Should we expect our political leaders to be great and good?

 

I am writing this during an election campaign in Australia. By international standards, both chief contenders for public office could be aptly described as neither conspicuously great nor notoriously bad.

However, over the last three years, Australians have experienced the worst government that I can remember. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the political alternative on offer would have been much better.

During the current election campaign, both chief contenders for national leadership have seemed oblivious to the decline in productivity growth that caused the good times to stop rolling on in this country. It has apparently not registered with them that vote-buying spending proposals are less appropriate under such circumstances than economic reforms to restore productivity growth. Moreover, the election campaign is being conducted as though nothing that has happened recently in the international economic and political environment might require Australians to prepare for difficult times ahead.

Fortunately, the question that I have posed above does not require me to consider which of the contenders for national leadership is most worthy of being prime minister of Australia.

Before I go any further, however, I should outline my (somewhat complicated) view of party politics in liberal democracies. I have yet to see a system of government that is better than the two-party system at enabling voters to hold governments accountable for their actions. One of the downsides of that system, however, is that it provides a strong incentive for political parties to reward team players who are willing to set aside their own views to support a party line. The insincerity that is often on display in the public performance of politicians makes it is difficult to avoid regarding politics as a disreputable profession. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that democratic political systems sometimes produce leaders who are highly principled and effective in enhancing opportunities for human flourishing.  

Should we expect our political leaders to be great and good? That question has arisen from previous research that I have undertaken about the roles of culture, ideology, and political entrepreneurship as factors influencing levels of economic and personal freedom in different countries. I will briefly outline some points emerging from that research before discussing Robert Faulkner’s book, The Case for Greatness: Honorable Ambition and its Critics (2007).

Points emerging from previous research

• Cultural values do not fully explain levels of economic and personal freedom in different countries. Suppression of liberty in countries with relatively low levels of economic and personal freedom, e.g. China, Iran and Venezuela, is a product of the ideologies of the governments concerned rather than the cultural values of the peoples. Similarly, a substantial number of countries with relatively high personal and economic freedom are performing better in that regard than can readily be explained on the basis of prevailing cultural values.
• It is not difficult to identify political entrepreneurs who have historically been major players determining outcomes in many jurisdictions where economic and personal freedom seems substantially at variance with underlying cultural values. There are good reasons for that. Media coverage tends to focus on political leaders, the challenges they face and the policies they adopt.
• Douglas North saw political entrepreneurship as being required to overcome high transactions costs involved in changing institutions – the rules of the game of society. There are high transactions costs associated with institutional change because institutions are path dependent, e.g. embedded in culture.
• Political entrepreneurship takes place within culture and is concerned with interpreting and influencing culture as well as formal rules (constitutions, laws and regulations). Some research suggests that successful political entrepreneurs tend to advance their ambitions by focusing on niches in the marketplace of ideas that established parties do not satisfy. They win support by emphasizing the problem-solving capacities of their ideas.
• Max Weber argued that charismatic and demagogic leadership may be required to overcome the impersonal forces of bureaucratization within democracies. Demagogic leaders are responsible for their cause, and thus capable of intentionally and rationally directing state power towards its achievement.  
• Weber suggested that demagogic leadership can be consistent with democracy, but he seems to have left aside the question of whether a demagogic leader can be both good and great.

The essays from which those points were abstracted can be found here and here.

 The Case for Greatness

 In making the case for greatness Robert Faulkner observes that thoughtful citizens and appreciative historians have no difficulty in acknowledging the greatness of people like George Washington, Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela. By contrast, many of those who generalize about human affairs display a doubting cynicism about such greatness. He notes that “social scientists speak much of rational maximizing, power seeking, self-interest, and popular voice, but not much of extraordinary judiciousness, honorable aims, and knowing justice” and that “influential professors of philosophy and literature talk confidently of autonomy and equal dignity, while deprecating ambition for office and accomplishment as elitist domineering or a remnant of repressive culture”.

The author’s key contention is that the accounts of political greatness by Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon “illuminate our experiences of a Mandela or a Margaret Thatcher far better than the critical and doctrinal theorizing that is more familiar and has been in the works for three or four centuries”.

 The book begins by considering Aristotle’s account of an honorable and just form of grand ambition. It then considers the political dangers and psychological dynamics of the less bounded and less just forms of ambition, using Alcibiades and Cyrus as examples of individuals who seek to rule empires. That is followed by a chapter discussing George Washington as an example of a gentleman-statesman. Along the way, the author notes the role of Niccolo Machiavelli in turning the orientation of much thinking about human affairs from what men should do “from duty and the best life” to what men do to advance themselves and their followers in wealth and power. The final chapters discuss modern theories that obscure the moral-political phenomenon of political greatness and make it “peculiarly alien to our apprehension and sensibilities”. One of the final chapters is devoted to discussion of the egalitarian theories of John Rawls and Hannah Arendt. The other discusses the theories of Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.

In what follows, I focus mainly on what the author has to say about Aristotle. Readers who are looking for a more comprehensive summary of The Case for Greatness should read the review by Paul A. Rahe.

Faulkner observes that Aristotle ranks greatness of soul as the "crown" needed to perfect all the virtues, including justice. He writes:

 “Aristotle does not mince words on this topic, and neither should we. No greatness without goodness, yes, but also no true goodness without greatness. The great-souled human being, in claiming a worthy stage, claims for human excellence the prominence and tasks it deserves. Accordingly, while greatness of soul "cannot exist without" such other virtues as moderation and justice, it also "enhances their goodness." A man of such virtue is too noble to stoop, or to accept the second best, especially in his own conduct. Aristotle calls greatness of soul a kosmos. It is an ornament of good character that is also an exalting order: an ordering heightened by an awareness of the grand activities such a soul calls for and is owed.”

Aristotle views the great-souled man as having a disposition to claim great honours because he considers himself worthy of them. The great-souled man has a true estimate of his own worth. He claims tasks that no-one else can do, or do as well. The great-souled man disdains the offices commonly sought by other ambitious people; he seeks the tribute and high offices that are “great things.

Aristotle equates greatness of the soul with magnanimity - which he also equates with excellence and justice. However, the great-souled man’s disposition is complicated because he seeks great positions and honours from others as well as virtue of soul for himself. Aristotle suggests that the great-souled man holds that nothing is greater than his own virtue and seems to regard any honour as less than what is due a soul of such worth.

The great-souled man’s desire for superiority may harbour a despotic impulse, but his virtue gives this impulse something of an honorable and just direction. Faulkner writes:

“It is the priority of virtue and honor, so understood, that largely distinguishes Aristotelian greatness of soul and a Washington.”

Later, he explains more fully:

“Knowledge of his virtue helps uphold the great man amidst changing fortune. Unlike Machiavelli's great man, his measure is not ambitious mastery of fortune, but living well amidst fortune's gifts and trials. It is after this purification of grand ambition that Aristotle sharply separates true pride from the all-too-common arrogance of the privileged. "In truth," "rightly," "justly," only the good should be honored.”

