# Crosscurrents (Vol. 3 No. 2) **URL:** **Published:** June 1, 1986 --- “It is only very infrequently that one comes across an historian of liberalism who seems to understand that there is not just one liberalism but many liberalisms.” ## The Literature of Politics Readers of novels will know the power of literature to express political ideas. For those interested in exploring this realm a little further we suggest the following recent works: The East German novelist Stefan Heym explores the dilemma of a scholar living in biblical times who tries to write the history of a brutal monarch’s reign under an authoritarian régime. _The King David Report_ (London: Abacus, 1984) is rich in insights into the problem of intellectuals who strive to be honest in an oppresive régime and has many obvious parallels with the present. The oppression that quickly followed the success of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 is reflected in the writing of a few independent socialist writers before they were exiled or shot. Yevgeny Zamyatin should be of special interest to libertarians because of the possible influence of his dystopian novel _We_ (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984) on Ayn Rand. His short stories are collected in _The Dragon and Other Stories_, trans. Mirra Ginsburg (New York: Random House, 1967). The liberal spirit for justice pervades the writing of the English poet Lord Byron. Not only did he write glorious poetry but he also commented on the political and economic events of his time. See Byron: _Selected Letters and Journals_, ed. Peter Gunn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984) and the collection _Bryon’s Political and Cultural Influence in Nineteenth-Century Europe: A Symposium_, ed. Paul Graham Trueblood (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981). How do men and women cope with living in an age of mass destruction and murder? How does one retain one’s sanity and a sense of moral purpose in a world where armies of the state and terrorist gangs take the lives of innocent people with cold-blooded ruthlessness? The collection of poems and extracts, _In a Dark Time_, ed. Nicholas Humphrey and Robert Jay Lifton (London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1984), gives some insight into why humans murder on a grand scale and how the victims learn to cope with, and perhaps even tolerate, their situation. ## European Classical Liberalism A veritable renaissance is taking place in the study of European liberal thought. Historians of the French Revolution, following Francios Furet’s lead in _Penser la Révolution francaise_ (Paris: Gallimard, 1978) are quickly realizing that it is impossible to impose an arid Marxist interpretation on the revolution. They are thus turning to the liberal tradition, in particular Alexis de Tocqueville, for inspiration. For example, see Furet for the importance of Tocqueville’s interpretation of the crisis of the old régime state and the origins of the revolution. A useful overview of Tocqueville’s thought and a guide to the literature is provided by John Lukacs, “Alexis de Tocqueville: A Historical Appreciation,” _Literature of Liberty_, Spring 1982, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 8-42. Tocqueville’s unique and radical liberalism is stressed, although not fully understood, by Roger Boeche, “Tocqueville and _Le Commerce_: A Newspaper Expressing His Unusual Liberalism,” _Journal of the History of Ideas_, 1983, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 277-92. Jean-Claude Lamberti, _Tocqueville et les deux démocraties_ (Paris: Presses Universitaries de France, 1983), shows the relationship between his assessment of the radical democratic experiment in America and the limited and privileged democracy that existed in mid-nineteenth century France. James Ceaser (University of Virginia) argues that Tocqueville’s analysis of the central character of a society, political culture, includes not only the social conditions and legal framework, but also the ideas introduced by intellectuals. Customs create the ways of thinking that lead to political culture (_moeurs_). Tocqueville was not influenced by the continental version of Edmund Burke’s thought. It would seem that there was a rationalist tradition which went from Bacon and Descartes through Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville. Tocqueville sought to defend the rationalist approach of empirical method against the system building of Saint-Simon and Hegel. Tocqueville was even less sympathetic to the traditionalist position of a Joseph de Maistre. James Ceaser, “Alexis de Tocqueville on Political Science, Political Culture, and the Role of the Intellectual,” _American Political Science Review_, vol. 79, no. 3 (Sep. 1985), pp. 656-72. Tocqueville is not the only French liberal who is undergoing a reassessment. The liberal statesman and historian Francois Guizot is the subject of Pierre Rosanvallon’s _Le Moment Guizot_ (Paris: Gallimard, 1985). Likewise, Madame de Staël’s interpretation of the revolution is made available to modern readers with the reprint of her _Considérations sur la Révolution francaise_, ed. Jacques Godechot (Paris: Tallandier, 1983). The lover and colleague of Staël, Benjamin Constant, is sympathetically discussed in Steven Holmes, _Benjamin Constant and the Making of Modern Liberalism_ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984). An important liberal of the transition period between the Enlightenment and the Restoration is Destutt de Tracy. Two recent essays dealing with his influence and his economic and pyschological theories are Franco Venturi, “Destutt de Tracy and the Liberal Revolutions,” in _Studies in Free Russia_, trans. F. S. Walsby, and M. O’Dell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 59-93; and Daniel Klein, “Deductive Economic Methodology in the French Enlightenment: Condillac and Destutt de Tracy,” _History of Political Economy_, 1985, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 51-71. It is only very infrequently that one comes across an historian of liberalism who seems to understand that there is not just one liberalism but many liberalisms. Some strands of liberalism are truly radical while others are timid and defend the status quo. Johann Baptist Müller, in _Liberalismus und Demokratie: Studien zum Verhältnis von Politik und Wirtschaft