Introduction
1. For some liberals, ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are synonyms, whereas others see at least a vague division of function between the two, with freedom having a more positive content, as in ‘the freedom to …’ and ‘liberty’ a more negative one, as in ‘liberty from oppression’. But there is no clear pattern to these uses.
2. Andreas Kalyvas and Ira Katznelson, Liberal Beginnings: Making a Republic for the Moderns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 17.
3. Benjamin Constant was among the first to use the word in a political sense, in 1797. By 1810, the first political party to describe itself as ‘liberal’ had arisen, in Spain. It is worth noting that organized political parties were very new in Europe in 1810, and that liberalism was present at their birth. Liberalism was intimately involved in the creation of modern politics as we know it across the globe. See K. Stephen Vincent, Benjamin Constant and the Birth of French Liberalism (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011), 76–7; Javier Fernandez Sebastian, ‘Toleration and Freedom of Expression in the Hispanic World between Enlightenment and Liberalism’, Past & Present 211 (2011), 161–99.
4. For Mesopotamia, see Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).
5. Kalyvas and Katznelson, Liberal Beginnings, 15.
6. Duncan Bell, ‘What is Liberalism’, Political Th eory 42, no. 6 (2014), 682–715; Alan S. Kahan, Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan,2003), 1–17
Chapter 1
1. Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, trans. A. M. Cohler, B. C. Miller and H. S. Stone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), Book XI, 155–56. Unspecified references including book, chapter and page numbers are to this edition.
2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley (Hackett Classics, 1994), chapter XXI.
3. Ibid. XIV, 79–80.
4. Ibid. XXI, 143.
5. Montesquieu, My Thoughts, trans. and ed. Henry C. Clark (Indianapolis IN: Liberty Fund Inc., 2012), no. 884.
Chapter 2
1. Madame de Staël, Considerations on the Principal Events of the French Revolution, ed. Aurelian Craiutu (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008), 96, 104–5.
2. See Aurelian Craiutu, A Virtue for Courageous Minds: Moderation in French Political Thought, 1748-1830 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 158–97.
3. Staël, Considerations, 541.
4. Ibid., 96.
5. On this issue, see Keith Baker, Inventing the French Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 252–305.
6. Staël, Considerations, 17.
7. Ibid., 104.
8. bid., 633.
9. Every country, every people, every man are fit for liberty by their different qualities; all attain or will attain it in their own way’ (Staël, Considerations, 633).
10. Staël, Considerations, 753–4.
Chapter 3
1. Benjamin Constant, ‘The Liberty of the Ancients Compared to That of the Moderns’, in Constant, Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 310–11.
2. Ibid., 311.
3. Constant, ‘The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and their Relation to European Civilization’, in Constant, Political Writings, 77.
4. ‘Principles of Politics Applicable all Representative Governments’, in Constant, Political Writings, 177.
5. Ibid., 254.
6. ‘The Liberty of the Ancients Compared to That of the Moderns’, 327.
7. Constant, Commentary on Filangieri’s Work, ed. Alan S. Kahan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2015), 316.
8. Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 126.
Chapter 4
1. Jeremy Bentham, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’ [1789], ed. J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart, with a new introduction by F. Rosen, in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 11–12.
2. Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government, ed. Ross Harrison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 [1776]), 97.
3. Ibid., 56.
Chapter 5
1. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, The Federalist, ed. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2001), 181, 194.
2. The Federalist, #9, 38.
3. Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 28 May 1816, in Jefferson (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1392.
4. Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816, 1397.
Chapter 6
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), vol. I part 1, ch. 3, 52, henceforth DA. I cite by volume, part, chapter and/or page numbers.
2. DA, vol. I part 1, ch. 5, 89–90.
3. Letter to Stoffels, 24 July 1836, in A. S. Kahan and O. Zunz, The Tocqueville Reader. A Life in Letters and Politics (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2002), 153.
4. DA II 2.1, 482.
5. Pierre Manent, ‘Tocqueville: Liberalism Confronts Democracy’, in Intellectual History of Liberalism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995), 103.
6. DA, Introduction, 7.
7. Ibid., 6, 400.
8. DA, Introduction, 12, 7. Although conveyed in a stylish, accessible prose these lessons are far from simple. American institutions, Tocqueville insisted, are not to be imitated blindly.
9. The section from which the second passage is drawn stands out for its passionate arguments and personal tone – too revealing, as one reader complained, of Tocqueville’s own convictions. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. Historical Critical Edition (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2009), 142 c.
