The Undoing of Liberalism

Throughout history, since the dawn of nationalism, the form of Government most often appealed to in the West has been Liberalism. Other movements have tried to take hold with varying degrees of success, such as Autocracy, Marxism-Leninism, Anarchism, Fascism, National Socialism, to name a few, but none have experienced the runaway success found within the wider Liberal sphere. After the military defeat of Fascism, Monarchism, Autocracy and National Socialism through the combined efforts of the Liberal sphere and the Marxist-Leninist sphere, and the eventual collapse of the Marxist-Leninist sphere itself, it has become extremely fashionable to presume that Liberalism is the endgame; the inevitable result of societal development and a common human yearning for liberty—what exactly those liberties are is neither defined nor apparently important. Much has been written about the flaws in this thinking by better authors than myself, so I will instead engage with Liberalism on its own terms, specifically the rationalist approach to society.

Every form of government throughout human history has needed several important pillars, whether it is the legitimacy of the Church in crowning the monarch, to the Mandate of Heaven, to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or the Consent of the Governed. All systems, however, have one thing in common: the extent of permissible political action. A European monarch would not allow conspirators to undermine his authority by birthright and the Church, and the Marxist vanguard party coordinates permissible belief through a Politburo. Anyone in those societies has a choice: either follow the rules and be left alone—unless a tyrant is in charge, which is self-evident as the very definition of tyranny—or operate outside of and against the system. Both types of people understand their place in society. The follower accepts his role just as the dissident accepts his. Enforcers existed in such systems, like the NKVD in the USSR, the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, the Okhrana in Tsarist Russia, or the officer corps in Kemalist Turkey. However, there is one system where this line is blurred to the point of near-invisibility: Liberalism. Liberalism at its core allows and even encourages dissident behavior, partly for practical reasons so as to avoid political stagnation, but also out of principle to the core belief of Liberalism. Whether someone is a protestor, a member of an opposition party in parliament, or just a journalist who criticizes the authorities, Liberalism enshrines those liberties for all its citizens. It is precisely here where Liberalism is at its weakest and begins to fail.

With few exceptions, most liberal states exist in relative tranquility with opposition flowing in and out of power, depending on the mood of the electorate. Most parties within liberal countries, whether they are social-democrat, Christian-democrat, market liberals, national conservatives, libertarian, agrarian, or some other party, exist within the very broad spectrum of liberal belief. While this provides unprecedented stability among populations who adhere to Liberalism, if the mood of the electorate changes to more radical beliefs, Liberalism has few guards against it. One may look at the success of the Demokrat Party in Turkey, the NSDAP in Germany, and many more historical examples to see what happens when the electorate discards the very principles of Liberalism itself. Unlike other forms of government, Liberalism has no legal authority to suppress dissidents who use the legal systems in place to overthrow the liberal system itself. To do so, of course, would violate the principles of Liberalism, but not to do so would allow the system to be destroyed. It is therefore my belief that all liberal states eventually cease to be liberal, whether through betrayal of their own principles, or self-destruction at the hands of a radicalized electorate.

In the first possibility, a liberal state that sees a rise in radicalism and suppresses it in some manner inherently contradicts its own principles. Cracking down on dissent implicitly creates a window of acceptable thought, not unlike the Politburo of the USSR deciding what the "correct" interpretation of Marxism-Leninism shall be. This has two effects: the first being discord among the electorate who—justly so—see the rights of others being trampled, and begin to fear for their own liberties. When this happens, the electorate begins to sympathize more with illiberal radicals, for having heard among their liberal upbringing that "free speech" and "right of assembly" are sacred, wonder if their own government no longer cares for such notions. To put it bluntly, the harder a state cracks down on illiberal movements and people, the more sympathy their cause receives, especially if the illiberal actors are addressing legitimate grievances that the liberal government refuses to fix or acknowledge. The second effect is the gradual narrowing of the so-called "Overton Window" of acceptable discourse, morphing otherwise liberal states into bizarre pseudo-autocracies that preach about freedom but only allow a narrow view of what freedom means. Thus, liberalism dies by its own hand. A modern example of this process is Canada.

The second possibility is the eventual fate of those who adhere more strongly to their principles of Liberalism. If an illiberal element gains enough power, they may use the legal authority vested in the liberal system itself to rewrite the laws into a new form of government. The most dramatic example of this is the ascension of the NSDAP in Germany in 1932, forming a coalition of the willing to end the Weimar experiment with Liberalism and install a new form of government that was National Socialist. The existing authorities in Weimar Germany were so stringent in adhering to the principles of Liberalism that they were unable or unwilling to crush dissent, since doing so would lead them back to the first possibility discussed earlier. While this may seem far-fetched, most of the electorate of any given state are usually not firmly committed to Liberalism any more than Soviet citizens were committed to Marxism-Leninism. The existing system that provides peace, stability and security will remain in place until it is unable to do so. When a Liberal government ceases to achieve this, illiberal though reigns among the electorate, as they are the only parties addressing the common needs. Again, we see Liberalism die for lack of a control measure to keep threatening dissidents away from power.

Time will tell.