credit, also does not shy away from Liberalism’s egregious support for eugenics, racism, and colonialism. If I had one criticism of the book, it would be that I wish it were longer and more comprehensive. At just under 300 pages, there are sections that I feel could have been greatly expanded and I wish the author had included a little bit more on the economic component of Liberalism and its association with Laissez Faire economics. I also don’t have the intellectual background to seriously debate Rosenblatt’s selective focus in the book and therefore readers with an abundance of learning on the topic may have specific grievances and concerns. In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the political history and development of Liberalism. It provides a welcome alternative to the more esoteric scholarly anthologies and polemics that seem to either advance a very particular idea of liberalism or resort to denouncing Liberalism as the source of all social and political ills. Whatever your modern political affiliation, academic background, or interests, this book is an easily accessible read and has certainly offers new perspectives on the topic.
.....
Full of interesting facts without disintegrating into a round of Triple Jeopardy.
.....
This is a wonderful history of the word liberalism, that helps to challenge the old dichotomy between anglophone liberalism and continental republicanism.
.....
Professor Rosenblatt has written an outstanding history of the changing meanings of liberal and liberalism throughout history. Her research is excellent and her writing is very accessible.
April 16, 2024
Magistral. Uno de los mejores libros que leído.
April 8, 2020
The key is that this is overtly "a linguistic history": it's a history of what people meant when they said they were liberal. It has deliberate gaps - anything that has actually contributed to modern Liberalism but didn't use the word (the Levellers, say), pretty much anything outside France, Germany, the UK and the U.S.; and people who thought of themselves as Liberal but weren't academics, writers, preachers or political leaders. Within these limits, it's fascinating and scholarly. Anti-Liberal Napoleon III of France sounds eerily like Putin, Orban or Erdogan today - plebiscites, populism and repression. Ideas I, from a British Liberal perspective, would see as key to my Liberalism appear well back in the 18th century - not only defence of liberty and a free constitution, but active citizenship spread as wide as possible and the promotion of free co-operation to the common good. She's particularly good on how FDR's Liberalism and his reaction to Fascism, and the reaction of Berlin and Hayek, came to be at opposite poles. Nonetheless, a bit more on how British Liberalism developed after Gladstone and on how German and French Liberals lost the workers in the mid 19th century while Gladstone didn't, would be valuable.
November 14, 2019
A mildly interesting review of the various uses & meanings attached to the word "liberalism" thru European & American history. Conclusion is that Germany was instrumental in bringing the term to popular consciousness, France colored the meaning thru the French Revolution, English thinkers refined the term & finally it has come to mean very little if anything at all.
September 10, 2024
review kommer tirsdag. men wow folk var skruppelløse i 1800-tallet
update fra tirsdag:
den er ret sjov. ved ikke helt, hvad jeg synes om argumentet? om der overhovedet er et? eller om det bare er en lingvistisk genealogi.. either way er den fed, indtil den bliver lidt for frankofil og kludret.
og så er det lidt ærgerligt, den ikke dækker mellemkrigstiden, men det havde nok også været for stor en mundfuld
update fra tirsdag:
den er ret sjov. ved ikke helt, hvad jeg synes om argumentet? om der overhovedet er et? eller om det bare er en lingvistisk genealogi.. either way er den fed, indtil den bliver lidt for frankofil og kludret.
og så er det lidt ærgerligt, den ikke dækker mellemkrigstiden, men det havde nok også været for stor en mundfuld
July 15, 2019
Most histories of liberalism are about ideas, about the antecedents of whatever concepts, values, institutions or theories the author wants to associate with contemporary liberalism. This approach can retrospectively incorporate into the liberal canon thinkers who never described themselves as liberals. ‘Liberal’ was not used in a way that strongly resembles its current political meaning until the 19th century.
Helena Rosenblatt’s The Lost History of Liberalism is about ideas, but pays interesting attention to the intellectual history of the word ‘liberal’. It derives from the Latin ‘liber’, meaning both ‘free’ and ‘generous’, and ‘liberalis’, meaning ‘befitting a free-born person’. In Roman times, liberalis contrasted the character of the citizen with that of the slave. Citizens had duties to each other to contribute to the common good, which ‘required correct reasoning and moral fortitude, self-discipline and command’. Slaves lacked these attributes (the English word ‘slavish’ still has these connotations of a lack of self-control).
In contemporary Anglo-American liberalism, whether its left- or right-wing versions, these ideas about personal attributes no longer play a central role. Contributing to society is still seen as praiseworthy, but individuals are free to define themselves against society and their moral duties are not emphasised. Liberalism’s critics believe that these individualistic ideas undermine community.
Rosenblatt’s Lost History shows how the historical meanings of liber and liberalis were present in 19th century liberalism, especially in France, which she gives much more attention than is common in histories of liberalism (she also brings in German thinkers, which is even rarer).
Ideas about the morality and character of populations help explain the views of 19th century liberals that today would be seen as reactionary. These ideas help explain why liberal thinkers were cautious about democracy, doubting whether the masses yet had the attributes it required (the French experience of mob violence, still an issue today, gave French liberals particular concerns). Although some 19th liberals were advocates of greater rights for women, both male and female thinkers thought that women had distinct natures and social roles, which delayed support for full legal and political equality. Although strongly opposed to slavery, 19th century liberals saw colonialism as having the potential to improve the character of people under European control.
In their opposition to tyranny, 19th century liberals seem recognisably part of a contemporary liberal tradition. But in many of their other attitudes, we can see that they are very much of their time and place rather than our own. Some historical liberal views no longer have adherents.
But other liberal debates continue over time, even though the detail of disagreement changes significantly. In the 19th century, as now, liberals disagreed amongst themselves as well as with people from other ideologies over the role of government in society and the economy. Many supported government intervention to lift the living standards of the poor, and were opposed by other liberals with a more laissez-faire approach.
While Lost History in not the place to start for someone just learning about liberalism – for that perhaps John Gray’s Liberalism (written in the 1980s, before he turned against liberalism) or Michael Freeden’s Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction (for more left-leaning liberalism; it takes a too narrow view on ‘classical liberalism') would be better. But for those interested in intellectual history Lost History will be worthwhile.
Over the last few decades I have read many books by or about liberal thinkers, including French writers discussed in Lost History such as Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville. But I still learned or reminded myself of a lot in reading this book. It is also well-written and easy to read.
Helena Rosenblatt’s The Lost History of Liberalism is about ideas, but pays interesting attention to the intellectual history of the word ‘liberal’. It derives from the Latin ‘liber’, meaning both ‘free’ and ‘generous’, and ‘liberalis’, meaning ‘befitting a free-born person’. In Roman times, liberalis contrasted the character of the citizen with that of the slave. Citizens had duties to each other to contribute to the common good, which ‘required correct reasoning and moral fortitude, self-discipline and command’. Slaves lacked these attributes (the English word ‘slavish’ still has these connotations of a lack of self-control).
In contemporary Anglo-American liberalism, whether its left- or right-wing versions, these ideas about personal attributes no longer play a central role. Contributing to society is still seen as praiseworthy, but individuals are free to define themselves against society and their moral duties are not emphasised. Liberalism’s critics believe that these individualistic ideas undermine community.
Rosenblatt’s Lost History shows how the historical meanings of liber and liberalis were present in 19th century liberalism, especially in France, which she gives much more attention than is common in histories of liberalism (she also brings in German thinkers, which is even rarer).
Ideas about the morality and character of populations help explain the views of 19th century liberals that today would be seen as reactionary. These ideas help explain why liberal thinkers were cautious about democracy, doubting whether the masses yet had the attributes it required (the French experience of mob violence, still an issue today, gave French liberals particular concerns). Although some 19th liberals were advocates of greater rights for women, both male and female thinkers thought that women had distinct natures and social roles, which delayed support for full legal and political equality. Although strongly opposed to slavery, 19th century liberals saw colonialism as having the potential to improve the character of people under European control.
In their opposition to tyranny, 19th century liberals seem recognisably part of a contemporary liberal tradition. But in many of their other attitudes, we can see that they are very much of their time and place rather than our own. Some historical liberal views no longer have adherents.
But other liberal debates continue over time, even though the detail of disagreement changes significantly. In the 19th century, as now, liberals disagreed amongst themselves as well as with people from other ideologies over the role of government in society and the economy. Many supported government intervention to lift the living standards of the poor, and were opposed by other liberals with a more laissez-faire approach.
While Lost History in not the place to start for someone just learning about liberalism – for that perhaps John Gray’s Liberalism (written in the 1980s, before he turned against liberalism) or Michael Freeden’s Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction (for more left-leaning liberalism; it takes a too narrow view on ‘classical liberalism') would be better. But for those interested in intellectual history Lost History will be worthwhile.
Over the last few decades I have read many books by or about liberal thinkers, including French writers discussed in Lost History such as Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville. But I still learned or reminded myself of a lot in reading this book. It is also well-written and easy to read.
January 13, 2019
Long overdue
June 25, 2021
I read the first 4 chapters and then skimmed the rest. I wouldn't recommend this book as it doesn't seem to have coherent focus and theme.
Read
February 14, 2019This is an academic history of liberalism, in the form of what it calls a "conceptual history" – that is, it explores what its proponents (and to a certain extent opponents) have said over the years about the positions, ideas, and politics associated with "liberal" and its cognates. This is presented with some political history of parts of western Europe and the United States. It is not a polemic pro or con, admitting both the virtues and blemishes in liberal thought, and it is written with the sort of measured, readable clarity I associate with a particular kind of scholarship.
I appreciated its debunking of a number of common myths we have about liberalism's earlier years. Rosenblatt argues, for instance, that there was never really anything like what commentators today call "classical liberalism," with its uniform and doctrinaire advocacy of laissez-faire economics – rather, rigidly laissez-faire liberals were always in the minority, and state intervention of various sorts was always a contested issue within liberal thought. She also pushes back against the notion of liberalism as being largely concerned with individual rights, narrowly conceived. For most of its history, liberal thinkers paid a great deal of attention to moral questions, duties, and the common good, and it was really only as liberalism became Americanized and then had to navigate the political battles of the Cold War that a strand focused solely on rights and on the individual pursuit of them began to fluorish.
There are limits to what this kind of history can achieve, of course. The book doesn't shy away from identifying positions taken by liberals of the past that today we see as odious – most opposed democracy in the first half of the 19th century, positions on things like slavery and colonialism were divided, and many opposed basic rights for women up until the early 20th century. But the fact that the book sticks mainly with a history of ideas and of mainstream politics and does not integrate a detailed, materialist exploration of the violences of colonial capitalism and how they related to liberal ideas means, I think, that we get an incomplete picture. Just as an example, take the absence of explicit advocacy for anyting resembling atomized individualism in the work of most 19th century liberals. I think it's a good thing to really grapple with this truth and to get past the caricature that we on the left sometimes have of liberals of that era, so I'm glad that the book discusses it. At the same time, it seems clear to me even from what this book describes (but does not identify in this way) that the overwhelming emphasis on producing particular kinds of individuals with particular capacities and particular moral concerns – and this goes right from the promotion of "liberality" that pre-dates the use of "liberal" or "liberalism" by millenia, on through self-identified liberals in the 19th century – still fostered a way of relating to the social world that put individuals and their choices at the centre. Yes, these were moral choices and they generally were expected to attend to the common good, rather than being the kind of cartoonish self-interested rationalism that neoliberal economists and libertarians embrace and their opponents on the left decry today. But it was still a way of understanding the world that centred individuals, and individuals of a sort that most human beings could never be, and this was happening in the context of the capitalist reorganization of society that melted all that was previously solid into air and imposed its own kinds of individualizing logics on people. So while I think it's useful that this book pushes us to get past our distorted sense of the explicit content of the earlier years of the liberal project, it doesn't necessarily help us grapple with its actual impact.
Anyway, read it with that kind of limitation in mind, but I would say – at least if the topic interests you – it is well worth reading. I enjoyed it, I learned a lot, and I think what it does is useful.
Also, check out this post, not directly about but inspired by my reading of this book.
This review was also posted to Scott's blog.
I appreciated its debunking of a number of common myths we have about liberalism's earlier years. Rosenblatt argues, for instance, that there was never really anything like what commentators today call "classical liberalism," with its uniform and doctrinaire advocacy of laissez-faire economics – rather, rigidly laissez-faire liberals were always in the minority, and state intervention of various sorts was always a contested issue within liberal thought. She also pushes back against the notion of liberalism as being largely concerned with individual rights, narrowly conceived. For most of its history, liberal thinkers paid a great deal of attention to moral questions, duties, and the common good, and it was really only as liberalism became Americanized and then had to navigate the political battles of the Cold War that a strand focused solely on rights and on the individual pursuit of them began to fluorish.