Faulkner concludes:

“Aristotle's diagnosis comes to this: the great-souled man is at once drawn above humanity and drawn to humanity. He exhibits his superiority by aiding his fellows, and yet his wish is less to aid them than to avoid being or appearing dependent on them.”

Faulkner suggests that while Nicomachean Ethics seems to imply that greatness of the soul is a desirable attribute of political leaders, Aristotle moderates that view in the Politics and Ethics. In Politics, he doesn’t forget the best man’s claims but presents them “only after defending at length the more common and political claimants to rule”. At one point he even praises “the decent and equitable man” over the great man. In Ethics, Aristotle suggests that greatness, especially great power, is overrated: “it is possible for one who is not a ruler of land and sea to perform noble action.”

Faulkner writes:

“Given the likelihood of war, the difficulties of preserving any regime, and the extreme rarity of the best regime, there will be opportunities enough for noble deeds, great things, and superiority over others. A great-souled man will have his opportunities; he will be often needed. But such a force, if a blind force, may also harm itself and those whom it would rule, including the most thoughtful. Whatever else Aristotle's Ethics and Politics may be, whatever the defects, his is surely a model effort to supply comprehensive light to the grandly ambitious and to those who depend on them.”

Faulkner ends his book with a discussion of Nietzsche, who “unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, trumpets an animus against ordinary people”. Faulkner’s final comment:

“Nietzsche's proposals and diagnoses alike invite us to look to more moderate accounts, whether in examples such as a Washington or in the historians and philosophers who took seriously what is good and true as well as what is strong and great. To encourage such looking is what this book is about.”

My assessment

I think Robert Faulkner has made a stronger case for goodness than greatness as a desirable attribute in political leaders. Greatness is required in times of crisis, but competence will suffice most of the time. It is important to recognize, however, that winning an election doesn’t make a person competent in dealing with public policy issues. People can acquire skills relevant to statecraft in a variety of different ways but, as in other professions, on-the-job experience seems indispensable to high-level performance.

The case that Faulkner makes for goodness leads to the question of what we mean by goodness as applied to political leaders. As I see it, there are two different aspects to this question.

The first concerns personal ethics. Should citizens expect the holders of high office in a democracy to conform to widely accepted norms of ethical behaviour? If we expect our sporting heroes to confirm to such norms in their off-field behavior, there is perhaps an even stronger case for the similar standards to be applied to politicians. Since politicians regularly ask voters to trust them to implement policies, it seems appropriate for voters to expect them to demonstrate trustworthiness in their personal behavior. (Of course, the personal ethics of candidates is only one of the matters that voters should consider, and other matters may well be more important in particular instances.)

The second aspect concerns confusion of soulcraft and statecraft. Soulcraft, the means by which individuals flourish and find fulfillment in life, is a matter that is best left for individuals to pursue in the manner they choose for themselves. Since self-direction is fundamental to individual flourishing, it is a mistake to believe that it can be advanced via government action to promote particular views of moral excellence. Aristotle may have had reason to believe that was possible in a polis in the ancient world, but it is certainly not possible in modern societies which are characterised by much greater diversity of cultural and religious influences.

Some Neo-Aristotelian philosophers have drawn a clear distinction between soulcraft and statecraft. In their book Norms of Liberty, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl imply that the main role of statecraft is to restore or construct a political/ legal order in which “it might be possible for different individuals to flourish and to do so in different ways (in different communities and cultures) without creating inherent ethical conflict in the overall structure of their social/ political context.” (p 83)

In my view, we should judge our political leaders to be very good if they can manage to move the political/legal order toward achieving that outcome.

What role does political entrepreneurship play in institutional change?

 

One of the reasons I quoted that passage by Douglass North is because it mentions political entrepreneurship. I went looking for a quote from North in Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance because I was particularly impressed by that book when I first read it about 30 years ago. (The quoted sentence appears on page 87.)

As defined by North, institutions are “the rules of the game of society” that shape human interaction. He argued that formal institutions—such as constitutions, laws, and regulations—make up only a small proportion of the sum of constraints that shape choices. Informal constraints include codes of conduct, norms of behavior, conventions, and customs. They may be internalized in personal values, rather than imposed by others.

North acknowledged that political entrepreneurship plays a role in institutional change. He doesn’t have much to say about political entrepreneurship, but his analysis implies that political entrepreneurs may play an important role in reducing transactions costs associated with institutional change.

Path dependence and institutional stickiness

The transactions costs of institutional change are high because of the path dependence of institutions. As institutions evolve, ideologies tend to evolve to support them. Organizations and interest groups that have grown up under existing institutions often have a stake in maintaining them.  

The most important point I had remembered from reading Institutions … is that countries with similar formal institutions – constitutions, property rights etc. – can have vastly different economic performance outcomes if informal institutions (cultural settings) are different. Governments and international agencies that have sought to transplant formal institutions to foreign countries have been slow to recognize that point.

The implications of path dependence have been further explored by Peter Boettke, Christopher Coyne, and Peter Leeson in “Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics”, Chapter 6 in Culture of Economic Action, ed. Laura E. Grube and Virgil Henry Storr (2015).  The authors contend that the ability of a new institutional arrangement to take hold when it has been transplanted depends on that institutions status in relations to indigenous agents in the previous time period. They suggest that institutional transplants are unlikely to stick if they are inconsistent with indigenously introduced endogenous institutions.

The analytical framework used by Boettke et al is also relevant to considering the challenges faced by endogenous political entrepreneurs in bringing about institutional change.

Entrepreneurship (political and economic)

As discussed recently on this blog, political entrepreneurship has characteristics that differ from economic entrepreneurship. I suggested that it might be reasonable to assume that political entrepreneurs are motivated largely by the satisfaction they obtain from constructing ideological narratives and selling them, and from exercising the political power required to implement policies.

Nevertheless, there are similarities between political and economic entrepreneurship that become apparent when economic entrepreneurship is considered in a cultural context. In his article, “The discovery and interpretation of profit opportunities and the Kirznerian entrepreneur”, reproduced as Chapter 3 of Culture and Economic Action (cited above), Don Lavoie writes:

“Entrepreneurship necessarily takes place within culture, it is utterly shaped by culture, and it fundamentally consists in interpreting and influencing culture.” (p. 50)

He suggests:

“entrepreneurship is the achievement not so much of the isolated maverick who finds objective profits others overlooked as of the culturally embedded participant who picks up the gist of a conversation.” (p. 51)

Later, he observes:

“Most acts of entrepreneurship are not like an isolated individual finding things on beaches; they require effort of the imagination, skillful judgements of future costs and revenue possibilities, and an ability to read the significance of complex social situations.”

In the following chapter of Culture and Economic Action, Virgil Henry Storr and Arielle John suggest that rather than viewing Lavoie’s contribution as a critique of Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship it is more appropriate to view it as a suggestion as to how that theory may be fruitfully amended. The amendments suggested by Lavoie seem to me to make the role of the economic entrepreneur seem similar in some respects to the role of a political entrepreneur.