im Liberalismus_ (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1978), uses the principle of democracy (popular versus elite democracy) and the market (free markets versus interventionism) to distinguish four main types of liberalism: interventionistic elite rule (typified by Alexander Hamilton), free market elite rule (Macaulay and the French Doctrinaires), free market democracy (Richard-Price, Thomas Jefferson, Cobden and Bright), and interventionistic democracy (liberalism in its modern form). Muller provides a framework that modern classical liberalism should find extremely useful. ## Central America An updated version of Walter LaFeber’s _Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America_ (New York: W. W. Norton, 1984) is most welcome. LaFeber provides a summary of the unending interventions and repression that have plagued Central America throughout this century. He also shows how U.S. government foreign aid and support for oppressive régimes alienate the peasantry (who then seek support from more radical sources), weaken the middle classes as an effective counterweight to the military, and benefit certain groups within the United States. ## German Individualism The German contribution to individualist thought is less well-known than Anglo-American thinkers such as Auberon Herbert, Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker. Friedrich Schelling is one such neglected German individualist who took natural rights to its ultimate, radical individualistic conclusions. His remarkable essay “Neue Deduktion des Naturrechts (1796-97),” can be found in his collected works _Werke 3_, ed. Hartmut Buchner, Wilhelm G. Jacobs und Annemarie Pieper (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1982), pp. 139-175, and in the more accessible Suhrkamp edition, _Ausgewälte Schriften in 6 Bänden_ (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985). The radical individualistic and liberal aspects of Schelling’s thought have been noticed by Alexander Hollerbach, _Der Rechtsgedanke bei Schelling: Quellenstudien zu seiner Rechts-und Staatsphilosophie_ (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1957) and Herman N. Zeltner, _Schelling_ (Stuttgart: Frommann, 1954). ## Political Philosophy An IHS Fellow, Frank Van Dun (University of Ghent), has written on the fundimentals of law and individual rights in _Het fundamenteel Rechtsbeginsel: Een Essay over de Grondslagen van het Recht_ (Antwerp: Kluwer Rechtswetenschappen, 1983). The Marxist G. A. Cohen criticizes Robert Nozick for not assuming that all land was originally jointly owned rather than unowned. In spite of the usual Marxist absurdities Cohen’s essay is interesting for two reasons. First, even after ten years the Left feels obliged to take Nozick’s arguments seriously, even if they can’t refute them satisfactorily. Secondly, Cohen does raise an important issue that has still not been adequately addressed by modern classical liberals, namely, the problem of determining historically the original ownership of land and the related problem of dealing with unjustly acquired property. See G. A. Cohen, “Nozick on Appropriation,” _New Left Review_, 1985, no. 150, pp. 89-105. Anyone who gives a prominent place to “civil society,” as Hegel does, needs to be taken seriously by liberals. The following should be consulted: Manfred Riedel, _Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy_, trans. Walter Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); F. R. Cristi, “The Hegelsche Mitte and Hegel’s Monarch,” _Political Theory_, 1983, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 601-622; and the collection _The State and Civil Society: Studies in Hegel’s Political Philosophy_, ed. Z. A. Pelczynski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Opinions of Edmund Burke perhaps separate conservatives from classical liberals. Thomas Paine may have had the last word but, for those who have not made up their minds, the following are recommended: Isaac Kramnick, “The Left and Edmund Burke,” _Political Theory_, 1983, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 189-214; J. G. A. Pocock, “The Political Enemy of Burke’s Analysis of the French Revolution,” _Historical Journal_, 1982, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 331-349; and Donald Winch, “The Burke-Smith Problem and Late Eighteenth-Century Political and Economic Thought,” _Historical Journal_, 1985, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 231-247. A review article of recent material on Bentham and Philosophical Radicalism is David Lieberman, “Historiographical Review: From Bentham to Benthamism,” _Historical Journal_, 1985, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 199-224. The theory of consitutional limits to excessive state power played an important part in the American and French Enlightenment struggle against absolutism and imperialism. The medieval origins of constitutional thought is the topic of Brian Tierney’s brilliant short book _Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought 1150-1650_ (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982). ## Postwar American Foreign Policy Marxist attempts to portray American policies to rebuild postwar Europe as “imperialist” are oversimplified. On the one hand, prosperous, industrial, and peaceful capitalist societies developed in Germany and Japan, which have risen to rival American economic power. On the other hand, elements within the American government and business circles attempted to mold the postwar settlement to suit themselves at the expense of taxpayers and free markets at home and in Europe. These tensions within American policy between the liberating force of the market and the privileges of vested interests are revealed in Michael J. Hogan, “American Marshall Planners and the Search for a European Neocapitalism,” _American Historical Review_, 1985, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 44-72; Robert Griffith, “Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth,” _American Historical Review_, 1982, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 87-122; and David S. Painter, “Oil and the Marshall Plan,” _Business History Review_, 1984, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 359-383. More caution must be used with Kees van der Pijl’s _The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class_ (London: Verso, 1984) because of its stronger Markist bias. However, van der Pijl has raised important problems of power and vested interests, which classical liberals need to study more closely. ## Radical Republicanism Students of the American Revolution often forget that the ideological and political conflicts spawned by the revolution continued for decades afterwards. The important political theory of John Taylor is discussed in Gillis J. Harp, “Taylor, Calhoun, and the Decline of a Theory of Political Disharmony,” _Journal of the History of Ideas_, 1985, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 101-120; and Duncan Macleod, “The Political Economy of John Taylor of Caroline,” _Journal of American Studies_, 1980, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 387-406. Thomas P. Slaughter reminds us that the argument over taxation is central to the American Revolution in “The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790.” _William and Mary Quarterly_, 1984, vol. XLI, no. 4, pp. 566-91. ## Government Expansion An analysis of the 1920s shows that the reduction in government spending after the First World War was only apparent. Jacob Metzer, “How New Was the New Era? The Public Sector in the 1920s,” _Journal of Economic History_, 1985, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 119-126, shows that the steadily increasing trend of the prewar era was continued during the 1920s. One reason why it is so difficult to reduce in absolute terms the size of government spending is suggested by Robert Higgs, “Crisis, Bigger Government, and Ideological Change: Two Hypotheses on the Ratchet Phenomenon,” _Explorations in Economic History_, 1985, vol. 22, pp. 1-28. ## Vietnam Nineteen eighty-five was the tenth anniversary of the “Fall of Saigon” and it prompted many historians and commentators to review the reasons for the defeat of American forces in Indochina. Unfortunately, time has not made us any wiser if these popular assessments are anything to go by. The American foreign policy establishment is still unable to understand the reasons why an economically backward colonial society was able to resist and eventually repel in turn three powerful colonial systems, the French, the Japanese, and the American. To understand the long-term historical reasons for the success of the Vietnamese anticolonial struggle it is necessary to turn to David G. Marr’s excellent intellectual history, _Vietnamese Tradition on Trial, 1920-1945_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), in which he shows how a powerful ideology of independence and resistance was developed. Marr should be read in conjunction with the economic history of the first of the three Indochinese imperial powers by Martin J. Murray, _The Development of Capitalism in Colonial Indochina (1870-1940)_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980). See also “Perspectives on Vietnam—Three Review Articles,” _Journal of Asian Studies_, 1985, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 337-357; and Samuel L. Popkin, “Colonialism and the Ideological Origins of the Vietnamese Revolution,” _Journal of Asian Studies_, 1985, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 349-357. On the appalling consequences of mindless antiproperty and antimarket sentiment in communist Cambodia see Someth May, “The Field Behind the Village,” _Granta_ 13, (Cambridge: _Granta Publications_, 1984). ## Ludwig von Mises Two classics by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises have been reprinted recently. _Theory and History_, originally published in 1957, has been reissued in paperback by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (322 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002) with a new preface by Professor Murray N. Rothbard. This is Mises’s major exploration of the methodologies of the social sciences and history. He takes on determinism, free will, positivism, psychology, and scientific prediction, among other issues. According to Professor Rothbard’s preface, _Theory and History_ is Mises’s “fourth and last great work.” Rothbard writes that the book has “made remarkably little impact, and has rarely been cited even by the young economists of the recent Austrian revival.... \[A\]nd yet it provides the philosophical backstop and elaboration of the philosophy underlying _Human Action_. It is Mises’s great methodological work, explaining the basis of his approach to economics, and providing scintillating critiques of such fallacious alternatives as historicism, scientism, and Marxian dialectical materialism.” The second reprint is _Liberalism in the Classical Tradition_ (FEE/Cobden Press, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY, 10533, in cooperation with IHS), originally published in English as _The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth_ (1962). This book is Mises’s classic statement of the nature of liberal society. It covers such topics as property, freedom, economic policy, and foreign policy. ## The Law Professor Richard A. Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, has written a major Lockean treatise in which he offers a thoroughgoing critique of the welfare state from a Constitutional perspective. _Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain_ (Harvard University Press) “argues that the system of limited government and private property is not elastic enough to accommodate the massive reforms of the New Deal or those reforms that preceded or followed it.” Writes Professor Epstein, “I argue that the eminent domain and parallel clauses in the Constitution render constitutionally infirm or suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers’ compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation.” ## Austrian Economics _The Economics of Time and Ignorance_ (Basil Blackwell) is a pathbreaking discussion and extension of Austrian economics by Dr. Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr., senior economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Professor Mario J. Rizzo of New York University. The first part of the book elaborates on the importance of subjectivism, the dynamic conception of time, and uncertainty. The second part applies these concepts to such issues as competition and discovery, monopoly, money, and, in a chapter by Professor Roger Garrison of Auburn University, capital theory.