There are limits to what this kind of history can achieve, of course. The book doesn't shy away from identifying positions taken by liberals of the past that today we see as odious – most opposed democracy in the first half of the 19th century, positions on things like slavery and colonialism were divided, and many opposed basic rights for women up until the early 20th century. But the fact that the book sticks mainly with a history of ideas and of mainstream politics and does not integrate a detailed, materialist exploration of the violences of colonial capitalism and how they related to liberal ideas means, I think, that we get an incomplete picture. Just as an example, take the absence of explicit advocacy for anyting resembling atomized individualism in the work of most 19th century liberals. I think it's a good thing to really grapple with this truth and to get past the caricature that we on the left sometimes have of liberals of that era, so I'm glad that the book discusses it. At the same time, it seems clear to me even from what this book describes (but does not identify in this way) that the overwhelming emphasis on producing particular kinds of individuals with particular capacities and particular moral concerns – and this goes right from the promotion of "liberality" that pre-dates the use of "liberal" or "liberalism" by millenia, on through self-identified liberals in the 19th century – still fostered a way of relating to the social world that put individuals and their choices at the centre. Yes, these were moral choices and they generally were expected to attend to the common good, rather than being the kind of cartoonish self-interested rationalism that neoliberal economists and libertarians embrace and their opponents on the left decry today. But it was still a way of understanding the world that centred individuals, and individuals of a sort that most human beings could never be, and this was happening in the context of the capitalist reorganization of society that melted all that was previously solid into air and imposed its own kinds of individualizing logics on people. So while I think it's useful that this book pushes us to get past our distorted sense of the explicit content of the earlier years of the liberal project, it doesn't necessarily help us grapple with its actual impact.
Anyway, read it with that kind of limitation in mind, but I would say – at least if the topic interests you – it is well worth reading. I enjoyed it, I learned a lot, and I think what it does is useful.
Also, check out this post, not directly about but inspired by my reading of this book.
This review was also posted to Scott's blog.
January 19, 2021
I loved this book. The author told a fantastic story, mostly centered on the many French revolutions, but moving, towards the end, to America. Yet, it is not the story of a place, or an event, or even quite an idea, but a _term_, which makes for a unique sort of experience. No less so because this was hardly any term, but the one that -- in one form or another -- was the animating ideological force in western politics since the late 18th century.
The book did an excellent job balancing the narrative elements of the historical context with the political theoretical elements inherent in the term liberalism. It also did a good job at briefly examining the many, sometimes contradictory, strands of thought in liberalism. That said, it was far stronger in the historical narrative than the political theory. And, far more accessible and less dense than it may have otherwise been. For a complimentary book that focuses more heavily on the political theory side of (roughly) the same time period, I'd recommend Liberal Beginnings: Making a Republic for the Moderns.
One thing that particularly struck me was that for all that the book focused (largely) on the 19th century, it felt strikingly contemporary. For example, I was stunned at the extent to which modern anti-liberal argumentation so parallels the writings and utterances of 200 hundred years ago.
Also, the book was quite optimistic, for all that it covered some rather difficult times in history.
The book did an excellent job balancing the narrative elements of the historical context with the political theoretical elements inherent in the term liberalism. It also did a good job at briefly examining the many, sometimes contradictory, strands of thought in liberalism. That said, it was far stronger in the historical narrative than the political theory. And, far more accessible and less dense than it may have otherwise been. For a complimentary book that focuses more heavily on the political theory side of (roughly) the same time period, I'd recommend Liberal Beginnings: Making a Republic for the Moderns.
One thing that particularly struck me was that for all that the book focused (largely) on the 19th century, it felt strikingly contemporary. For example, I was stunned at the extent to which modern anti-liberal argumentation so parallels the writings and utterances of 200 hundred years ago.
Also, the book was quite optimistic, for all that it covered some rather difficult times in history.
September 7, 2025
I really wanted to like this book, but I did not enjoy it very much. I am giving it three stars because I did learn a good bit from it. The most important thing I learned was the the term 'liberal' did not come from the term 'liberty,' but instead the virtue of liberality, which meant something close to generosity — but a generosity reserved for nobles. At some point, this idea then came to include the idea of tolerance, which makes some sense, as you can see how in certain contexts tolerance could be a form of generosity. From that point on, however, the main thing I learned was that the history of liberalism is a mess without any intelligible through line. That is a good thing to know, but I found it disappointing. Throughout history, just as now, liberalism is a term used both by its proponents and its detractors to point to a vague set of loosely connected values which can very widely depending on who is using it.
Another complaint is that this book focused far too much on European political history and not enough on the intellectual/philosophical history. I got tired of the summary of French history — it was not in depth enough to be interesting, but it was still long enough to be a drag to read. I am not a history buff, though, so this is partially just personal preference.
Another complaint is that this book focused far too much on European political history and not enough on the intellectual/philosophical history. I got tired of the summary of French history — it was not in depth enough to be interesting, but it was still long enough to be a drag to read. I am not a history buff, though, so this is partially just personal preference.
October 4, 2023
A fascinating and accessible history of "liberalism" that follows how the word has been used to help us understand why its use today is so complicated.
I occasionally had to remind myself that a history of the word is what we're doing here. That can be frustrating when someone uses the word to say they mean one thing while they do another (I'm scowling at you, Herbert Hoover). Recognizing that frustration actually helped me understand better how complicated is what Rosenblatt is trying to accomplish here.
I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in liberalism or intellectual history.
I occasionally had to remind myself that a history of the word is what we're doing here. That can be frustrating when someone uses the word to say they mean one thing while they do another (I'm scowling at you, Herbert Hoover). Recognizing that frustration actually helped me understand better how complicated is what Rosenblatt is trying to accomplish here.
I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in liberalism or intellectual history.
August 11, 2022
Desconocía muchos aspectos sobre el origen del liberalismo, y este libro lo analiza desde perspectiva histórica. Desde Cicerón hasta la Guerra Fría, el liberalismo fue variando en función de lo que ocurría en cada momento. Sin embargo, lo que hoy conocemos como liberalismo no tiene semejanzas con lo que inicialmente propugnaba: generosidad (pero asume un rol aristocrático)
January 18, 2021
Hyvä yleiskatsaus liberalismin historiaan. Toisin kuin kirja väittää, kyseessä on laajempi selonteko kuin vain käsitehistoria. Helppolukuinen ja selkeä. Teos on myös tärkeä kannanotto liberaalin demokratian kriisin ympärillä käytävään keskusteluun.
August 1, 2025
I had my quibbles (it underestimates the importance of the U.S. on the liberal tradition, the end has an unfair treatment of Rawls, some other minor things), but overall an insightful, refreshing, and deeply educational read.
December 29, 2018
An interesting reframing of the history of liberalism that makes a lot of fascinating contributions, although I didn't agree with big parts of the central thesis. HR's main claim is that today we understand liberalism as focused on individual rights rather than on the common good. This is obviously an overgeneralization, but I think she is right that liberals today struggle to speak the language of family, community, sacrifice, etc. She says that this is largely a result of a shift in mid-20th century liberalism. In intellectual circles, liberalism's assault on authority, tradition, and religion was widely blamed for creating the atomism and despair that fed the rise of totalitarianism. To counter this argument, liberals from Schlesinger to the "classical liberals" like Friedman focused on individualism as the core of liberalism. This had always been an important strain in liberalism, but HR says that we have now forgotten other major themes in the history of liberalism.
HR's history of liberalism is a little funny, and I sort of suspect her argument reflects her deep knowledge of French and German history (a sort of historian's clientitis) and some relative weaknesses in American history. Anyways, she argues that modern liberalism really arose after the French Revolution, when thinkers/politicians like Madame de Stael and Benjamin Constant tried to rescue the positive, liberating aspects of the Revolution and avoid repetition of its decline into tyranny and madness. Liberalism had no one birthplace, but it proliferated rapidly in the 19th century. HR charts out its many forms, and she stresses that there's no one tradition of liberalism that moderns can point to as a usable past. In a tidy 275 pages, she delves into a variety of these debates with remarkable succinctness.
She tries to bring out several themes in liberalism that have now become lost. She basically says that what I would understand as republicanism has always been vital to liberalism: skeptical of monarchy, pro public good, an emphasis on duties as well as rights, the importance of citizenship, the need for professional, constitutional government, intervention on behalf of the abused and oppressed, and incremental socio-economic reform. Obviously, "republicanism" doesn't encompass this range of ideas and values, but HR shows that these things were just as important to self-identified liberals as the tradition of individual rights that we now fixate on. I think this is an important contribution historically, and an important one for liberals to internalize. She and Jonathan Haidt should sit down in conversation about their sympathetic critiques of modern liberalism.
I do have one big question, though. Where is the American Revolution in all of this? It seems that the thought of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton as well as key founding documents must somehow overlap with this story of liberalism. I suspect that HR's response would be that they did not call themselves liberals; for them, "liberality" meant a gentleman's graciousness, generosity, and open-mindedness rather than any kind of political ideology. This point opens some difficult methodological question: How closely should we link the history of an ideology to historical actors' actual use of that word. Should Locke or the founders be more marginal because they did not identify as liberal or even use the word? Tough but important questions.
One really interesting theme HR brought out in this book was the link between liberalism, education, and democracy. Liberals in the 19th century were quite skeptical of democracy and universal suffrage. They believed that most people lacked the capacity to fulfill the responsibilities of voting and political citizenship. They thought ordinary people, especially women and minorities, were not rational enough, too emotional, and easy prey for demagogues. The French Revolution, 1830 Revolutions, and 1848 revolutions continually reinforced this belief, as each ended in a plunge into chaos and then authoritarian rule. In short, democracy was a threat to liberalism. However, they did believe that democracy was virtually inevitable, and that stopping up that process would only lead to greater social problems down the road. SO they viewed themselves as the preparers of the common man for liberal citizenship. This would require a deep commitment to public education for a much broader range of the population, that would have to learn to think for itself and think responsibly if democracy and liberalism were to coexist. This really struck me as a deep root of liberals' passion for education and their tendency to look down on the uneducated.
There's a nice quote at the start of this book that says that telling the history of a word is always worthwhile. I agree. This book does this quite nicely. I'd say that liberals and scholars of political thought would enjoy this book both for its historical quality and its contemporary applications.
HR's history of liberalism is a little funny, and I sort of suspect her argument reflects her deep knowledge of French and German history (a sort of historian's clientitis) and some relative weaknesses in American history. Anyways, she argues that modern liberalism really arose after the French Revolution, when thinkers/politicians like Madame de Stael and Benjamin Constant tried to rescue the positive, liberating aspects of the Revolution and avoid repetition of its decline into tyranny and madness. Liberalism had no one birthplace, but it proliferated rapidly in the 19th century. HR charts out its many forms, and she stresses that there's no one tradition of liberalism that moderns can point to as a usable past. In a tidy 275 pages, she delves into a variety of these debates with remarkable succinctness.
She tries to bring out several themes in liberalism that have now become lost. She basically says that what I would understand as republicanism has always been vital to liberalism: skeptical of monarchy, pro public good, an emphasis on duties as well as rights, the importance of citizenship, the need for professional, constitutional government, intervention on behalf of the abused and oppressed, and incremental socio-economic reform. Obviously, "republicanism" doesn't encompass this range of ideas and values, but HR shows that these things were just as important to self-identified liberals as the tradition of individual rights that we now fixate on. I think this is an important contribution historically, and an important one for liberals to internalize. She and Jonathan Haidt should sit down in conversation about their sympathetic critiques of modern liberalism.
I do have one big question, though. Where is the American Revolution in all of this? It seems that the thought of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton as well as key founding documents must somehow overlap with this story of liberalism. I suspect that HR's response would be that they did not call themselves liberals; for them, "liberality" meant a gentleman's graciousness, generosity, and open-mindedness rather than any kind of political ideology. This point opens some difficult methodological question: How closely should we link the history of an ideology to historical actors' actual use of that word. Should Locke or the founders be more marginal because they did not identify as liberal or even use the word? Tough but important questions.
One really interesting theme HR brought out in this book was the link between liberalism, education, and democracy. Liberals in the 19th century were quite skeptical of democracy and universal suffrage. They believed that most people lacked the capacity to fulfill the responsibilities of voting and political citizenship. They thought ordinary people, especially women and minorities, were not rational enough, too emotional, and easy prey for demagogues. The French Revolution, 1830 Revolutions, and 1848 revolutions continually reinforced this belief, as each ended in a plunge into chaos and then authoritarian rule. In short, democracy was a threat to liberalism. However, they did believe that democracy was virtually inevitable, and that stopping up that process would only lead to greater social problems down the road. SO they viewed themselves as the preparers of the common man for liberal citizenship. This would require a deep commitment to public education for a much broader range of the population, that would have to learn to think for itself and think responsibly if democracy and liberalism were to coexist. This really struck me as a deep root of liberals' passion for education and their tendency to look down on the uneducated.
There's a nice quote at the start of this book that says that telling the history of a word is always worthwhile. I agree. This book does this quite nicely. I'd say that liberals and scholars of political thought would enjoy this book both for its historical quality and its contemporary applications.
February 10, 2025
Damn I was wrong about libs
February 17, 2019
Excellent history looking at the countervailing influences on liberalism.
Read
April 28, 2021If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
......
Amazon Reviews
extremely interesting
Excellent book for everyone who wants to get a deeper knowledge of "liberalism", a word often misused - sometimes unintentionally - by many people.
After having read the book and having seen the evolution if the use of this term, I even wonder if it is meaningful to use the word "liberal" to define someone's political orientation...to understand why, I suggest you to read this very clear book!
....
Absolutely Fascinating
Keep in mind that this really is the history of a word, above all, and an idea only secondarily. So if you are well versed in the topic, you will be frustrated that the author has given short shrift to your favorite thinker. That said, as a history of word usage, it is a beautiful map of the way the term has been employed in European and American political culture. I can't say that it shifted my understanding of the essential issues, but it does leave me more careful in making unsupportable claims concerning the embedded meaning of the term itself. The research is vast here.
.....
Fantastic and accessible history of Liberalism
Unlike other political theorists and historians, Rosenblatt chose not to focus on creating a single definition of Liberalism and on surrounding that definition with a canon of philosophers, political theorists, and texts that would support that definition.
Instead, Rosenblatt decided to focus on tracing the history of the meaning of Liberalism and how the word was used by individuals who claimed to be Liberal at one point or another. The result is a far more eclectic and diverse history of Liberalism than the small and more traditional body of works that touch on the history of Liberalism.
Rosenblatt starts by outlining the usage of the term in Ancient Greece and Rome. Liberality in that time period connotated a person of aristocratic status who was generous and well learned.
This definition did not change much in the middle ages, when the term became more associated with the idea of the ideal Christian citizen who valued charity, generosity, and Christian values.
By the time of the Enlightenment the term also began to be associated with “liberal sentiments” and figures who valued open-mindedness, civic duty, generosity, religious tolerance to various extents, and open inquiry.
However, the more modern associations that we now ascribe to Liberalism came to be during the period after the French Revolution where Liberals, such as Benjamin Constant, began to reconceptualize Liberalism as championing representative government, protections for individual rights, promotion of morality and civic duties, separation of church and state, and a fairly general disdain towards the traditional role of Catholicism in European affairs.
This did not mean that all Liberals supported Democracy. On the contrary, many Liberals were concerned that extending the right to vote to the masses would result in disaster and rule by the easily manipulated and uneducated masses.
Liberalism was also extremely concerned with the spread of socialist and communist ideas. By the mid-19th century Liberals had become “obsessed” with endowing society with moral and ethical obligations to counter the rise of the subversive socialist and communist challengers.
At this time, Liberalism also became associated with the doctrine of Laissez Faire, or what political theorists now call “classical liberalism” or the doctrine of limited or nonexistent government intervention in the marketplace. Although the author makes it clear that not all liberals supported Laissez Faire and there was widespread controversy over the role of the state in the economic sphere.
Liberalism, as a colloquial term, only came to the United States in the late 19th century and early 20th century. In the beginning of liberalism’s introduction to the U.S. there was considerable disagreement over what the term actually meant.
Some Americans, influenced by German and later British Liberalism, stressed that the doctrine of Liberalism advocated for government intervention to aid and ameliorate the social and economic conditions of those less fortunate.
Others, chiefly those now associated with conservative thought, such as Hayek, Von Mises, and Niebuhr, railed against this view of Liberalism and tended to conceive of Liberalism in its classical sense as a doctrine advocating limited government intervention and regulation.
Ultimately, the efforts of the “interventionists”, such as John Dewey and the association of Liberalism with Roosevelt’s new deal program, won out over their Classical Liberal rivals.
However, the attacks by conservative intellectuals against Liberalism during the Cold War caused Liberalism to become reconceptualized as a defense of specific individual rights.
By this point, most Liberals had abandoned the focus on civic engagement, morality, and ethical duties to society that had played such a prominent role in the Liberalism of the 19th century.
This “lost of history of Liberalism”, or Liberalism’s traditional focus on ethics, duty towards society, and civic mindedness, is what the author contends has been largely downplayed in both the history and modern conceptualizations of Liberalism.
In navigating a topic that is both contentious and widely misunderstood, Rosenblatt does a splendid job of characterizing the history of liberalism while managing to remain both objective and detached. Rosenblatt, to her credit, also does not shy away from Liberalism’s egregious support for eugenics, racism, and colonialism. If I had one criticism of the book, it would be that I wish it were longer and more comprehensive. At just under 300 pages, there are sections that I feel could have been greatly expanded and I wish the author had included a little bit more on the economic component of Liberalism and its association with Laissez Faire economics. I also don’t have the intellectual background to seriously debate Rosenblatt’s selective focus in the book and therefore readers with an abundance of learning on the topic may have specific grievances and concerns. In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the political history and development of Liberalism. It provides a welcome alternative to the more esoteric scholarly anthologies and polemics that seem to either advance a very particular idea of liberalism or resort to denouncing Liberalism as the source of all social and political ills. Whatever your modern political affiliation, academic background, or interests, this book is an easily accessible read and has certainly offers new perspectives on the topic.
.....
Full of interesting facts without disintegrating into a round of Triple Jeopardy.
.....
This is a wonderful history of the word liberalism, that helps to challenge the old dichotomy between anglophone liberalism and continental republicanism.
.....
Professor Rosenblatt has written an outstanding history of the changing meanings of liberal and liberalism throughout history. Her research is excellent and her writing is very accessible.
― John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage
......
Amazon Reviews
extremely interesting
Excellent book for everyone who wants to get a deeper knowledge of "liberalism", a word often misused - sometimes unintentionally - by many people.
After having read the book and having seen the evolution if the use of this term, I even wonder if it is meaningful to use the word "liberal" to define someone's political orientation...to understand why, I suggest you to read this very clear book!
....
Absolutely Fascinating
Keep in mind that this really is the history of a word, above all, and an idea only secondarily. So if you are well versed in the topic, you will be frustrated that the author has given short shrift to your favorite thinker. That said, as a history of word usage, it is a beautiful map of the way the term has been employed in European and American political culture. I can't say that it shifted my understanding of the essential issues, but it does leave me more careful in making unsupportable claims concerning the embedded meaning of the term itself. The research is vast here.
.....
Fantastic and accessible history of Liberalism
Unlike other political theorists and historians, Rosenblatt chose not to focus on creating a single definition of Liberalism and on surrounding that definition with a canon of philosophers, political theorists, and texts that would support that definition.
Instead, Rosenblatt decided to focus on tracing the history of the meaning of Liberalism and how the word was used by individuals who claimed to be Liberal at one point or another. The result is a far more eclectic and diverse history of Liberalism than the small and more traditional body of works that touch on the history of Liberalism.
Rosenblatt starts by outlining the usage of the term in Ancient Greece and Rome. Liberality in that time period connotated a person of aristocratic status who was generous and well learned.
This definition did not change much in the middle ages, when the term became more associated with the idea of the ideal Christian citizen who valued charity, generosity, and Christian values.
By the time of the Enlightenment the term also began to be associated with “liberal sentiments” and figures who valued open-mindedness, civic duty, generosity, religious tolerance to various extents, and open inquiry.
However, the more modern associations that we now ascribe to Liberalism came to be during the period after the French Revolution where Liberals, such as Benjamin Constant, began to reconceptualize Liberalism as championing representative government, protections for individual rights, promotion of morality and civic duties, separation of church and state, and a fairly general disdain towards the traditional role of Catholicism in European affairs.
This did not mean that all Liberals supported Democracy. On the contrary, many Liberals were concerned that extending the right to vote to the masses would result in disaster and rule by the easily manipulated and uneducated masses.
Liberalism was also extremely concerned with the spread of socialist and communist ideas. By the mid-19th century Liberals had become “obsessed” with endowing society with moral and ethical obligations to counter the rise of the subversive socialist and communist challengers.
At this time, Liberalism also became associated with the doctrine of Laissez Faire, or what political theorists now call “classical liberalism” or the doctrine of limited or nonexistent government intervention in the marketplace. Although the author makes it clear that not all liberals supported Laissez Faire and there was widespread controversy over the role of the state in the economic sphere.
Liberalism, as a colloquial term, only came to the United States in the late 19th century and early 20th century. In the beginning of liberalism’s introduction to the U.S. there was considerable disagreement over what the term actually meant.
Some Americans, influenced by German and later British Liberalism, stressed that the doctrine of Liberalism advocated for government intervention to aid and ameliorate the social and economic conditions of those less fortunate.
Others, chiefly those now associated with conservative thought, such as Hayek, Von Mises, and Niebuhr, railed against this view of Liberalism and tended to conceive of Liberalism in its classical sense as a doctrine advocating limited government intervention and regulation.
Ultimately, the efforts of the “interventionists”, such as John Dewey and the association of Liberalism with Roosevelt’s new deal program, won out over their Classical Liberal rivals.
However, the attacks by conservative intellectuals against Liberalism during the Cold War caused Liberalism to become reconceptualized as a defense of specific individual rights.
By this point, most Liberals had abandoned the focus on civic engagement, morality, and ethical duties to society that had played such a prominent role in the Liberalism of the 19th century.
This “lost of history of Liberalism”, or Liberalism’s traditional focus on ethics, duty towards society, and civic mindedness, is what the author contends has been largely downplayed in both the history and modern conceptualizations of Liberalism.
In navigating a topic that is both contentious and widely misunderstood, Rosenblatt does a splendid job of characterizing the history of liberalism while managing to remain both objective and detached. Rosenblatt, to her credit, also does not shy away from Liberalism’s egregious support for eugenics, racism, and colonialism. If I had one criticism of the book, it would be that I wish it were longer and more comprehensive. At just under 300 pages, there are sections that I feel could have been greatly expanded and I wish the author had included a little bit more on the economic component of Liberalism and its association with Laissez Faire economics. I also don’t have the intellectual background to seriously debate Rosenblatt’s selective focus in the book and therefore readers with an abundance of learning on the topic may have specific grievances and concerns. In summary, I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the political history and development of Liberalism. It provides a welcome alternative to the more esoteric scholarly anthologies and polemics that seem to either advance a very particular idea of liberalism or resort to denouncing Liberalism as the source of all social and political ills. Whatever your modern political affiliation, academic background, or interests, this book is an easily accessible read and has certainly offers new perspectives on the topic.
.....
Full of interesting facts without disintegrating into a round of Triple Jeopardy.
.....
This is a wonderful history of the word liberalism, that helps to challenge the old dichotomy between anglophone liberalism and continental republicanism.
.....
Professor Rosenblatt has written an outstanding history of the changing meanings of liberal and liberalism throughout history. Her research is excellent and her writing is very accessible.
April 5, 2021
A beautiful, unexpectedly good read, about a shape-shifting doctrine that has been expropriated multiple times to different ends. Going beyond the Anglo-American political system that we now know, this book turns to the world of French and German liberalism of late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries, recounting the creative and generative phases of liberalism, before it became the doctrine of the empire and 'free market'. Here one meets Benjamin Constant and Madam De Stael, Tocqueville and Bastiat, J S Milland Abraham Lincoln; as well as Liberalism's enemies, Napoleon and Bismarck in good measure. At a time when books such as 'Why Liberalism failed' are coming out, this is necessary reading.
May 30, 2019
When I was finishing my second Law degree I met a woman who was finishing too. She told me she was unlikely to ever read any book again. I thought it strange. A future lawyer that doesn't read? Well, I am not that person. I read intensely. And a lot. I read research too. In many areas. And books like this make me glad I took up reading seriously.