Max Weber’s understanding of political entrepreneurship

Douglass North seems to have given minimal acknowledgement of Max Weber’s work as a social theorist, even though there was considerable overlap in their areas of interest.  Francesca Trivellato has noted that in one publication North does refer to Weber as a scholar of “the role of belief and values in shaping change”. Weber is, of course, most often remembered for his theory of the Protestant ethic but he also made other important contributions.

Weber’s writings on charismatic and demagogic leadership shed some light on the nature of political entrepreneurship in democracies. The following points summarize an article by Xavier Márquez, entitled “Max Weber, demagogy and charismatic representation”, published in the European Journal of Political Theory (2024).

• Weber argued that effective leaders must be able to fight for ‘causes’ beyond the narrow immediate interests of economic groups or party organisations and thus to struggle against the impersonal forces of bureaucratization (the subsumption of politics under bureaucratic and technical imperatives). Effective leaders must therefore have a charismatic form of authority – the only form of authority capable of overcoming the constraints of organisation, legality and tradition.
• The need to appeal to mass publics in modern democratizing societies selects for leaders who have a talent for mobilising large groups of people through rhetorical means. In the context of mass politics, charismatic authority manifests as demagogy. Weber thinks of the masses as unorganized and irrational and argues that even ‘democratically’ elected leadership is a form of ‘dictatorship which rests on the exploitation of the emotionality of the masses.
• Weber's praise for charismatic and demagogic leadership is tempered by the worry that political leaders must also be responsible. This is so in a twofold sense: objectively, a political system must be able to hold leaders accountable for their actions; and subjectively, leaders must display an ethics of responsibility, and thus be able to ‘take responsibility’ for their actions.
• Elections formalize the recognition of charisma. If charismatic leaders capable of mobilizing and representing broad masses will tend to arise in any case, it is better if the recognition of their charisma is subject to periodic formal tests rather than informal, extra-legal events.
• Charismatic authority in the broadest sense tends to appear in moments of deep, even existential crisis, where the charismatic leader performs a ‘miracle’ for a group that feels otherwise impotent and deeply threatened, and can sustain itself only when the leader can provide such ‘miracles.
• The charismatic demagogue produces a wondrous or miraculous representation of the people as a charismatic community but also a ‘wondrous’ representation of himself.
• Weber argues that charismatic leaders must provide evidence of benefiting their charismatic community if they are to retain their authority. The implicit ‘bargain’ between leaders and followers that exists even in cases of strong charismatic authority allows us to speak of a degree of accountability and influence.
• Instead of distinguishing between the ‘mere’ demagogue and its antithesis, the statesman, in terms of whether or not they deceive the demos or act for the common good, Weber stresses the ethical distinction between the politician who is responsible for their cause, and thus capable of intentionally and rationally directing state power towards its achievement (in what is, strictly speaking, a value–rational way), and the politician who is not.
• Lack of objectivity (wishful thinking, extreme overconfidence, ignoring inconvenient information) in assessing a situation leads to irresponsible political action, insofar as it leads to a misunderstanding of the means necessary to achieve particular ends and the physical, social and political constraints on the use of such means. All leaders are susceptible to these vices, but the situation of the charismatic demagogue, surrounded by adoring followers and capable of summoning the adulation of crowds, makes these vices extremely common occupational hazards.
• Weber hoped that training in committee or party work would hone the political judgement of leaders so that they would be more likely to see the consequences of their decisions and to take responsibility for them. 

Márquez argues that Weber's conception of charismatic authority allows some demagogues to play a genuinely democratic role in modern societies when viewed through contemporary theories of representation. He suggests that a Weberian analysis of democracy points to the need for strong accountability mechanisms and for institutions that socialize potential leaders into productive habits of adversarial conduct and responsibility, while preventing easy ‘buck passing’.

Márquez observes that although Weber provides a stronger sense of democratic possibility than did Joseph Schumpeter, he is very much the ancestor of the ‘minimalist’ model of democracy that Schumpeter first articulated explicitly in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. (I wrote about Schumpeter’s model of democracy here in 2012.)

Directions of future research

This essay is the second in a series in which I am attempting to obtain a better understanding of political entrepreneurship. The first essay can be found here.

My next step is to read Robert Faulkner’s book, The Case for Greatness (2007). I am wondering whether the ancients thought it was possible for a charismatic demagog to also be a "great-souled" leader who is keen to promote liberty and opportunities for individuals to flourish. 

After that, I will consider how the concept of political entrepreneurship fits in with modern public choice literature.

Summary and Conclusions

This essay briefly considers the context in which political entrepreneurship is most relevant, some similarities between economic and political entrepreneurship, and the role of charismatic and demagogic leadership in political entrepreneurship within democracies.

The essay begins by considering the role that Douglas North saw for political entrepreneurship in bringing about institutional change – i.e. change in the rules of the game of society. Political entrepreneurship is required to overcome high transactions costs of change that arise from the path dependent nature of institutions. Building on the concept of path dependency, Peter Boettke, Christopher Coyne and Peter Leeson developed an analytical framework to consider the consequences of institutional stickiness for foreigners engaged in institution building exercises that seek to transplant institutions from one country to another. That framework is also relevant to considering the challenges faced by political entrepreneurs seeking to bring about institutional reforms in their own countries.

The essay then turns to consideration of the relevance to political entrepreneurship of Don Lavoie’s view of economic entrepreneurship. Lavoie suggests that entrepreneurship takes place within culture and is concerned with interpreting and influencing culture. He makes the role of the economic entrepreneur seem similar in some respects to that of the political entrepreneur.

The other major topic considered in the essay is the contribution that Max Weber makes to our understanding of political entrepreneurship through his writings on charismatic and demagogic leadership. Weber makes the case that charismatic and demagogic leadership may be required to overcome the impersonal forces of bureaucratization within democracies. He also sheds light on the circumstances in which demagogic leadership can be consistent with democracy.

North and Weber both add to our understanding of the role of the political entrepreneur in overcoming obstacles to institutional change. However, the fundamental question that both leave aside is how to ensure that institutional change enhances liberty and opportunities for individuals to flourish.  

Can the concept of political entrepreneurship help us to understand authoritarianism?

 

In this essay I discuss the relevance of the concept of political entrepreneurship to an understanding of political outcomes that have substantially affected personal and economic freedom in different countries. The essay has a particular focus on authoritarianism. My understanding of that concept is based on  the view of Hans Eysenck that people who have an authoritarian personality are attracted to the possibility of oppressing others. People who have authoritarian values see such oppression as justified. Authoritarian governments oppress people by restricting their personal and economic freedom to a greater extent than other governments.

The essay focuses on political outcomes which seem incongruent with underlying cultural values in a range of countries. It suggests that political entrepreneurship has influenced the ideologies currently reflected in personal and economic freedom in those countries. It also considers the current role of political entrepreneurship in harnessing cultural and economic grievances to pursue a range of different ends in the liberal democracies.

The essay draws on some of my previous research on the extent to which cultural values can explain authoritarianism and on the influence of cultural backlash and economic grievances on political outcomes in liberal democracies. That research is summarized prior to considering the nature and relevance of political entrepreneurship.

Can cultural values explain authoritarianism?

My answer to that question is that cultural values do not fully explain authoritarianism – the ideologies of some governments are at variance with cultural values. The best way to explain how I came to that conclusion is by referring readers to the accompanying graph which shows levels of economic freedom and personal freedom for 85 countries. Please note that the personal freedom scale on the vertical axis is in reverse order with highest levels of personal freedom at the bottom. (The graph has previously been published in an article in The Savvy Street in 2023.)

Please focus on the labelling of data points. I have attached country labels only to those data points where freedom ratings are substantially different from predicted levels based on indexes of emancipative and facilitating values which were constructed using World Values Survey data. The methodology for constructing these indexes is explained in the Savvy Street article and on this blog (here and here).

The colour of the labelled points depends on whether freedom is greater than or less than predicted—green if greater than predicted, red if less than predicted. The size of the labelled points is larger if both personal and economic freedom are greater than or less than predicted.

It is clear from the graph that freedom ratings of most of the countries with low personal and economic freedom are substantially lower than predicted by corresponding emancipative and facilitating values. The countries in which both personal and economic freedom is less than predicted include China, Iran and Venezuela. It seems obvious that suppression of liberty in those countries is a product of the ideologies of the governments concerned rather than the cultural values of the peoples.  

The graph also shows that a substantial number of countries with relatively high personal and economic freedom are performing better in that regard than can readily be explained on the basis of prevailing values. Most of the countries concerned are not the high-income countries of North America, Western Europe, Oceania, and East Asia that come to mind when one thinks of countries with relatively high levels of economic and personal freedom.

The existence of countries in which freedom levels are substantially greater than predicted by facilitating and emancipative values suggests that government support for economic and personal freedom may precede or accompany the evolution of facilitating and emancipative values. The transition to high levels of economic freedom often takes place over an extended period. As market-friendly economic reforms promote the growth of economic opportunities, this could be expected to lead to the gradual evolution of facilitating values supporting higher levels of economic freedom. The growth of economic opportunities could be expected to encourage people to place higher value on personal autonomy and to become more trusting of others.

Milton Friedman observed that economic freedom “promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other” (Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1982, 9). As economic development proceeds, the evolution of emancipative values provides additional support for personal freedom.

The correlation between economic and personal freedom is strikingly evident in the graph. There are not many countries with relatively high personal freedom and low economic freedom, or vice versa. Argentina—which stands out as the only country having high personal freedom despite low economic freedom—helps illustrate why that is so. In the published article, I suggested:

“In Argentina, the decline in economic freedom over the last 20 years has been accompanied by worsening economic prospects, which seem likely to lead, before long, to an economic and political crisis. Hopefully, the political response to the crisis will be to restore greater economic freedom and make personal freedom more secure, rather than to restrict personal freedom to suppress criticism of government policies.”

A few months after that comment was published, Javier Milei was elected president of Argentina and has successfully introduced policy reforms to expand economic freedom. (Unfortunately, I cannot claim that my essay was influential in bringing that about.)

Cultural and economic grievances as explanators of political change

In the preceding essay on this blog I discuss the question: “Is cultural backlash a major determinant of political outcomes in the liberal democracies?” My intial focus was on the view which Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart presented in their book, Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism (2019),  that the spread of post-materialist values has induced a cultural backlash among cultural conservatives. They suggested on that basis that the combination of authoritarianism and populist rhetoric is a threat to liberal democracy.

In my view, Norris and Inglehart were mistaken in attributing cultural backlash to the spread of post-materialist values. I argued that it would be more correct to attribute cultural backlash to the illiberalism of progressives who have been advocating what Yascha Mounk has described as the identity synthesis (see: The Identity Trap, 2023). The identity synthesis has provoked a backlash because it rejects neutral rules like equal opportunity and free speech in favour of action to promote the interests of particular groups that have suffered from discrimination in the past.

Some recent research by John Burn-Murdoch, published in the Financial Times ‘Why the Maga mindset is different’, March 7, 2025) has suggested that over the last 20 years the values held by people who identify with the right wing of U.S. politics has moved closer to the values of people in Turkey, Russia and China than to people who identify with the right wing of politics in Europe. It remains to be seen what impact, if any, this apparent retreat from classical liberal values will have on the institutions of liberal democracy in the United States. 

Norris and Inglehart acknowledge that economic grievances also play an important role in encouraging people to support policy remedies proposed by populists. In that context, I have referred to some research published in an essay on this blog that has highlighted the adverse impact that slower economic growth can have on life satisfaction, particularly of young people. I suspect that the longer-term slowdown in economic growth in the liberal democracies might be more important in generating support for populist policies than are grievances that can be related directly to the impact of import competition or immigration.

However, we live in a world where the policies that political leaders sell to voters depend on how voters perceive reality. Those perceptions are not always accurate. Some opinion leaders on both the progressive and conservative sides of politics attempt to sell voters a distorted view of reality. As I wrote that I was reminded of a comment I made in my review of Michèle Lamont’s book, Seeing Others, 2023. I suggested:

“On the question of factual accuracy, Lamont’s narrative, which suggests that the workers have reason to be angry with the wealthy one percent, seems to me to be just as questionable as Donald Trump’s narrative which suggests that the workers have reason to be angry about globalization and immigration. Neither of those narratives promotes an accurate understanding of economic reality.”

The concept of political entrepreneurship

Catherine De Vries and Sara Hobolt have suggested that competition between political parties in European countries is like competition in economic markets. In both contexts long-standing dominant players (firms or parties) may be challenged by disruptive new players. The central objective for both challengers and incumbents is the control of government and the delivery of public policies. Political entrepreneurs play a key role because a party that engages in successful political policy innovation can enjoy an effective monopoly on an issue and reap the consequent electoral benefits. (De Vries CE, Hobolt SB. Challenger Parties and Populism. LSE Public Policy Review. 2020; 1(1): 3, pp. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.3)

De Vries and Hobolt were writing about multi-party systems in which several political parties are competing for power. However, a similar form of competition occurs when an innovative political entrepreneur within a major political party challenges established leadership factions by offering a product that is more appealing to supporters of the party.

Valentina Ausserladscheider has contributed to an understanding of political entrepreneurism by providing a framework to consider reasons for the political success of Jörg Haider, the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, during the 1990s. Haider’s winning formula was based on a policy mix of authoritarian and and neoliberal policies, which was particularly successful during a time of economic turmoil and uncertainty. (See Chapter 9 of Culture, sociality, and morality : new applications of mainline political economy edited by Paul Dragos Aligica, Ginny Seung Choi, and Virgil Henry Storr, 2021).