10. DA II 2.5, 492.
11. ‘It is at once necessary and desirable that the central power that directs a democratic people be active and powerful’, DA II 4.7, 667.
12. Compare DA I 1.8 and I 2.7, 239–42, esp. note 4. and I 2.10. Delba Winthrop, ‘Tocqueville on Federalism’, Publius 6, no. 3 (1976), 93–115.
13. DA II 2.2–8, 482–503.
14. DA 57, 90–1, 489, 498, 515, 667; Aurelian Craiutu, ‘Tocqueville’s Paradoxical Moderation’, Review of Politics 67, no. 4 (2005), 620–6.
15. DA I 2.5, 85 and note. In the very chapter praising the effects of American decentralization, Tocqueville includes recommendations for greater oversight of local affairs.
16. DA 48 and 518, 672.
17. DA 64–5, 232–4, 486–8.
18. DA I 2.10. For a fuller discussion of Tocqueville’s account of patriotism and the psychology of civic engagement, see E. Atanassow ‘Patriotism in Democracy: What We Can Learn From Tocqueville’, in Z. Rau and M. Tracz-Tryniecki (eds), Tocquevillean Ideas: Contemporary European Perspectives (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2014), 39–58.
19. DA I 2.5, 57; II 2.8, 499. R. T. Gannett, ‘Tocqueville and Local Government’, Review of Politics 67, no. 4 (2005), 724, 726–31; J. Koritansky, ‘Decentralization and Civic Virtue in Tocqueville’s “New Science of Politics”,’ Publius 5, no. 3 (1975), 80–1.
20. Alan S. Kahan, ‘Checks and Balances for Democratic Souls: Alexis de Tocqueville on Religion in Democratic Societies’, American Political Thought 4 (2015), 100–19.
21. Alan S. Kahan, ‘Tocqueville and Religion: Beyond the Frontier of Christendom’, in E. Atanassow and R. Boyd (eds). Tocqueville and the Frontiers of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 89–110.
22. ‘The political world is changing; henceforth one must seek new remedies for new ills’ (DA II 4.8, 672).
23. DA, Introduction, 7.
24. DA Introduction, 7. Michael Locke McLendon, ‘Tocqueville, Jansenism and the Psychology of Freedom’, American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (July 2006), 664–75.
Chapter 7
1. Abraham Lincoln, ‘Speech on the Dred Scott Decision at Springfield, Illinois’, 26 June 1857, in The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Steven B. Smith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 115.
2. Lincoln, ‘To Henry L. Pierce and Others’, in Writings, 244.
3. See ‘Harrison Bergeron’, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., for a dystopic vision of a United States in which ‘nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.’
4. Lincoln, ‘Fragment on Slavery’, in Writings, 58.
5. Aristotle, Politics, book 7, chapter 13.
6. Thomas Jefferson, ‘Query XVIII: Manners’, Notes on the State of Virginia, in The Portable Thomas Jefferson, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1975), 214.
7. Aristotle, Politics, book 1, chapter 2.
8. Lincoln, ‘Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania’, 19 November 1863, in Writings, 417.
9. Jefferson, ‘To Henri Grégoire’, 25 February 1809, in Portable Jefferson, 517.
10. Jefferson, ‘To Roger C. Weightman’, 24 June 1826, in Portable Jefferson, 585.
11. Declaration of Independence, first paragraph.
12. Lincoln attaches great significance to ‘reverence’, beginning with his Lyceum address in 1838.
13. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 674.
14. Lincoln, ‘Gettysburg’, in Writings, 417.
Chapter 8
1. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008), Chapter One, 29.
2. Ibid., 27.
3. Mill, ‘Autobiography’, in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson and others, 33 vols (Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 1963–91), vol. I, 169. Hereafter CW followed by volume and page numbers.
4. ‘De Tocqueville on Democracy in America’ (I), CW XVIII, 47–90.
5. CW IX, 493n.
6. Ibid., 238.
7. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 118. Fundamental to Rawls’ theory of justice, a ‘veil of ignorance’ is the hypothetical situation in which we allegedly make choices without any knowledge of the particular facts about ourselves.
8. Nicolas Capaldi, John Stuart Mill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 230.
9. ‘The grand, leading principle towards which every argument unfolded in these pages directly converges, is the absolute and essential importance of human development in the richest diversity.’ Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Sphere and Duties of Government (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1993). See Capaldi, John Stuart Mill, 268–70; Mill, ‘Autobiography’, CW I, 260. See also the introduction to Humboldt’s book by John Burrow.
