Liberal Republicanism

In this article I defend a broadly Rawlsian interpretation of citizenship which combines both liberal and republican themes to provide an account of citizenship which is more appropriate for modern democracies than alternative interpretations, such as that offered by communitarian critics of political liberalism. Liberal republicanism, I argue, gives a convincing interpretation of the nature and value of citizenship and provides the basis for a radical political agenda.     

Liberal Interventionism

David Lipsey analyses the arguments made by former Labour prime minister Tony Blair in his Chicago speeches for armed liberal intervention in states which are abusing the human rights of their citizens. He traces these arguments back to previous advocates of such intervention such as W. E. Gladstone and Woodrow Wilson. The arguments of Blair and advocates are often compelling in principle. However, in most cases—Iraq and Libya are examples—the practical consequences of military action turn out to be disastrous. Though opposing pacifism, and the ill‐thought‐out hostility to all things military of Labour's current leader Jeremy Corbyn, Lipsey's advice to those thinking of intervening is: don't.     

Sanctioning Liberal Democracies

This article examines when economic sanctions should be imposed on liberal democracies that violate democratic norms. The argument is made from the social-liberal standpoint, which recognises the moral status of political communities. While social liberals rarely refer to the use of economic sanctions as a pressure tool, by examining why they restrict military intervention and economic aid to cases of massive human rights violations or acute humanitarian need, the article is able to show why they are likely to impose strong restrictions on the use of economic sanctions as well. After reconstructing the social-liberal case against economic sanctions, the article develops the argument that liberal democracies have reasons to support sanctions on other liberal democracies, even when they perpetrate injustices on a smaller scale. Liberal democracies share especially strong ideological, cultural and institutional bonds, and these peer group relations open them to mutual influence. When one liberal democracy commits serious injustices while still proclaiming allegiance to the democratic ethos, it can adversely affect the vitality of the democratic culture in those other liberal democracies with which it maintains close relations. Other liberal democracies therefore have the right and the obligation to condemn this behaviour, in order to preserve their allegiance to their values. The article defends the use of economic sanctions in light of some recent critiques, and concludes by providing an overall assessment of the factors which liberal democracies ought to take into account when they consider imposing economic sanctions on other liberal democracies.     

Liberal government and authoritarianism

This paper examines the intelligibility of authoritarian measures within Foucauldian analyses of the liberal government of the state. Such measures are understood as following from a liberal understanding of the task of government itself. This understanding rests on a distinction between the legal and political order (of 'the state') and a 'liberal police' of what is exterior to it, classically conceived as 'civil society'. The relation between these two aspects is conceived as a series of 'foldings' between the two sides of a liberal governing, which turn the injunction to govern through freedom into a set of binding obligations potentially or actually enforceable by coercive or sovereign instruments. The paper places this perspective within aspects of the genealogies of economy, poverty, welfare and police and discusses the trajectories of such foldings in the present.     

Analysing the Liberal Democrats

This article sets the scene for those that follow. It picks out the main themes of each, arguing that the Liberal Democrats could benefit from considering the issues around policy and the nature of political power that arise from the articles. It also argues that debates over relations with other parties are likely to be central to Liberal Democrat politics in the foreseeable future.     

Liberal Versus Conservative Stinks

In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern in Academic Questions 18(1): 40–52, 2005a; Klein and Western in Academic Questions 18(1): 53–65, 2005). Here, we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty. We, then, turn to their self-identification “liberal vs. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly democratic voters, mostly with views that may called establishment-left, progressive, or status-quo oriented, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. We commence the article with a criticism of the “liberal versus conservative” framework because it is the source of much of the confusion surrounding controversies such as the one over the ideological profile of faculty.     

The Scottish Liberal Democrats

As the junior members of the two Scottish coalition or partnership governments (1999–2003 and 2003–7), the Liberal Democrats have had a major impact on post-devolution public policy in Scotland. Contrary to expectations, their participation as junior partners in a coalition government has enhanced rather than damaged their electoral prospects. The party's success in coalition reflects the electoral and policy compatibilities between them and Labour, the availability of increased public spending to fund their demands, their use of specific policy agreements and effective election campaign tactics. Under their new leader, Nicol Stephen, they have sought greater distance from Labour and located themselves between Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party. Looking forward to the 2007 election, the declining Labour vote and probable SNP gains mean that the Liberal Democrats are likely this time to have a choice between joining a Labour-led or forming a non-Labour coalition.     

Liberal reformism and democratic citizenship

Although not its sole dimension, the idea of equality of rights and resources is one of the basic tenets of liberalism. Liberal equality introduces a reformist thrift in government by determining that government action should aim to create opportunities for the realization of the civil condition. This is a legal and political condition, thereby citizens enjoy a statute of equal rights. Hence, the liberal idea of reformism proceeds by removing the obstacles to the realization of the civil condition and by providing the legal and the material resources for the exercise of citizenship rights. This interpretation is not self‐evident, especially in times when neoliberalism seems to represent the entire liberal tradition. I shall argue that liberal reformism makes up a vital foundation for democracy. Even more, the own survival of democracy in our times depends on its rooting in liberalism.     

Liberal Justification: A Typology

Contemporary liberalism exhibits a broad agreement among its proponents as to its content but widespread disagreement on what fundamental values justify its principles. This paper provides a typology of ways in which liberals approach the task of justifying liberalism. It sets out a four-fold typology for categorising different liberal theories by distinguishing between the various reasons why liberals reject or accept neutrality. Such a typology is helpful in showing exactly how and where liberal theories differ in their approaches to the issues of justification, neutrality and pluralism, and in showing where their strengths and weaknesses lie.     

Liberal Nationalism and Cultural Rights

Liberal nationalists such as Yael Tamir and Will Kymlicka have argued for an extravagant range of cultural rights based on respect for individual autonomy. I present an alternative account of the moral import of liberal autonomy for the status of cultural minorities. The article examines three pivotal aspects of Tamir's argument for cultural rights and argues that, in each case, Tamir's position fails to honour the value of individual autonomy, and in ways parallel to Kymlicka's argument. These shared difficulties point to some basic ontological and moral properties of a genuine autonomy-based defence of cultural rights.     

Liberal collectivism and national economic policy

The subtlety of contemporary philosophical reflection, proclaimed and magisterially displayed in Gillian Rose's The Broken Middle, is an effect of postmodern challenge, rather than inner tendency of modern thought; above all, this applies to the acceptance of inherent ambiguity of ‘:the middle’ - the space where possibility is recast into actuality, and hence of the infinity of philosophy's task. ‘The middle’, though already structured by the law (the ethical codification of morality), was through modern times the locale of moral solitude: what was determined was inescapability of choice. ‘The middle’ has been ‘broken’ - a site of freedom/ unfreedom, uncertainty/determination - from the start, yet the recognition of its nature has been hard earned mostly through the experience of persons/ categories refused or refusing ‘assimilation’ into the Law modernity stood for; what is called ‘postmodern condition’ is the universalization of that experience. Universalized, this experience is increasingly wary of the two most tried modern attempts to ‘repair’ ‘the middle’ - through the ‘general will’ or through the escape into privatized self.     

The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is liberalized democracy: that is, democracy defined and structured within the limits set by liberalism. The paper outlines the constitutive features of liberalism and shows how they determined the form and content of democracy and gave rise to liberal democracy as we know it today. It then goes on to argue that liberal democracy is specific to a particular cultural context and cannot claim universal validity. This, however, does not lead to cultural relativism as it is possible to formulate universal principles that every good government should respect. The paper offers one way of reconciling universalism and cultural diversity.     

Open Immigration Policies and Liberal Discomfort

Consequentialist cosmopolitanism, Peter Higgins argues, enables closed border liberals to evade charges of moral hypocrisy despite their commitment to moral equality of individuals, once we recognize that open border arguments rely on cosmopolitanism’s individualism requirement, which ignores social realities relevant to a realistic assessment of the social consequences of an open immigration policy. Higgins is mistaken, however, in contending that cosmopolitan individualism entails attention to people only in their capacity as the abstract atomic individuals populating Charles Mills’ idealized social ontologies. Conversely, if cosmopolitan individualism does compel us to think of people as abstract atomic individuals, we are not obliged to think of them as relatively privileged. Under liberal cosmopolitanism, however, which prohibits state discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, open border policies are subject to no such consequentialist objections.

The Liberal Rationale of 'Rational Socialism'

This article draws attention to the ideas of an unduly neglected Belgian thinker, Hippolyte Colins. From the 1830s, Colins addressed many issues in the political theory of property, especially problems of interpersonal, intergenerational and inter-societal justice. His ideas are discussed in the first section. A critical examination of his arguments about justified property regimes enables contemporary disputes (notably in the work of Nozick and Steiner) to be placed in a fresh perspective, offered in the second section. This locates the difficulty of distinguishing between liberal and socialist commitments to particular property systems.