Ausserladscheider emphasizes that the strategies of political entrepreneurs are not determined solely by voters’ ideological positions. Successful political entrepreneurs don’t offer the same policies as their competitors. They advance their political ambitions by focusing on niches in the marketplace of ideas that established parties do not satisfy, and on winning support by emphasizing the problem-solving capacities of their ideas. For example, the entrepreneurial strategy of far-right parties is their “nationalist and nativist core ideology”, leading to policies such as immigration restrictions that are claimed to solve a range of problems.

As illustrated by the example of Jörg Haider, the strategies that political entrepreneurs follow to attract support can result in political programs that offer a mix of libertarian and authoritarian policies.

The influence of political entrepreneurs

From a cursory inspection of the accompanying graph, people who have rudimentary knowledge of global politics would have no difficulty identifying political entrepreneurs who have historically been major players determining outcomes in many jurisdictions where economic and personal freedom seems substantially at variance with underlying cultural values. There are good reasons for that. Media coverage tends to focus on political leaders, the challenges they face and the policies they adopt.

The role of political entrepreneurship is not always obvious in liberal democracies where the institutions of representative government have been respected for many decades. However, it doesn’t make sense to assume that changes in public opinion will be automatically reflected in public policy even in countries with representative government. In general, the responses of political markets to new information (e.g. poll data about shifts in public opinion on particular issues) depend to a much larger extent on decisions by big players than do responses to new information in financial and commodity markets.

A better understanding of the reasons why political entrepreneurs behave as they do might help us to assess whether current political developments are likely to expand or constrain economic and personal freedom. Those outcomes depend on both the motivations of the individuals concerned and on the social and economic context in which they operate.

Like other humans, political entrepreneurs are motivated by a range of factors. It is usually unrealistic to assume that they are motivated solely by a desire to maximize social welfare (whatever that means), to maximize the number of votes they obtain, to maximize personal wealth, or to obtain the perks of the office. Given the nature of their occupation, however, it seems reasonable to assume that political entrepreneurs obtain more satisfaction than most other people from constructing ideological narratives and selling them, and from exercising the political power required to implement policies.

In some instances, ideological predilections may play a dominant role. For example, while social and economic context helps to explain why revolutions occurred in China and Iran in the 20^th century, the repression of individual liberty following those revolutions stemmed directly from the ideologies of revolutionary leaders - Mao Zedong in China and Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

Similarly, while the economic problems confronting the United States and Britain during the 1980s provided contexts in which substantial changes in the direction of economic and social policies could be contemplated, the responses of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher owe much to their respective commitments to economic freedom. The reforms currently being pursued by Javier Milei in Argentina seem to be similarly motivated.

Looking around the world, a range of different ideological predilections seem to be playing a role in policies advocated by political entrepreneurs. For example, we see ideological considerations playing a role among those seeking opportunities to expand the welfare state, to redistribute wealth, to promote “equity” for community groups which have suffered from discrimination in the past, to save the environment from CO2 emissions, to pursue international humanitarian goals, or to pursue nationalist goals by restricting immigration, raising trade barriers, and withdrawing from international organisations. Some of those policies have potential to impinge adversely on economic and personal freedom.

As we have seen earlier, even if political entrepreneurs are motivated mainly by a desire to exercise political power, the innovative aspect of their role requires them to focus on niches in the marketplace of ideas that established parties (or factions) do not satisfy. They seek to attract support from people who are discontented with current economic and social outcomes by emphasizing the problem-solving capacities of their ideas. Their success in attracting a loyal support base of customers who are willing to help them to sell their narrative depends to a large extent on the strength of competition from politicians selling different narratives, and on the extent of resistance by journalists and members of the public who consider their narratives to be incorrect or that their policy proposals are unworkable, unconstitutional, unethical, or otherwise unhelpful.

In my opinion, the ability of some political entrepreneurs (from both conservative and progressive sides of politics) to persuade large numbers of people to accept false narratives is posing an increasing threat to liberty in the liberal democracies. False narratives pose a threat to liberty because they often provide a basis for false beliefs that problems can be solved by restricting personal and economic freedom. For example, the personal freedom of people who refused vaccinations for Covid was restricted inappropriately in many countries because of false narratives that unvaccinated people were likely to spread infection. And economic freedom is currently being restricted in some countries through imposition of higher import barriers on the basis of false narratives about the impact of free trade.

A few decades ago, people seemed to have been more willing to put their trust in political commentators who took pride in remaining politically independent and well-informed. Those commentators were able to expose false narratives to a greater extent than now occurs, and thus to limit the influence of political entrepreneurs who base their policies on falsehoods.

In recent years, however, mainstream media has become increasingly polarized. The rise of social media seems to have aggravated the problem. Many exchanges of views about political issues on social media consist largely of recitations of false narratives promulgated by political leaders.

Some commentators who are independent and well-informed can still be found in both mainstream and social media, but prevailing cultures may need to give greater respect to the search for truth before those people will have sufficient influence to discourage political entrepreneurs from promoting false narratives.

Conclusions

Authoritarian and libertarian political outcomes don’t just appear out of nowhere. Underlying cultural values that have evolved over long periods of time go some of the way toward explaining levels of economic and personal freedom in different countries. However, political entrepreneurship also plays an important role.

The role of political entrepreneurs is most apparent in those countries where underlying cultural values are less supportive of economic and personal freedom. Political entrepreneurs have played an important role in some of those countries in promoting either more or less freedom than would be expected on the basis of underlying cultural values.

The role of political entrepreneurship has been more constrained in those liberal democracies where the institutions of representative government have been respected for many decades.

However, the ability of some political entrepreneurs (from both conservative and progressive sides of politics) to persuade large numbers of people to accept false narratives is posing an increasing threat to personal and economic freedom in the liberal democracies. Polarization of the media means that such claims are now less subject to independent scrutiny than they were a few decades ago.

Recent political developments are raising the question of whether cultural change in some liberal democracies has emboldened some political entrepreneurs to challenge conventions regarding government respect for judicial rulings on the legality of their activities. Governments that do not perceive themselves to be bound by judicial interpretation of laws and constitutions are unlikely to have much regard for individual liberty. Any government which claims that its actions are beyond legal challenge because they reflect the general will of the people is showing obvious signs of authoritarianism.

Addendum

Chris M Sciabarra has given me permission to publish the following comment, which he has provided by email:

"I just read the essay and enjoyed it; I'll have to give a bit more thought to it. You make some very good, persuasive points, though there are some claims that I need to process a bit more. I think the whole concept of political entrepreneurship has some weight here. I wonder how, for example, it might mesh not only with public choice thinking, but also with Hayek's insights about how the 'worst get on top' when political power becomes the only power worth having. If that's the case, then political entrepreneurship in a populist age morphs into a kind of political con game that attacks the very roots of liberal democracy---something you acknowledge in your conclusions.

One of the issues that concerns me is that while there was a backlash against the "identity synthesis" of illiberal progressives, I don't think that was the key factor that influenced the outcome of the election. Incumbent parties lost all around the world, whether they were perceived as 'right'- or 'left'-leaning. In the US, of course, Trump won over Harris. In the UK, the Conservative Party was defeated. The Liberal Democrats lost in Japan, while in France, a coalition of left-wing and centrist parties gained ground. And so forth. I think that inflation, stagnant wages, housing affordability, etc. led most incumbents to defeat because whoever is in power is the party that takes the blame for the conditions on the ground. 

That said, I also think that the "identity synthesis" on the illiberal left has only been replaced by a different kind of "identity synthesis" on the illiberal right, given the right's embrace of nationalism and, in many cases, a virulent form of nativism, riding on profound anti-immigrant fervor. Not to mention the illiberal right's obsession with scapegoating the smallest of minorities---like transgender-identifying people, who make up about 0.6% of the population. This is as much of an illiberal right-wing play on identity politics as anything we've seen on the left." 

Chris has now posted a more extensive review on Notablog . 

Notablog is also worth visiting for other reasons - including the opportunity to take a break from worrying about authoritarianism to listen to the "Song of the Day". 

An interesting diagram

I think the following diagram captures very well the illiberal cultures on the authoritarian socialist and authoritarian nationalist sides of politics, and the overlap between them.

Stephen Hicks posted the diagram on X and asked if anyone could tell him where it came from so that that he could give credit. I would also like to give credit to the person responsible for constructing this.

 

Is cultural backlash a major determinant of political outcomes in the liberal democracies?

 

In recent years, a major transformation has occurred in the politics of many of the liberal democracies as major political parties have increasingly been challenged, or taken over, by populists. What has brought this about? Can it be attributed to some kind of cultural backlash?

My starting point in this essay is the analysis of Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in their book, Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism (2019). I then consider some problems associated with this analysis, focusing particularly on the authors’ definition of authoritarian values and some critical comments by Armin Schäfer. In the following sections, I consider the relevance of Yasha Mounk’s explanation of Tne Identity Trap, the nature of the backlash to changing economic circumstances, and John Burn-Murdoch’s outline of differences between conservatives in the U.S. and Europe in values and attitudes regarding international cooperation.

The Norris-Inglehart analysis

The book by Norris and Inglehart seemed like a good place to begin considering cultural backlash theory because Ronald Inglehart deserves to be remembered with great respect for his efforts in creating a cultural model which explains a great deal about the reasons why people from different parts of the world often hold widely different views on social and political issues. Inglehart’s cultural model has two dimensions: secular rational values versus traditional values; and self-expression values versus survival values. He documented a shift from materialist values, which emphasize safety and security, to post-materialist values, involving increasing emphasis on individual freedom, occurring as a consequence of ongoing economic growth.

Norris and Inglehart argue that the spread of post-materialist values has induced a backlash among cultural conservatives. The authors do not dismiss explanations of growing support for authoritarian populism which emphasize economic grievances associated with economic globalization, immigration, stagnant real incomes, and perceptions of growing inequality. They find that populist attitudes are strongly influenced by personal experience of economic insecurity and perceptions of the national economy’s performance. However, according to their definition, “authoritarian values” are more common among old people than young people, and are more strongly linked with the respondent’s birth cohort than with economic indicators.

The authors found that anti-immigration attitudes were more strongly linked with authoritarian and populist values than with protecting economic interests. And, even after controlling for a range of attitudes toward immigrants and economic conditions, the respondent’s birth cohort remains the most important predictor of authoritarian values.

Norris and Inglehart believe that “the combination of authoritarian values disguised by populist rhetoric” is “potentially the most dangerous threat to liberal democracy.”

To assess the threat to liberal democracy that may be posed by those values and attitudes it is important to consider how the authors define authoritarian values.

Have authoritarian values been measured correctly?

 The authors conceptualize “authoritarian” values “as a cluster of three related components, emphasizing the importance of (i) conformity (strict adherence to group conventions and traditional customs); (ii) security (safety and protection of the group against risks, justifying strict enforcement and aggression toward outsiders who threaten the security or the accepted group norms); and (iii) loyalty (supporting the group and its leaders).” They view populism “as a style of rhetoric reflecting first-order principles about who should rule, claiming that legitimate power rests with ‘the people’ not the elites.”

The main problem I have with the Norris-Inglehart definition of authoritarian values is that many of the people I know who emphasize conformity to group conventions, group security, and loyalty to the group and its leaders, would be more appropriately labelled as conservatives than as authoritarians. The conventions they seek to uphold are concerned with civility rather than oppression. They emphasize national security because they see it as necessary to avoid becoming the victims of oppression. They display loyalty to the group and elected leaders because they identify as citizens of the nation in which they live.

It seems to me that a more appropriate measure of authoritarian values is implicit in Christian Welzel’s work on emancipative values. The people who hold authoritarian values are those whose values are on the lower end of the scale of emancipative values. Welzel developed the concept of emancipate values to measure the beliefs that people hold about such matters as the importance of personal autonomy, respect for the choices people make in their personal lives, having a say in community decisions, and equality of opportunity. More information about Welzel’s research on emancipative values can be found here.

My understanding is that people who have an authoritarian personality are attracted to the possibility of oppressing others. That is the view of Hans Eysenck, who undertook some pathbreaking work on the personality predictors of political extremism. An important implication of that view is that authoritarian values are not the preserve of either the conservative or progressive side of politics.

That line of reasoning might suggest that the Norris-Inglehart analysis is more relevant to understanding a conservative backlash than the emergence of authoritarian tendencies that might threaten democracies. Nevertheless, as discussed later, there is some evidence that people who identify with the right wing of U.S. politics now have values more akin to Russians and Turks than to the supporters of right wing parties in western Europe.

How much do cultural attitudes vary by age?

In an article entitled “Cultural Backlash? How (Not) to Explain the Rise of Authoritarian Populism”, published in 2021, Armin Schäfer found that, on most issues, people in different age groups have similar cultural attitudes. His analysis suggests that older cohorts are slightly more likely to vote for authoritarian (right wing) parties but less likely to vote for populist ones. His conclusion is that generational replacement is unlikely to attenuate the rise of authoritarian (right wing) populism.

Schäfer does not dismiss cultural explanations of populism. He agrees with Norris and Inglehart that opposition to immigration is linked systematically to authoritarian (conservative) values and a lack of trust in politics.

A backlash to the illiberalism of progressives

 It is common for the spread of post-materialist values to be accompanied by conservative resistance, but much of that resistance seems to dissipate over time. Many cultural conservatives now seem to have accepted, however reluctantly, some of the social changes that they strongly opposed a few decades ago e.g. divorce, pre-marital sex and legalization of homosexuality, and they now also seem to be going through the process of accepting other social changes, such as same sex marriage.

In my view, it is the authoritarian tendencies of many progressives that has promoted a voter backlash, rather than the spread of post-materialist values. The best discussion I have read about the authoritarian tendencies of progressives has been provided by Yascha Mounk in his book, The Identity Trap, published in 2023. Mounk does not refer explicitly to “authoritarian tendencies” but the illiberalism that he discusses amounts to the same thing in my view.

In writing about what he refers to the “identity synthesis”, Mounk recognizes that its advocates are seeking to remedy serious injustices affecting marginalized groups that have historically suffered “terrible forms of discrimination”.  The identity synthesis is concerned with many different kinds of groups including those related to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  The distinguishing feature of the identity thesis is that its advocates reject neutral rules like equal opportunity and free speech in favour of action to promote the interests of particular groups. According to this thesis, the way the state treats each citizen – and how citizens treat each other – should depend on the identity group to which they belong.

Mounk’s main point is that the identity synthesis will ultimately prove counterproductive: 

“Despite the good intentions of its proponents, it undermines progress toward genuine equality between members of different groups. In the process, it also subverts other goals we all have reasons to care about, like the stability of diverse democracies.”

The identity synthesis subverts the stability of democracies because it makes it harder for people to broaden their allegiances beyond a particular identity. It is a political trap because it makes it harder to sustain diverse societies whose citizens trust and respect each other. It “pits rigid identity groups against each other in a zero-sum battle for resources and recognition.”

Much of Mounk’s book is devoted to a philosophical discussion of how the identity synthesis evolved. The story he tells is of a short march through the institutions, associated with postmodernism, rather than the long march of cultural Marxism. He suggests that since the identity synthesis is inherently about ongoing tension between different identity groups it lacks Marxism’s utopian promise of eventually abolishing all class distinctions.

There has also been a backlash to the authoritarian tendencies within the environmental movement. Although environmental activism is not part of the identity synthesis discussed by Mounk, he makes the interesting observation that in embracing “intersectionality” many voluntary organisations have broadened their missions in line with the idea that all forms of oppression are connected. He gives the Sierra Club as an example.

What about the economy?

The analysis in the preceding essay on this blog leads me to suspect that the longer-term slowdown in economic growth in the liberal democracies might be more important in generating support for populist policies than are grievances that can be related directly to import competition or immigration. Import competition and immigration may just be convenient scapegoats.

The preceding essay shows:

• The perception of having a lower standard of living than parents at a comparable age has a substantial adverse impact on life satisfaction ratings.
• Perceptions of standard of living relative to parents are positively related to past economic growth experience of the countries in which people live.
• In the high-income countries, low growth has a greater adverse impact on young peoples’ perceptions of their standard of living relative to parents than on the corresponding perceptions of old people.

A backlash to internationalism?

John Burn-Murdoch, a researcher who works for the Financial Times, recently made an international comparison of the values of people associated with different political parties in article entitled ‘Why the Maga mindset is different’ (March 7, 2025). His analysis, using data from the World Values Survey, suggests that in many respects (including attitudes to international cooperation) the values of people who identify with the U.S. right wing are closer to the values of people in Turkey, Russia, and China than to those who identify with right wing parties in Europe, or with the U.S. left. His analysis also suggests, however, that “the US Republicans of 20 years ago were no keener on autocracy than the average Canadian or Western European – and just as supportive of international co-operation.”

Perhaps that change of attitudes reflects a cultural backlash that can be partly attributed to 9/11 and the outcomes of the Iraq and Afghan wars. It may also be partly attributable to increasing dissatisfaction with the performance of international organisations, and a perception that U.S. taxpayers have been making excessive contributions to those organisations.

It is important to note that even where a substantial proportion of the population of a country endorses authoritarian values, that does not necessarily result in authoritarian political institutions. That finding emerges from some analysis published on my blog in 2023 in an essay entitled:  “To what extent do international differences in personal freedom reflect people’s values?”  The analysis uses Christian Welzel’s emancipative values data from the World Values Survey and personal freedom data from Cato. It indicates that international differences in personal freedom do broadly reflect the prevalence of emancipative values (the opposite of authoritarian values). However, there are many outliers. For example, personal freedom in China and Iran is lower than might be predicted solely on the basis of the prevalence of emancipative values, whereas personal freedom in Armenia, Georgia, Cyprus and Taiwan is higher than might be predicted on that basis.

Personal freedom in the U.S. seems broadly consistent with the overall prevalence of emancipative values in that country (including both the left and right wings). The current U.S. government is clearly seeking to implement a major change in the direction of many government policies. I am not yet persuaded, however, that its actions will have a substantial adverse impact on the institutions of liberal democracy. 

Conclusions

Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart argue that the spread of post-materialist values has induced a cultural backlash among cultural conservatives. On that basis they suggest that the combination of authoritarianism and populist rhetoric is a threat to liberal democracy.

In my view, Norris and Inglehart were mistaken in attributing cultural backlash to the spread of post-materialist values. It would be more correct to attribute cultural backlash to the illiberalism of progressives who have been advocating what Yascha Mounk has described as the identity synthesis. The identity synthesis has provoked a backlash because it rejects neutral rules like equal opportunity and free speech in favour of action to promote the interests of particular groups that have suffered from discrimination in the past.

Economic grievances play an important role in encouraging people to support policy remedies proposed by populists. My previous research has highlighted the adverse impact that slower economic growth may have on life satisfaction. I suspect that the longer-term slowdown in economic growth in the liberal democracies might be more important in generating support for populist policies than are grievances that can be related directly to the impact of import competition or immigration.

Some recent research has suggested that over the last 20 years the values held by people who identify with the right wing of U.S. politics has moved closer to the values of people in Turkey, Russia and China than to people who identify with the right wing of politics in Europe. It remains to be seen what impact, if any, this apparent retreat from classical liberal values will have on the institutions of liberal democracy in the United States.

Should Libertarians be Attempting to Influence Culture: A Discussion with Winton Bates and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (III)

 

In this third instalment of our collaboration, we move on to consider more specifically how libertarians should respond to some illiberal tendencies in the cultures of the liberal democracies. The discussion focuses particularly on university culture.   

Before moving into that discussion, however, it is appropriate to outline some points from earlier editions of our collaboration to help readers to see where we are coming from.

First instalment

In raising the question of whether libertarians should be attempting to influence culture, Winton mentioned that he is reconsidering his objections to J. S. Mill’s view that the sanctions imposed by “prevailing opinion and feeling” were akin to tyranny. He suggested that the only reason he could think of why libertarians should not be attempting to influence culture was the difficulty they would have in agreeing on the kinds of cultural change they would like to promote.

In his response, Chris discussed the changes in the libertarian movement that had occurred since he first encountered it in the late 1970s. He noted that “thin libertarians”, who argued that freedom does not require anything more than robust defence of the nonaggression principle, had ended up endorsing paleoconservative values opposed to a cosmopolitan social framework. He suggested that although that approach is fundamentally opposed to liberal values, it is an acknowledgement that some kind of cultural matrix is necessary to nourish the freedom project.

Chris summed up his response to the question by suggesting that libertarians should be focused on exploring the role of culture in shaping political and social outcomes.

One of the points raised in comments on our first instalment is that there is a difference between saying libertarianism qua political philosophy should attempt to change culture and saying that a libertarian concerned in advancing libertarianism should attempt to change culture. One commentator suggested that libertarians should “work as individuals, and in concert with others, to build a freedom-friendly culture of moral and virtuous people who strive to create a good life, to flourish, and to be happy.”

Second instalment

Winton opened the discussion by raising the question of whether Enlightenment humanist values are still broadly supported by public opinion. He observed that support for reason and reality seemed to have diminished with increasing disrespect for truth in narratives of conservative populists as well as radical progressives who are seeking political power. He noted his support for attempts to understand power relations in society.

Chris explained his Tri-level Model of Power Relations, which was first derived from his reconstruction of Ayn Rand’s analyses of social problems in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. The Tri-level Model illustrates the importance of paying attention to interactions between personal, cultural, and structural factors (political and economic structures, institutions and processes). An exclusive focus on any one of these levels of analysis overlooks the importance of factors associated with other levels in determining the ability of individuals to flourish. Individual flourishing is affected by cultural and structural factors as well as by the individual’s values and habits.

Chris’s contribution highlighted the potential for personal ethical and psycho-epistemological practices to affect the dominant cultural institutions. It also highlighted the potential for cultural practices to undermine (or reinforce) the humanism and cosmopolitanism that supports personal flourishing and liberty.

Winton Bates’s views on university culture

The sources of illiberal tendencies in universities differ from those that concerned J. S. Mill when he wrote the sentence quoted in the epigraph at the beginning of this article. Mill suggested that “dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, and dogmatic philosophy” needed to “be rooted out” of the universities. Mill’s main target seems to have been the Church of England.

A modern libertarian who is concerned about illiberal tendencies in universities is likely to have in mind different sources of dogmatism – for example, action by students and staff to silence voices that are opposed to prevailing campus orthodoxies. The common element is interference with the free exchange of ideas that is indispensable to the search for truth.  

The context in which Mill was writing about universities is relevant to the broader question of what attitude libertarians should adopt toward illiberal tendencies in culture. Mill was concerned that growth in the power of public opinion would cause “the individual” to become lost in the crowd. He hoped that the universities would be able to foster “great minds” who would have a positive impact on public opinion.

There is arguably more reason for libertarians to be concerned about illiberal tendencies in educational organisations than in social media and other economic and social activities that influence public opinion. When a social media firm interferes with freedom of expression, self-correcting forces are likely to be activated eventually as people perceive themselves to be adversely affected and shift their support to competing social media firms. Similarly, self-correcting forces are likely to be activated if a community group subjects a media firm to a boycott, if members of other community groups consider such action to be unfair.

Self-correcting mechanisms seem to be more muted in educational organisations. When their actions prevent invited speakers from being heard, students rarely face consequences that might deter such behaviour in the future. Students who have been seeking to silence opposing voices on campuses in recent months are following in the footsteps of students who adopted similar tactics with equal passion a few decades ago. Whether or not they intend it, their dogmatism in insisting that opposing voices should not be heard is placing at risk the culture of free exchange of ideas that should characterize university education.

Libertarians are not alone in having reasons to support the free exchange of ideas in universities. Anyone who has an interest in the search for truth has reason to support free exchange of ideas.

However, there are at least three good reasons why libertarians should be taking a leading role in seeking to restore the culture of universities as bastions for the free exchange of ideas.

First, the personal values held by many libertarians emphasize the importance of behaving with integrity towards other people. That entails recognizing links between individual flourishing and freedom of expression. Individuals are more likely to flourish academically if the free exchange of ideas and search for truth is emphasized in the prevailing cultures of universities.

Second, it is doubtful whether the legal order can continue to protect free speech if freedom of expression is severely restricted within universities, whether by government or by the activities of university authorities, staff, and students. A legal order protecting free speech depends ultimately on public opinion that values free speech, which, in turn, requires intellectual support.

Third, if staff and students do not take action to restore the culture of universities, it is likely that governments will intervene. Some libertarians might consider government intervention to be appropriate in that context, but it could provide a precept for government intervention that limits the autonomy of universities and poses a threat to freedom of speech.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra comments:

In asking “Should Libertarians be Attempting to Influence Culture?”, this dialogue has focused important attention on the role of culture in affecting social change.

In our last instalment detailing my Tri-Level Model of Power Relations, I highlighted Level 2, which brings to the foreground of our analysis the role of cultural traditions, institutions, and practices in helping to sustain the existing social system. I wrote:

How does culture perpetuate existing social conditions? This is achieved through linguistic, educational, and ideological means, among others. Distortions in language—through the use of anti-concepts, for example—will tend to undermine rational discourse, while serving the needs of the powerful. Certain educational institutions and pedagogical practices will tend to undermine autonomy, perpetuate conformity, inculcate obedience to authority, and subvert the development of critical thinking. Stultifying, rigid, intolerant, racist, sexist, or tribalist ideologies or belief systems (including dogmatic religious beliefs) will tend to foster exclusionary “thinking within a square.” Such cultural practices can undermine those humanist, cosmopolitan characteristics consistent with the development of human freedom and personal flourishing.

On Level 2, then, the role of educational institutions and pedagogical practices is of paramount importance. It must be remembered that this is a dialectical framework of analysis—one that preserves the larger context within which such institutions and practices are situated. Hence, it is important to consider not only how political and economic structures tend to perpetuate a certain constellation of such institutions and practices—but also its reciprocal implication: how a certain constellation of educational institutions and pedagogical practices tends to perpetuate the political and economic order.

It is beyond the scope of this brief exchange to examine the nature of these interactions. Suffice it to say, as Winton points out, there are illiberal tendencies in university life that have quelled the free spirit of discussion, silencing voices of dissent and shoring up campus orthodoxies. But this attack on dissent also has the effect of bolstering larger social, political, and economic orthodoxies.

There are virtually no educational institutions that are free of political strictures, guidelines, or subsidies of one sort or another. This isn’t an issue of “public” versus “private” universities. The line between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ has all but disappeared and the power of the purse has had an unmistakable impact on the ways in which universities function. In these instances, the “self-correcting forces” that Winton ascribes to social media often give way to imposed “corrections” from the top-down. The culture war between left-wing “woke warriors” and right-wing “anti-woke crusaders” has resulted in an explosive political battlefield in which state actors attempt to impose changes to educational practices, whether through restrictions on the curriculum or the hiring and firing of university personnel. As Winton points out, this is precisely the kind of government intervention that must ultimately undermine free expression.

Sadly, even with its self-correcting forces, not even social media is immune to this kind of political gamesmanship, given evidence of government interference in the dissemination of information and the use of certain platforms for the promotion of ideas that are antithetical to liberal, cosmopolitan values. While libertarians should indeed be taking a leading role in nourishing the free exchange of ideas in university life, we should also be vigilant in exposing and opposing those ideas at war with human freedom and personal flourishing. Preserving and extending a liberal cultural atmosphere that allows for vigorous intellectual engagement is therefore the surest way to make transparent the illiberal ideas among us.