10. CW X, 55.
11. It is also a principle one can find in Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence, namely that for Smith each person has a natural right to ‘do what he has a mind when it does not prove detrimental to any other person’. Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D. D. Raphael and P. G. Stein (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1982), vol. V, 3.
12. ‘Principles of Political Economy’, CW III, Book V, Chapter XI.
13. CW III, 98; CW V, 11, 2.
14. 25 October 1865, CW XVI, 1108–9.
15. ‘A Few Words on Non-Intervention’, CW XXI, 109–24. The essay originally appeared in December 1859 in Fraser’s Magazine.
Chapter 9
1. Alexander Herzen, ‘J. S. Mill and his book On Liberty’. All translations are mine. The selected text, with ellipses removed for ease of reading, is comprised of several excerpts from this essay, which is translated in My Past and Thoughts: The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen, trans. Constance Garnett. Revised edition by Humphrey Higgens, with introduction by Isaiah Berlin, 4 vols (London: Chatto & Windus, 1968), vol. 3, 1075–85. A new edition, newly translated and annotated by Robert Harris and Kathleen Parthé, is forthcoming from Harvard University Press.
2. ‘Omnia mеа mecum porto’ (Paris, 3 April 1848), and ‘Vixerunt!’ (Paris, 1 December 1848), in From the Other Shore, trans. Moura Budberg (Lond on: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1956), 124–25; 79; cf. J.P. Fallmerayer, review of Von andern Ufer, in Gesammelte Werke in 5 Bänden, ed. G. M. Thomas, v. 2: Politische und Culturhistorische Aufsätze Türkei. Russland (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1861), 59.
3. These essays were published as Vom anderen Ufer (1849), appearing in Russian as S togo berega (1855); other articles were gathered under the title Briefe aus Italien und Frankreich: 1848–1849 (1850), and as Pis’ma is Frantsi i Italii (1855).
4. ‘To Our Brothers in Russia’ (London, 21 February 1853), in A Herzen Reader, ed. and trans. Kathleen Parthé, with a critical essay by Robert Harris (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 2012), 30.
5. Introduction to From the Other Shore, 4.
6. ‘J. S. Mill and his book On Liberty’ (1859), 1075.
7. Herzen would have been thinking of Milton’s landmark text, Areopagitica: A Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing to the Parliament of England, published in 1644.
8. ‘Robert Owen’ (1861), in My Past and Thoughts, 3:1217–18, 1226.
9. ‘J. S. Mill and his book On Liberty’, 1082.
10. ‘Farewell’ (Paris, 1 March 1849), in From the Other Shore, 12.
11. ‘Vixerunt!’ in From the Other Shore, 88.
12. ‘Before the storm’ (Rome, 31 December 1847), in From the Other Shore, 30.
13. ‘Letter from Avenue Marigny: III’ (Paris, 20 June 1847), in Letters from France and Italy, 1847–1851, ed. and trans. Judith E. Zimmerman (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), 40, 48.
14. ‘Letter from via del Corso: V’ (Rome, December 1847); VI (Rome, 4 February 1848), in Letters from France and Italy, 1847–1851, 68, 92.
15. ‘Ends and Beginnings: Letters to I. S. Turgenev: VII’ (29 December 1862), in My Past and Thoughts, 4:1734.
16. Letter of Herzen (Rome) to Moscow friends (30 January 1848), in A.I. Gertsen, Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh [Collected works in thirty volumes] (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1954–66), 23:57; ‘Consolatio’ (Paris, 30 March 1849), in From the Other Shore, 104.
17. ‘Again in Paris: III’, in Letters from France and Italy, 1847–1851, 260.
18. China and Persia were commonly cited as examples of great empires that had collapsed from cultural stagnation.
19. John Gray, Isaiah Berlin: An Interpretation of his Thought (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2013), 31.
20. ‘Without free speech man is not free.’ ‘To Our Brothers in Russia’, in A Herzen Reader, 28.
21. These are the three central demands presented in the opening manifesto of Herzen’s journal, Kolokol [The Bell]. See ‘Vivos voco’ (London, 1 July 1857), in A Herzen Reader, 55.
22. ‘The Russian People and Socialism: An Open Letter to Jules Michelet’ (Nice, September 1851), in From the Other Shore, 188.
