, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 375–391 | Cite as

Liberalism? Forget it

  • Alexey AlyushinEmail author
Original Paper


There is widespread opinion that, notwithstanding deviations, the political life of humanity on a large scale is on the path of progress, and humans are becoming freer and more enlightened with time. I am going to contend with this opinion, namely, with a part of it telling that the prevailing mass of the people strives to achieve more freedom and enlightenment. On the opposite, freedom, individual independence, and political rights (not to be confused with social rights, such as state care and protection) are of minor importance to the mass. The ideology of liberalism in its classical form, as created by John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and others, yields to the pressure of the ideology of state paternalism. The pressure comes not only from above (that is, from authorities); the people also welcome more paternalism. They appear not to value their individual freedom and independence, and they are inclined to give them up voluntarily to some mighty organization such as the state in exchange for care, protection and leadership. Liberalism has played an important role in the development of human civilization and the formation of the Western world, but new ideologies and political practices are pushing it out of people’s minds. For the author, as adherent of classical liberalism, this is unfortunate. However, I wish to treat this issue realistically, even if the facts conflict with my own convictions and desires.


Classical liberalism State paternalism Human nature Islamic spring Clash of cultures Refugees 


  1. Badamchi M (2015) Political liberalism for post-Islamist, Muslim-majority societies. Philos Soc Crit 41(7):679–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barre EA (2009) Within reason: the Epistemic foundations of Catholic and Muslim Arguments for Political Liberalism. J Soc Christ Ethics 29(1):219–241Google Scholar
  3. Bisley N (2012) Great powers in the changing international order. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  4. Boettke P (2014) Fearing freedom: the intellectual and spiritual challenge to liberalism. Indep Rev 18(3):343–358Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan J (2005) Afraid to be free: dependency as desideratum. Public Choice 124:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke E (2002) Reflections on the revolution in France. Palladium Press, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  7. Chebankova E (2014) Contemporary Russian liberalism. Post-Sov Aff 30(5):341–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Tocqueville A (2000) ([1835] Democracy in America. Hackett, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin G (2005) Moral paternalism. Law Philos 24:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erich F (1994) [1941] Escape from freedom. Holt, N-YGoogle Scholar
  11. Etzioni A (2013) The bankruptcy of liberalism and conservatism. Political Sci Q 128(1):39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farer T (2014) The clash of cultures, the tension within liberalism, and the proper limits of tolerance. Human Rights Q 36:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feinberg J (1986) Harm to self. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray J (1995) [1986] Liberalism, 2nd edn. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  15. Kant I (1988a) [1784] An answer to the question: what is enlightenment? In: Kant I (ed) Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history, and morals. Hackett, Indianapolis, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  16. Kant I (1988b) Beantwortung der Frage: was ist Aufklärung? In: Kant I (ed) Rechtslehre. Schriften zur Rechtsphilosophie. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp 213–222Google Scholar
  17. Kant I (1988c) [1793] On the proverb: that may be true in theory, however, is of no practical use. In: Kant I (ed) Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history, and morals. Hackett, Indianapolis, pp 61–92Google Scholar
  18. Locke J (2003) [1690] Two Treatises of Government. In: Locke J (ed) Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 1–211Google Scholar
  19. Mayall J, de Oliveira RS (eds) (2011) The new protectorates: international tutelage and the making of liberal states. C. Hurst & Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Mill JS (1991) [1910] [On] Liberty. In: Mill JS (ed) Utilitarianism. Liberty. Representative Government. Dent and Sons, London, pp 69–185Google Scholar
  21. Morgan M (2013) Liberalism in crisis: a collapsing world order. Millenn J Int Stud 42(1):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pedersen SK, Koch AK, Nafziger J (2014) Who wants paternalism? Bull Econ Res 66(S1):147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Simons A, McGraw J, Lauchengco D (2011) The sovereignty solution: a commonsense approach to global security. Naval Institute Press, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  25. Sleat M (2013) Coercing non-liberal persons: considerations on a more realistic Liberalism. Eur J Political Theory 12(4):347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sorensen G (2011) A liberal order in crisis: choosing between imposition and restraint. Cornell University Press, IthacaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sunstein Cass R (2014) Choosing not to choose. Duke Law J 64(1):2–52Google Scholar
  28. Van De Veer D (1986) Paternalistic intervention. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waldron J (2002) God, Locke, and equality Christian foundations of John Locke’s political thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. White D (2013) Liberalism in Crisis? Khodorkovsky revisited. Stud Transi States Soc 5(1):69–84Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyNational Research University “Higher School of Economics”MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations