Liber­alism is dead, long live Liberalism!

Over the last 200 years, Liber­alism has been a stunning success story. It brought forward liberty and prosperity for the many instead of privi­leges for the few. Yet, today liberal thinking and politics are under siege. To regain public support, they need a profound update, offering liberal answers to the major challenges our societies are facing: global­ization and digital revolution, climate change and global migration, growing inequality and fear of the future.

Liber­alism is in trouble. Antiliberal counter-movements are afoot around the globe. Author­i­tarian populists are seizing power in more and more countries. Deep-seated antiliberal tradi­tions in Germany exist at both ends of the political spectrum. When Christian Lindner, leader of the German liberal party FDP, speaks of political Liber­alism, it sounds as if he were talking about a defiant little minority; when others speak of his party, it’s as the German songwriter Franz Josef Degen­hardt once said: Don’t play with the dirty kids, don’t sing their songs.

Yet we owe Liber­alism much of our modern achieve­ments: inalienable human rights, the right to individual self-deter­mi­nation, as well as the founda­tions of our democ­ratic republic: government by and for the people, free elections, rule of law, protection of minorities, an independent judiciary, freedom of the press, and a dynamic economy based on entre­pre­neurship, compe­tition, and open markets.

The combi­nation of liberal political systems and capitalist market economies has afforded us a hitherto unknown degree of assurance of justice, individual liberties, and prosperity. By the light of day, Liber­alism is a historic success story. How did it manage to fall into disrepute?

People are quick to point to neolib­er­alism. Even though it stems from very different historical roots, it is often equated with market radicalism today. Its mantra of dereg­u­lation, priva­ti­zation, and rigid budgeting has indeed weakened public insti­tu­tions. Dereg­u­lation of financial markets brought about the deep crisis of 2007/​2008, discred­iting global­ization. The growing low-wage sector, precarious work arrange­ments, a crass disparity of wealth, and organized tax avoidance by inter­na­tional corpo­ra­tions have created a constant ambient noise that is buzzing with a notion of injustice. Liber­alism seems to turn a blind eye to the social question. It sides with the successful rather than with those who struggle. It is no coinci­dence that the FDP is still strug­gling with its self-proclaimed label of being the “party of high-income earners”.

The liberal camp – I’m using this term in its European tradition, which is different from the specific meaning of “liberal” in the US — also offers few convincing solutions concerning the threat to the ecosystems on which our human civilization depends – climate, soils, oceans. While their caveats of an ecological nanny state are legit­imate, Liberals discredit themselves when they downplay the urgency of ecological transition. Liber­alism has yet to write a playbook for an ecological policy that recon­ciles climate protection with a dynamic market economy, sustainable economic growth, and diversity of lifestyles.

Liberal voids

There are deeper reasons why liberal politics is on the defensive. Classic Liber­alism eschews the question how to maintain social cohesion beyond the invisible hand of the market. To many Liberals, catch­words such as solidarity or community have a suspi­cious collec­tivist ring to them, as does the notion of an omnipresent welfare state. They consider redis­tri­b­ution the work of the devil; a violation of the unadul­terated tenets of market economy.

The avant-gardes of liberal thought delib­er­ately decline to make grand future projec­tions. Their objective is to keep the future open – it will emerge from the free play of the forces at work, from the sum of individual decisions made by a myriad of actors. Liberal politics is all about trial and error, reform rather than revolution, quiet doubt rather than vocif­erous certainty, compe­tition for the best solution rather than proclaiming grand ideas about how the future is to be arranged. This is wise and humane. Sheer pragmatism, however, falls short. In times of growing uncer­tainty, a solid concept for the future is essential: Who do people trust to best master the challenges of global­ization and digital revolution, climate change, and global migration?

Populists from the left and right are stirring strong emotions. Fear, hatred, pride, nation­alism — making the champions of liberal democracy look a little bland in comparison. While “consti­tu­tional patri­otism” is a good idea, it remains an abstract construct. The democ­ratic republic is more than the sum of its insti­tu­tions. It relies on joint action by its citizens, on negoti­ating common goals. That won’t work without a notion of what we want for our future. Anxiety about the future is the mental sound­board of author­i­tarians. We need confi­dence that we can create a better future rather than dread it as a doomed fate that will inevitably roll over us.

In a time of turbulent change, we feel an increased need for security and solidarity, for finding assurance in our community. Nation­alists promise social and emotional security by retreating into the confines of our national state and national community as a bulwark against the storms that are raging outside. Liber­alism will only be able to emerge from its defensive corner if we can respond to this conser­v­ative need for security and identity and formulate liberal answers to these needs. When Emanuel Macron speaks of a “Europe that protects”, he is hitting a nerve.

Security in a changing world

Economic global­ization needs to be embedded in a social and ecological framework. Global migration needs to be regulated. Openness towards techno­logical innovation needs a minimum of individual ability to keep pace with new technologies as well as a minimum of social security to cushion the fallout from disruptive trans­for­mation. The mother of all liberties is freedom from fear. Those who live in fear of social failure are not free. Real-life freedom also means to be able to move about the public space unafraid. Those who neglect public safety and order are tilling the ground for author­i­tarian populists.

It is not enough to keep invoking our love of freedom and a defense of liberal values. Modern liber­alism must bridge seeming dichotomies: between freedom and safety, individ­u­ality and solidarity, diversity and identity, cosmopoli­tanism and patri­otism, economic dynamics and ecological respon­si­bility. It must shed its habit of simply pitting ‘the market’ versus ‘the state’ and recognize and appre­ciate the impor­tance of public insti­tu­tions in upholding equal liberty for all.

Markets rely on prereq­ui­sites they cannot generate on their own: an assurance of justice, social peace, protection of the natural resources that assure our livelihood, a functional set of rules governing compe­tition, a strong science and educa­tional system, a modern infra­structure. None of this is free. The slogan “smaller government is better” is just as misleading as its opposite.

In a nutshell: We need a contem­porary renewal of Liber­alism that offers both liberty and security. We must deliver on the liberal promise of equal oppor­tunity and upward social mobility develop a new notion of progress that is more than just a contin­u­ation of the status quo. Our confi­dence that liberal democracy is and shall remain the more successful, more innov­ative, and more just system is in peril. Now is the time to deliver.

The German version of this essay was published by the “WELT”, Nov. 1, 2018