23. Or obshchina.
24. There is a certain filiation between Herzen’s sparse, non-intrusive notion of personal freedom and the concept of ‘negative liberty’ as defined by Isaiah Berlin in ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ [1958], reprinted in I. Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1969).
25. ‘Consolatio’, in From the Other Shore, 106.
26. Du développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie (Paris: Franck, 1851), 94–5
27. ‘The giant awakens’, A Herzen Reader, 146.
28. See Aileen M. Kelly, The Discovery of Chance: The Life and Thought of Alexander Herzen (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 524–5
Chapter 10
1. T. H. Green, ‘Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract’. An abridged version of the lecture was published in a temperance newspaper, the Alliance News, in late January 1881; it was issued as a pamphlet and later printed in full in Green’s Works; it has often been reprinted. The extract comes from Paul Harris and John Morrow, eds, T. H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 199. All other references to Green’s works are to this edition.
2. Green, ‘On the Different Senses of “Freedom” as Applied to Will and to the Moral Progress of Man’, 239.
3. Green, ‘Liberal Legislation’, 195.
4. Green, ‘Freedom’, 249.
5. See Peter P. Nicholson, The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists: Selected Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 116–22; sections II–V of this book provide the best account of Green’s political philosophy.
6. Ibid., 124–5.
7. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 259.
8. See Avital Simhony and David Weinstein, eds, The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
9. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, 92–6, 132–8; Colin Tyler, Civil Society, Capitalism and the State (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2012), 191–6, 222–3.
10. Green, ‘Liberal Legislation’, 196.
11. Lectures on Political Obligation, 108.
12. Green, Political Obligation, 65–106.
13. Green, ‘Liberal Legislation’, 203.
14. On Green’s property theory, see John Morrow, ‘Private Property, Liberal Subjects, and the State’, in Harris and Morrow, T. H. Green, 92–114; Simhony and Weinstein, The New Liberalism, 93–101; Tyler, Civil Society, 213–30.
15. Green, Political Obligation, 171–6.
16. Green, ‘Liberal Legislation’, 204–9; Political Obligation, 176–8.
17. See Simhony and Weinstein, The New Liberalism, passim.
Chapter 11
1. The author wishes to thank the editors as well as his colleagues José Antonio Aguilar Rivera, Juan Luis Ossa Santa Cruz and Eduardo Zimmermann for their helpful comments.
2. Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism, trans. Kathleen Ross (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2003), 77, 117. This is the edition from which I quote. A previous English translation of this book by Mary Peabody Mann was published under the title Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1868). The most recent edition of Mann’s translation, with an introduction by Ilan Stavans, was published under the title Facundo: Or, Civilization and Barbarism (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1998).
3. Sarmiento, Facundo, 239.
4. Janet Burke and Ted Humphrey, ‘Sarmiento on Barbarism, Race, and Nation Building’, in Forging People: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in Hispanic American and Latino/a Thought, ed. Jorge J. E. Gracia (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011), 127–51.
5. Natalio R. Botana, ‘Sarmiento and Political Order: Liberty, Power, and Virtue’, in Sarmiento: Author of a Nation, ed. Tulio Halperín-Donghi, Iván Jaksić, Gwen Kirpatrick and Francine Masiello (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1994), 101.
6. On the transformations of Latin American liberalism in the nineteenth century, see Eduardo Posada-Carbó and Iván Jaksić, ‘Shipwrecks and Survivals: Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Latin America’, Intellectual History Review 23, no. 4 (2013), 479–98.
7. See Jorge Myers, Orden y virtud: El discurso republicano en el régimen Rosista (Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, 1995).
Chapter 12
1. Namik Kemal, ‘Usul-i Meşveret Hakkında Mektuplar I’, Hürriyet, 26 September 1869, my translation.
2. Namik Kemal, ‘Wa shawirhum fi’l-amr’, Hürriyet, 11 August 1869, my translation.
3. Namik Kemal, ‘Hukuk’, İbret, 19 June 1872, my translation.
4. Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964), 211.
5. Christiane Czygan, ‘Reflections on Justice: A Young Ottoman View of the Tanzimat’, Middle Eastern Studies, 46, no. 6 (2010), 951.
6. Joseph G. Rahme, ‘Namik Kemal’s Constitutional Ottomanism and Non-Muslims’, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 1, no. 10 (1999), 23.