This is an OUTSTANDING BOOK. It is remarkable because it traces back the history of liberalism to its Roman roots. To its 18th-century Franco-German reformation following the French Revolution and supremely above all, to the 19th century French-Anglo Saxon reconstruction. We learn of how liberalism was, however, re-imagined following both wars and the socialist/communist revolutions and how it became a toned down doctrine with clear left-wing leanings focused on rights, especially in America. But certainly less powerful than its rightful history suggests.
This book's sin was not to keep the focus on the 19th century. Had it done so this book would be indeed a work of art. But it focused on tracing liberalism to our days. Given the changes in history and its rich tapestry in the 19th century (and 4 chapters dedicated to it). We arrive at the last chapter, having yet to touch on the 20th century. And the changes to liberalism in the 20th century are rushed through and not analysed as deeply as elsewhere. For this huge mistake, I'd give this challenging, paradigm-shifting, and wondrous book 4.5 stars. And it really needed to be 5 stars. But for the chapter on the 20th Century! Read it. Do yourself this favour!
This is an OUTSTANDING BOOK. It is remarkable because it traces back the history of liberalism to its Roman roots. To its 18th-century Franco-German reformation following the French Revolution and supremely above all, to the 19th century French-Anglo Saxon reconstruction. We learn of how liberalism was, however, re-imagined following both wars and the socialist/communist revolutions and how it became a toned down doctrine with clear left-wing leanings focused on rights, especially in America. But certainly less powerful than its rightful history suggests.
This book's sin was not to keep the focus on the 19th century. Had it done so this book would be indeed a work of art. But it focused on tracing liberalism to our days. Given the changes in history and its rich tapestry in the 19th century (and 4 chapters dedicated to it). We arrive at the last chapter, having yet to touch on the 20th century. And the changes to liberalism in the 20th century are rushed through and not analysed as deeply as elsewhere. For this huge mistake, I'd give this challenging, paradigm-shifting, and wondrous book 4.5 stars. And it really needed to be 5 stars. But for the chapter on the 20th Century! Read it. Do yourself this favour!
April 2, 2020
The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century by Helena Rosenblatt is a very good primer, filled with information that I either did not know or was only tangentially aware of, and I had thought I was reasonably well informed on the subject. The title is a bit misleading, as while there is a general tour of liberalism's older history, Rosenblatt makes no secret right away that liberalism in her thesis started in the French Revolution. A few things in her narrative appear forced, and in the epilogue Rosenblatt openly admits to admitting or abridging philosophers and thinkers that would provide a different understanding of liberalism, or that would complicate the story she was trying to tell. Namely, this Lost History is built around the idea that liberalism is the American, Progressive variant. Others? Less so. This lessens the integrity of the work, but not by any substantial degree. A book open with its biases, and even open about a high selection bias, gets good marks for admitting it, over the alternative of attempting to hide this obvious fact.
This is a very competent tour, even if politically interested.
84/100
This is a very competent tour, even if politically interested.
84/100
Read
December 7, 2018This is a readable and entertaining history of the word “liberal” (and “liberalism”), which began life as a way of designating character traits of public-spiritedness and generosity typical of well-bred gentlemen (always men, needless to say), before transmogrifying during and after the French Revolution into something closer to its modern senses. One lesson here, that the author doesn’t always draw clearly enough, is that the same word has stood for very different concepts or ideas at different times in history. This wide-ranging study shows us that to be a “liberal” in the 17th-century was different than in the 19th-century, and still different again today; it certainly confirms Nietzsche’s observation that “only that which has no history can be defined.” - Brian Leiter
April 4, 2020
Enlightening and timely, an overview that demonstrates how revisionism is simply human habit that none are immune to, least of all the traditions that smugly claim objectivity. Last two chapters and epilogue were especially immersive, so stick with it.
November 17, 2019
A good overview of the history of liberalism. More complicated than one realizes. Not too difficult reading.
August 28, 2025
"Liberalismo é uma palavra elementar e ubíqua no nosso vocabulário. Mas o liberalismo é também um conceito altamente contencioso que dá azo a debates acesos. Alguns veem-no como a dádiva da civilização ocidental à humanidade; outros, como a razão para o seu declínio. Numa torrente infindável de livros, é atacado ou defendido, e é muito difícil que algúem consiga permanecer neutro. Os críticos acusam-no de uma longa lista de pecados. Afirmam que destrói a religião, a família, a comunidade. Que é moralmente displicente e hedonista, se não mesmo racista, sexista e imperialista. Os seus defensores são igualmente enfáticos. Afirmam que o liberalismo é responsável por tudo o que temos de bom - as nossas ideias de honestidade, justiça social, liberdade e igualdade."
A partir de agora, em todas as discussões que eu tiver sobre este tema, irei sempre perguntar: O que é o Liberalismo?
Estou a falar a sério, é uma questão tão interessante. Se perguntarem a 5 pessoas diferentes, nunca irão encontrar a mesma resposta. Uns irão dizer que tem a ver com os mercados livres e a defesa da propriedade privada, outros podem dizer que inclui sempre os mercados livres mas que tem de haver sempre intervenção estatal estratégica, outros vos irão dizer que deve haver pouca intervenção estatal para que os mercados possam funcionar, outros vos irão dizer que é a forma de livrar as pessoas das suas condições de vida para que possam viver em verdadeira liberdade... E por muito aí a fora. Apesar da generalidade das pessoas conseguir chegar a um consenso sobre certas concepções, nunca irá haver uma só definição.
É um livro bem escrito e acessível sem irregularidades históricas ou de continuidade que eu tenha percebido apesar de por vezes se perder um pouco na cronologia. Conta toda a história desde a fecundação do Liberalismo desde o tempo dos Romanos (Liberalitas - Liberalidade) à quase-atualidade. É um livro que diz tanto em apenas 247 páginas. Surpreendeu-me que fosse tão pequeno quando folheei o final.
Apesar de falar sobre o feminismo e de como era a visão das feministas e dos próprios liberais acerca do feminismo, sinto que ficou a faltar nesse sentido. Como é que os liberais reagiram à ascenção do sufrágio universal feminino? Como é que apoiaram ou lutaram contra? Como é que mudaram a sua opinião?
Achei também estranho que a autora não fez a ligação explícita entre o liberalismo da atualidade e o aumento do seu egoísmo com Hayek ou com Friedman apesar de ela estar a uma frase de o fazer. Ela quase quase quase o faz, mas nunca o diz explicitamente.