7. Ebuzziyya Tevfik, Yeni Osmanlılar Tarihi (Istanbul: Kervan Yayınları, 1973).
8. Şerif Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), 208.
9. Gökhan Çetinsaya, ‘Kalemiye’den Mülkiye’ye Tanzimat Zihniyeti’, in Modern Türkiye’de Siyasal Düşünce 1: Tazimatın Birikimi ve Meşrutiyet, ed. Tanıl Bora and Murat Gültekingil (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2004), 55.
10. Ibid., 56.
11. Namik Kemal, ‘Maarif’, Hürriyet, 10 August 1869, in Kurdakul, Namik Kemal, 184–5, my translation.
12. Namik Kemal, ‘Usul-i Meşveret Hakkında Mektuplar VI’, Hürriyet, 7 November 1869, my translation.
13. ‘Usul-i Meşveret Hakkında Mektuplar I’.
14. ‘Usul-i Meşveret Hakkında Mektuplar VI’.
15. Berkes, The Development, 212.
16. Czygan, ‘Reflections on Justice’, 951.
17. Namik Kemal, ‘Maarif’, Hürriyet, 10 August 1869.
Chapter 13
1. Khayr al-Din Al-Tunisi and L. Carl Brown, The Surest Path; the Political Treatise of a Nineteenth-Century Muslim Statesman (Harvard Middle Eastern Monograph. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 74–7. The Tanzimat was a period of reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1838–76.
2. Leon Carl Brown, ‘An Appreciation of the Surest Path’, in The Surest Path (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 29–30.
3. The Mouqaddimah, also known as the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldoun or Ibn Khaldun’s Prolegomena, was written by the Arab-Berber historian Ibn Khaldun in 1377. It records an early view of universal history, and remains one of the most important works in Muslim history.
4. Khayr al-Din, The Surest Path, 5. Cited by Jeremy Kleidosty, ‘What Would Khayr Al-Din Do? The Fusion of Islamic and Western Constitutional Traditions in Khayr Al-Din Al-Tunisi The Surest Path’, APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2104854, 59.
5. Abdul Azim Islahi, ‘Economic Ideas of a Nineteenth Century Tunisian Statesman: Khayr al-Din al-Tunisi’, Islamic Economics Institute, King Abdulaziz University (2002), 5. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43519/MPRA Paper No 43519.
6. Brown, ‘An Appreciation of the Surest Path’, 53.
7. Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 89. The Islamic Golden Age refers to a period in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the ninth to the thirteenth century, during which the Islamic world was ruled by various caliphates and science, economic development and cultural works flourished.
8. Khayr al-Din, The Surest Path, 76.
9. Ibid., 76.
10. Ibid., 77.
11. Kleidosty, ‘What Would Khayr Al-Din Do?’, 37.
Chapter 14
1. J. Burckhardt to von Preen, 2 July 1871, in The Letters of Jacob Burckhardt, selected, ed. and trans. Alexander Dru (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 143–44.
2. J. Burckhardt, Reflections on History, trans. M. D. Hottinger (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1979), 184, 139.
3. J. Burckhardt, Judgements on History and Historians, trans. Harry Zohn (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999), 238–9.
4. On Burckhardt’s anti-Semitism, see Lionel Gossman, ‘Jacob Burckhardt: Cold War Liberal?’, Journal of Modern History 74 (2002), 552–3.
5. Judith Shklar, ‘The Liberalism of Fear’, in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy L. Rosenblum (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
6. Selected Letters, 212–13, 209.
7. Judgments, 229; Reflections on History, 314.
8. Selected Letters, 145; Judgments, 231.
9. See Alan S. Kahan, Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2001).
10. Judgements, 226.
11. Ibid., 227.
12. Ibid., 183.
13. Selected Letters, 216.
14. Selected Letters, 144 , 134, 147, 148: Judgements, 230.
15. Selected Letters, 148, 205, 209, 215; Gossman, ‘Jacob Burckhardt’, 551, 557.
16. Judgements, 3.
17. Selected Letters, 129, Judgements, 230.
Chapter 15
1. Max Weber, ‘Parliament and Government in Germany under a New Political Order’ (1918), in Political Writings, ed. Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 159, 161. Subsequent quotations from this text will be followed by parenthetical references. I am very grateful to Peter Baehr and Duncan Kelly for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter.
2. Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 1208–10.
3. This is a point that Weber made more explicitly in his later lecture, ‘The Profession and Vocation of Politics’ (1919), in Political Writings, 338–9, 346–7.
4. See Max Weber, ‘On the Situation of Constitutional Democracy in Russia’ (1906), in Political Writings, 69–70.
5. Max Weber, ‘The President of the Reich’ (1919), in Political Writings, 306.
6. Weber, ‘The President of the Reich’.
7. See Weber, ‘The Profession and Vocation of Politics’, 311–12. Though the Weimar Constitution did end up providing for a popularly elected president, it did not endow the office with as much political independence as Weber demanded.
8. Weber, ‘The President of the Reich’, 307.
9. On their trip, see Lawrence A. Scaff, Max Weber in America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).
10. This description of the Protestant sects, which applies equally to the American voluntary associations in Weber’s view, appears in Economy and Society, 1204.
11. On Weber’s legacy, see Joshua Derman, Max Weber in Politics and Social Thought: From Charisma to Canonization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Chapter 16
1. John Maynard Keynes, Collected Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), vol. IX, 305–6. Henceforth cited as CW followed by volume and page numbers.
2. Keynes, ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money’, CW VII, 380, 377–8.
3. CW IX, 296–7.
4. ‘The End of Laissez-Faire’ CW IX, 272.
5. Ibid., 274–5.
6. Ibid., 276–7.
7. CW IX, 286.
8. Ibid., 305.
9. Keynes, ‘Tract on Monetary Reform’ [1923], CW IV, 65.
10. What in Germany is called ‘social democratic’ politics is closest to this, but the term has a different history.
11. CW IX, 289
12. Ibid., 289
13. See, for example, Clarence S. Walton, Corporate Social Responsibilities (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1967).
14. Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, ‘The Nature of Man’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 7, no. 2 (Summer 1994), 4–19.
Chapter 17
1. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (1927), in Dewey, The Later Works, 1925-1953 (hereafter cited as LW), ed. Jo Ann Boydston et al. (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984), 2: 364–65. There are two paperback editions of The Public and Its Problems (Chicago: Swallow, 1954) and a more recent edition, which contains a fine introduction and bibliography by Melvyn Rodgers (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012).
2. On the roots of Dewey’s concep tion of liberal democracy in earlier American thought, see James T. Kloppenberg, Toward Democracy: The Struggle for Self-Rule in European and American Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016); and James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
3. Dewey, ‘From Absolutism to Experimentalism’, in Contemporary American Philosophy, ed. George P. Adams and William F. Montague (New York: Macmillan, 1930), LW, 5: 147–60. On the development of Dewey’s philosophy and his relation to a wide range of European and American thinkers, including Hegel, John Stuart Mill, T. H. Green, William James and Max Weber, see James T. Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
4. Dewey, ‘Christianity and Democracy’, in Dewey, The Early Works (hereafter cited as EW), ed. Jo Ann Boydston et al. (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968), 4: 3–12.
5. On the wide, deep and lasting impact of Dewey’s philosophy on American culture, see Andrew Jewett, Science, Democracy, and the American University (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
6. Dewey, Democracy and Education, in Dewey, The Middle Works (hereafter cited as MW), ed. Jo Ann Boydston et al. (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980), 9: 92–4. On the transatlantic dimensions of the ‘new liberalism’, see Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory; and on the British side, Stefan Collini, L. T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in England, 1880-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); and Peter F. Clarke, Liberals and Social Democrats (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Debunking the efforts of these reformers as insufficiently radical has been a transatlantic scholarly preoccupation for decades. Two recent examples are Marc Stears, Progressives, Pluralists, and the Problems of the State: Ideologies of Reform in the United States and Britain, 1909-1926 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); and Marc Stears, Demanding Democracy: American Radicals in Search of a New Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
7. On Dewey’s correspondence with Hu Shih about The Public and Its Problems, see MW, 9: 430. On the global impact of Wilson’s and Dewey’s ideas, see Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); and Trygve Throntveit, Peace Without Victory: Woodrow Wilson and the American Internationalist Experiment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
8. Dewey’s review of Public Opinion appeared in The New Republic, 3 May 1922, 286–8; MW, 13: 337–44.
9. Dewey, ‘Individuality, Equality, and Superiority’, The New Republic, 13 December 1922, 61–3; MW, 13: 295–300.
10. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (New York, 1927), MW, 2: 300–3, 328–31, 337–44, 369–70.
11. On the role of Dewey’s ideas, advanced by his students and other allies, in shaping the work of the National Resources Planning Board, which was the source of the most far-reaching proposals under discussion in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War and informing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ambitious plans for a Second Bill of Rights after the war’s end, see James T. Kloppenberg, ‘Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Poverty in America’, in James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism, 100–23; and James T. Kloppenberg, ‘American Democracy and the Welfare State: The Problem of Its Publics’, in The American Century in Europe, ed. R. Laurence Moore and Maurizio Vaudagna (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), 195–218.
Chapter 18
1. Hu Shih, ‘Starting the Conversation with The Road to Serfdom’, in Collected Works of Hu Shih, ed. Ou-yang Zhe-sheng (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 1998), vol. 12, 831–6, henceforth CW. As no English translation of Hu Shih’s Chinese writings is currently available, this and the following notes refer to the Collected Works in Chinese （胡适：《从〈到奴役之路说起〉》,《胡适文集》第12卷，北京大学出版社1998年版，第831–836页）. For Hu Shih’s English works, see English Writings of Hu Shih, ed. Chih-Ping Chou, 3 vols (Berlin, Heidelberg: Spinger, 2013).
2. Hu Shih, ‘Our Political Proposals’, CW, 3 (1998): 328–31.
3. Hu Shih, ‘When Can We Have a Constitution’, CW, 5 (1998): 534–9.
4. Hu Shih, ‘Letters during the Trip to Europe’, CW, 4 (1998): 41–50.
5. Confucius, The Book of Rites (Li Ji), chapter Li Yun (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; bilingual edition, 2013), 101.
Chapter 19
1. Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), 166–7. Unspecified page references are to this work.
2. Hannah Arendt, ‘On Violence’, in Crises of The Republic (New York: Harvest/HBJ, 1972), 143.
3. Ibid ., 143.
4. Robert Palmer, The Age of Democratic Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 223. See On Revolution, 299.
5. On Revolution, 136, fn. 9, 289–90.
6. Palmer, The Age of Democratic Revolution, 190.
7. On Revolution, 157 (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. I, part 1, ch. 4 paragraph 11).
8. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), 200.
9. Ibid., 50.
10. Hannah Arendt, ‘What is Freedom?’ in Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 145.
11. Ibid., 149.
12. Ibid., 149.
13. Ibid., 151.
Chapter 20
1. F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge, [1960] 2006), 33–5.
2. ‘Was Socialism a Mistake?’ in The Fatal Conceit. The Errors of Socialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 7.
3. See F. A. Hayek, ‘Freedom, Reason, and Tradition’ (Chapter 4) and ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’, in The Constitution of Liberty.
4. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 19. Here and in what follows, I use the term ‘ideology’ in its most general, unbiased sense, to denote a set of ideas and beliefs which form the basis of a specific discourse or theory on the proper order of society and how it can be achieved. See Robert S. Erikson and Kent L. Tedin, American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact, 8th edn (New York: Pearson, 2003), 64.
5. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 19.
6. Hayek understands the notion of law in the (Kantian) Rechtsstaat tradition. See F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1944] 1962), Chapter 6.
7. See Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 120.
8. F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 37. Hayek here explicitly recaptures Adam Smith’s famous intuition of an ‘invisible hand’ by which man is led ‘to promote an end which was no part of his intentions’. See A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. E. Cannan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 1: 421.
9. F. A. Hayek, ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, American Economic Review XXXV, no. 4 (September 1945): 519.
10. Ibid.
11. Hayek, The Pretence of Knowledge, Nobel Prize Lecture, 11 December 1974.
12. Even if they are circumscribed by good rules, markets are not perfect in Hayek’s view. There will inevitably be waste and failure in the system, as the latter evolves through a mechanism of trial and error. Many will gain but some will lose, even catastrophically.
13. http://www.santafe.edu/about/mission-and-vision/
14. F. A. Hayek, The Intellectuals and Socialism (Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies, 1971).
15. See Bruce Caldwell, ‘Some Reflections on F. A. Hayek’s The Sensory Order’, Journal of Bioeconomics 6 (2004): 1–16.
16. F. Hayek, ‘The Theory of Complex Phenomena’, in Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1964] 1967), 22–42.
17. Though I can only mention it in passing, it is worth adding that Hayek is recognized today as an early neural network modeller, and that the theory of complex phenomena that informs his account of society also informs his analysis of the human mind (which he describes as decentralized in a complex network). See F. Hayek, The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), and ‘Rules, Perception, and Intelligibility’, in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1962] 1967), 43–65.
Chapter 21
1. In this chapter, Japanese personal names are given in Japanese order: family name first.
2. Masao Maruyama, ‘Theory and Psychology of Ultra-Nationalism’, in Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics, ed. Ivan Morris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, expanded edition, 1969), 3– 6.
3. Maruyama, Studies in the Intellectual History of Tokugawa Japan, trans. Mikiso Hane (Princeton: Princeton University Press/University of Tokyo Press, 1974).
4. Maruyama, ‘Les intellectuels dans le Japon moderne’, trans. Jacques Joly, in Yves-Marie Allioux, ed., Cent ans de pensée au Japon, t.2 (Paris: Éditions Philippe Piquier, 1996). The essay was originally commissioned by Sartre for a special issue of Les Temps Modernes (February 1969), but not completed in time because of the turmoil of university life caused by the student revolt.
5. Maruyama, ‘Fascism – Some Problems: A Consideration of its Political Dynamics’, in Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics, 157–9.
Chapter 22
1. Isaiah Berlin, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Liberty, ed. Henry Hardy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 169, 178, 179, 181, 213–14, 216. The in-text references in this chapter are to this edition.
2. G. A. Cohen, ‘Freedom and Money’, in Contemporary Debates in Social Philosophy, ed. Laurence Thomas (Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 19.
3. See, for example, the contrasting essays by James Tully and George Crowder in Bruce Baum and Robert Nichols, eds, Isaiah Berlin and the Politics of Freedom: ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ 50 Years Later (New York and London: Routledge, 2013).
4. ‘Epilogue: The Three Strands in My Life’, in Personal Impressions, 3rd edition, ed. Henry Hardy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014).
5. See Shlomo Avineri, ‘A Jew and a Gentleman’, in The One and the Many: Reading Isaiah Berlin, ed. George Crowder and Henry Hardy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press, 2007); and Arie Dubnov, Isaiah Berlin: The Journey of a Jewish Liberal (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2012).
6. Berlin’s most substantial discussions of Rousseau can be found in Freedom and its Betrayal and Political Ideas in the Romantic Age, 2nd edition, ed. Henry Hardy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2014).
7. Berlin later expressed regret at having seemed to be rejecting positive liberty: see Steven Lukes, ‘Isaiah Berlin: In Conversation’, Salmagundi (Fall 1998): 93; and Isaiah Berlin and Beata Polonowska-Sygulska, Unfinished Dialogue (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press), 120.
8. For other significant treatments of value pluralism by Berlin, see ‘The Pursuit of the Ideal’, in The Crooked Timber of Humanity, 2nd edition, ed. Henry Hardy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013); and ‘My Intellectual Path’, in The Power of Ideas, second edition, ed. Henry Hardy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013).
9. See, for example, Liberty, 42, 27; ‘The Pursuit of the Ideal’, 17–20.
10. Quentin Skinner, ‘A Third Concept of Liberty’ (The Isaiah Berlin Lecture), Proceedings of the British Academy 117 (2002): 237–68; Philip Pettit, Republicanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
11. John Kekes, Against Liberalism (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997), Chapter 8; John Gray, Isaiah Berlin, with a new Introduction by the author (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013).
12. George Crowder, Liberalism and Value Pluralism (London: Continuum, 2002); William Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Chapter 23
1. Czesław Miłosz, The Captive Mind, trans. Jane Zielonko (New York: Vintage International Edition, 1990 [1951]), 220.
2. Czesław Miłosz, Visions from San Francisco Bay, trans. Richard Lourie (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1982 [1969]), 181.
3. Ibid., 218.
4. ‘What I learned from Jeanne Hersch, 2000’, in Czesław Miłosz, Selected and Last Poems (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2011), 248–9.
5. The Captive Mind, 250.
6. Trans. Richard Lourie: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/49482
7. Visions from San Francisco Bay, 118–19.
8. Ibid., 154–5.
9. See, for example, his 2002 poem, ‘A Theological Treatise’: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/30866
10. Visions from San Francisco Bay, 224.
11. Ibid., 224.
12. Ibid., 221.
13. Ibid., 33.
14. Trans. Czesław Miłosz and Leonard Nathan, ibid., 345.
15. The Captive Mind, 248–9.
16. Czesław Miłosz, Native Realm. A Search for Self-definition, trans. C. S. Leach (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981), 293–4.
Chapter 24
1. John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005),36–8.