Apesar de a mim não me ter acontecido, entendo que para algumas pessoas se possa tornar ligeiramente maçudo o foco intenso nos séculos XIII e XIV devido às Revoluções Francesas e Americanas e a transformação da Grã-Bretanha e da Alemanha em estados mais liberais.
Acho que, de certa forma, o livro humaniza o liberalismo. Mostra todos estes autores com imensa garra, ambição e crença numa ideologia. Todos parecem genuinamente preocupados em melhorar as condições de vida das pessoas e em ajudar a construir este projeto que acreditam que seja o melhor caminho para a sociedade.
Estive umas horas a pensar que pontuação dar a este livro. A minha dúvida entre as 4 e as 5 estrelas estava concentrada numa só questão: Será este um livro que seria necessário para alguém entender este quadrante político ou apenas um livro com imenso conhecimento mas que não seria necessário o ter?
Esta questão prendeu-se com algo que o livro fez em que ele cria este ambiente envolvente na busca incessante de uma definição de Liberalismo. A cada capítulo que passam parece que ficam à espera de uma definição definitiva que consiga englobar todos os pontos que o Liberalismo considera mas esse momento nunca chega. Nem no início nem no fim do livro esse momento acontece. Durante o livro, são dadas várias e várias definições dependendo da época e do autor e parece que todas essas definições iriam servir para construir essa definição final mas ela nunca vem. Fiquei bastante chateado com isso porque parece que é isso que a História pede: Uma definição de uma das ideologias mais importantes dos últimos 3 séculos. Até que percebi que é esse o ponto do livro: Explicar que já houve várias definições dependendo das lutas que os liberais tinham de enfrentar na altura quer seja o Catolicismo quer sejam os Protecionistas quer sejam os Comunistas e que a luta dos liberais continua e que têm de se moldar à exigência da volatilidade do mundo. Não só não pode haver uma só definição de Liberalismo devido às várias ideologias dentro dela e devido à sua vasta história com as suas variadas definições mas também porque essa é a própria definição de Liberalismo: Uma ideologia que está em constante mudança e por isso não há palavras certas para a definir.
É um livro de 5 estrelas, porque recomendo imenso e eu acho que eu próprio precisava da humanização que o livro fornece. E se eu precisava, vocês provavelmente precisam também.
A partir de agora, em todas as discussões que eu tiver sobre este tema, irei sempre perguntar: O que é o Liberalismo?
Estou a falar a sério, é uma questão tão interessante. Se perguntarem a 5 pessoas diferentes, nunca irão encontrar a mesma resposta. Uns irão dizer que tem a ver com os mercados livres e a defesa da propriedade privada, outros podem dizer que inclui sempre os mercados livres mas que tem de haver sempre intervenção estatal estratégica, outros vos irão dizer que deve haver pouca intervenção estatal para que os mercados possam funcionar, outros vos irão dizer que é a forma de livrar as pessoas das suas condições de vida para que possam viver em verdadeira liberdade... E por muito aí a fora. Apesar da generalidade das pessoas conseguir chegar a um consenso sobre certas concepções, nunca irá haver uma só definição.
É um livro bem escrito e acessível sem irregularidades históricas ou de continuidade que eu tenha percebido apesar de por vezes se perder um pouco na cronologia. Conta toda a história desde a fecundação do Liberalismo desde o tempo dos Romanos (Liberalitas - Liberalidade) à quase-atualidade. É um livro que diz tanto em apenas 247 páginas. Surpreendeu-me que fosse tão pequeno quando folheei o final.
Apesar de falar sobre o feminismo e de como era a visão das feministas e dos próprios liberais acerca do feminismo, sinto que ficou a faltar nesse sentido. Como é que os liberais reagiram à ascenção do sufrágio universal feminino? Como é que apoiaram ou lutaram contra? Como é que mudaram a sua opinião?
Achei também estranho que a autora não fez a ligação explícita entre o liberalismo da atualidade e o aumento do seu egoísmo com Hayek ou com Friedman apesar de ela estar a uma frase de o fazer. Ela quase quase quase o faz, mas nunca o diz explicitamente.
Apesar de a mim não me ter acontecido, entendo que para algumas pessoas se possa tornar ligeiramente maçudo o foco intenso nos séculos XIII e XIV devido às Revoluções Francesas e Americanas e a transformação da Grã-Bretanha e da Alemanha em estados mais liberais.
Acho que, de certa forma, o livro humaniza o liberalismo. Mostra todos estes autores com imensa garra, ambição e crença numa ideologia. Todos parecem genuinamente preocupados em melhorar as condições de vida das pessoas e em ajudar a construir este projeto que acreditam que seja o melhor caminho para a sociedade.
Estive umas horas a pensar que pontuação dar a este livro. A minha dúvida entre as 4 e as 5 estrelas estava concentrada numa só questão: Será este um livro que seria necessário para alguém entender este quadrante político ou apenas um livro com imenso conhecimento mas que não seria necessário o ter?
Esta questão prendeu-se com algo que o livro fez em que ele cria este ambiente envolvente na busca incessante de uma definição de Liberalismo. A cada capítulo que passam parece que ficam à espera de uma definição definitiva que consiga englobar todos os pontos que o Liberalismo considera mas esse momento nunca chega. Nem no início nem no fim do livro esse momento acontece. Durante o livro, são dadas várias e várias definições dependendo da época e do autor e parece que todas essas definições iriam servir para construir essa definição final mas ela nunca vem. Fiquei bastante chateado com isso porque parece que é isso que a História pede: Uma definição de uma das ideologias mais importantes dos últimos 3 séculos. Até que percebi que é esse o ponto do livro: Explicar que já houve várias definições dependendo das lutas que os liberais tinham de enfrentar na altura quer seja o Catolicismo quer sejam os Protecionistas quer sejam os Comunistas e que a luta dos liberais continua e que têm de se moldar à exigência da volatilidade do mundo. Não só não pode haver uma só definição de Liberalismo devido às várias ideologias dentro dela e devido à sua vasta história com as suas variadas definições mas também porque essa é a própria definição de Liberalismo: Uma ideologia que está em constante mudança e por isso não há palavras certas para a definir.
É um livro de 5 estrelas, porque recomendo imenso e eu acho que eu próprio precisava da humanização que o livro fornece. E se eu precisava, vocês provavelmente precisam também.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews