Podcasts about liberalism from ancient rome

Få fenomen har blivit så omdiskuterade de senaste åren som liberalismens kris. I den här essän funderar författaren Per Wirtén på om utvägen ur krisen kanske ligger dold i liberalismens historia. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.De senaste trettio åren har varit liberalismens epok. Den har vunnit på alla fronter. Men om man ska vara mer korrekt, och det är viktigt i sammanhanget, så är det en specifik riktning inom den annars vittförgrenade liberalismen som dominerat, den så kallade nyliberalismen. Huvuddragen är vid det här laget välbekanta: privatiseringar, fria självreglerande marknader, individuell valfrihet i alla lägen och en krympande statsmakt.Men sedan några år har allt fler noterat att det liberala projektet drabbats av osäkerhet och förvirring. Liberalismens kris har blivit ett etablerat begrepp. Det som för trettio år sedan verkade så nytt och lovande uppfattas nu av många som slitet och tilltufsat. Först kom finanskraschen 2008 och sedan eurokrisen. Men det är så mycket mer som bidragit till diskussionerna om en liberalismens kris: envist hög arbetslöshet, växande inkomstskillnader och en utbredd känsla av att det gemensamma själva samhällsprojektet upplösts till förmån för ett race där de enskilda vinnarna tar allt.I början av 1900-talet stod liberalismen inför en lika djup kris som nu. Den ansågs uttjänt och omodern, svarslös inför dåtidens uppflammande klasskonflikter. Det utlöste en omtolkning av det liberala uppdraget på båda sidor om Atlanten.I USA skedde det genom den så kallade progressiva rörelsen där intellektuella och politiker gemensamt drog slutsatsen att i det storindustriella samhället behövde de liberala frihetsidealen garanteras och försvaras av en stark stat, ett nytt slags fördelningspolitik med progressiva skatter och en arbetslagstiftning som garanterade arbetarna viktiga rättigheter. Liberalerna lämnade helt enkelt sina tidigare dominerande doktriner om en minimal stat, fria marknader och begränsad rösträtt. Kanske kommer de som i framtiden ser tillbaka på vår tids samhällsomvandlingar ta fasta på de lika stora förändringar som skakade världen vid det förra sekelskiftet. Kanske kommer de att leta samband och undersöka skillnader mellan de utmaningar liberalismens idéer stod inför i början av 1900-talet och den hårda kritik den möter i dag. Då kom utmaningen från socialismen och arbetarrörelsen. Nu kommer den från ett helt annat håll: från den hårda konservatismens återkomst, från nationalismen och från auktoritära politiker. En del liberaler vill inte se några som helst problem i den förda politiken. De vill möta utmaningen med ännu fler avregleringar och skattesänkningar. Andra anpassar sig efter den nya konservativa nationalismens vindriktningar. Men inget av de båda vägvalen verkar kunna häva den liberala krisen.Möjligen är det något helt annat som behövs: en kritisk omorientering inifrån det liberala idéarvet, i likhet med den som skedde för drygt hundra år sedan. Det finns en pågående internationell debatt i den riktningen. För några år sedan drog till exempel den amerikanska journalisten James Traub en besk slutsats i boken "What was Liberalism?" om att det är liberalismen, så som den utformats under de här trettio åren, som berett vägen för den illiberala revolten. Som passionerad liberal menade Traub att räddningen ligger gömd i de liberala idéernas mångfacetterade historia.Liberalismen är ju som ett stort hus med många rum. Där har det alltid funnits konflikter och strider om hur den ska tolkas. Om de individuella friheterna är viktigare än demokratins majoritetsstyre. Om principen om fria marknader ska vara starkare än politikens försök att tämja dem.Nyliberalerna har i trettio år haft tolkningsmonopol på vad liberalism egentligen är. Men för att komma ur sin kris behöver liberaler antagligen gå tillbaka in i sitt eget hus, för att identifiera andra röster, andra texter och historiska erfarenheter.Ett viktigt bidrag finns i historikern Helena Rosenblatts uppmärksammade "The Lost History of Liberalism" där hon vänder sig till 1800-talets franska och tyska liberaler för en sådan omorientering. Hon framhåller till exempel de liberala pionjärerna Benjamin Constant och Madame de Staël. Hon visar hur de förkastade det individuella egenintresset som de kallade egoism till förmån för allmänintresset och det gemensamma ansvaret.Titeln på Rosenblatts bok är en riktningsgivare för nyorienteringen: Liberalismens förlorade historia. Något har tappats bort, eller i själva verket målmedvetet trängts undan, som nu behöver återfinnas. Det gäller framtiden.En liknande utgrävning gör holländska Annelien De Dijn i sin otroligt rika idéhistoria "Freedom" om det liberala frihetsbegreppet. Hon följer liberalernas långa brottning med idén om ett demokratiskt folkstyre, som de länge hade förvånansvärt svårt att acceptera. Hon ställer många frågor om vad begreppet liberal demokrati kan vara, men inte alltid varit.Så vad finns det då för liberala värderingar som kan omvärderas, men på fortsatt liberal grund? Poängen är inte att liberalismen ska förkastas utan återigen omtolkas i ny riktning ungefär som skedde i början av 1900-talet.Den första punkten är det meritokratiska idealet om att ge alla samma start i livet, för att sedan acceptera uppkomna ojämlikheter. Detta i motsats till socialdemokratin som kontinuerligt vill rätta till ojämlikheter under livscykeln. Men utan effektiva arvsskatter och enhetlig skola har ju den meritokratiska modellen tömts på reellt innehåll. I stället framträder nu en ny aristokrati som vilar på ärvda förmögenheter.Den andra punkten är den liberala antropologin, eller människosynen, där människor ses som helt självständiga individer på en valfrihetsmarknad utan några ömsesidiga beroenden. Det leder till just det samhälleliga sönderfall som den liberala pionjären Benjamin Constant befarade för över 200 år sedan. 1800-talets franska liberaler utvecklade därför en idé om mänsklig individualitet i stället för den antropologiska individualismen som de uppfattade som ren egoism. Liberaler behöver helt enkelt återskapa den ofta bortglömda liberala tanken om det gemsamma ansvaret för ett samhällsbygge, för det allmänna.Den tredje punkten är en uppgörelse med föreställningen om fria och självreglerande marknader. Där finns ju en lång och rik liberal tradition om en politiskt och socialt inbäddad kapitalism, med till exempel Karl Polanyi, Franklin D Roosevelt och John Maynard Keynes som framträdande representanter.Det är några exempel på hur vägen ut ur liberalismens kris kan ligga i en inventering och utvärdering av dess historia. Nycklarna till en möjlig ny liberal guldålder ligger i sådant fall gömda bland gamla historiska erfarenheter.En sådan kritisk omorientering behöver göras av just liberaler med sikte på att förändra den liberala politiken. Vi andra kan inskärpa betydelsen av en sådan, till exempel genom att peka på den liberala idéhistoriens rika möjligheter, men inte göra själva jobbet. Liberalismens kris angår alla, men den kan nog bara lösas av liberalerna själva.Per Wirtén, författareLitteraturHelena Rosenblatt: The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press, 2018.Annelien de Dijn: Freedom: An Unruly History. Harvard University Press, 2020.James Traub: What Was Liberalism? The Past, Present, and Promise of a Noble Idea. Basic Books, 2019.BildenSex förgrundsfigurer ur liberalismens historia:James Madison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Madison(cropped)(c).jpgMadame de Staël: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marie_El%C3%A9onore_Godefroid_-_Portrait_of_Mme_de_Sta%C3%ABl.jpgAdam Smith: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adam_Smith_The_Muir_portrait.jpgJohn Stuart Mill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stuart_Mill_G_F_Watts.jpgJohn Locke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Locke.jpgMary Wollstonecraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_(c._1797).jpg

Guests featured in this episode: Renata Uitz, is the co-editor of  Handbook of Illiberalism, who has contributed two chapters to it as well. Renata is also professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the Central European University, Vienna, as well as the co-director of its Democracy Institute in Budapest.Helena Rosenblatt is a professor of history, French, and political theory at the Graduate Center of The City University of New York, and the author of both Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion andThe Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century. Helena has also submitted an article on “The History of Illiberalism” in the Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism (2022).  Glossary What was the Reign of Terror? (pg. 2 of the transcript or 00:7:58)The Reign of Terror (June 1793 – July 1794) was a period in the French revolution characterized by brutal repression. The Terror originated with a centralized political regime that suspended most of the democratic achievements of the revolution, and intended to pursue the revolution on social matters. Its stated aim was to destroy internal enemies and conspirators and to chase the external enemies from French territory.The Terror as such started on September 5, 1793 and, as the Reign of Terror, lasted until the summer of 1794, taking the lives of anywhere between 18,000 to 40,000 people (estimates vary widely). Thousands would die by means of the guillotine, including many of the greatest lights of the revolution, like Georges Danton.. The deaths can be explained in part by the sense of emergency that gripped the revolutionary leadership as the country teetered on the brink of civil war. Source Who was John Stuart Mill? (pg. 3 of the transcript or 00:12:19)John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, economist, and exponent of utilitarianism. He was prominent as a publicist in the reforming age of the 19th century, and remains of lasting interest as a logician and an ethical theorist.The influence that his works exercised upon contemporary English thought can scarcely be overestimated, nor can there be any doubt about the value of the liberal and inquiring spirit with which he handled the great questions of his time. Beyond that, however, there has been considerable difference of opinion about the enduring merits of his philosophy. Source Who was Alexis de Tocqueville? (pg. 3 of the transcript or 00:12:27)Alexis de Tocqueville, French sociologist, political scientist, historian, and politician, best known for Democracy in America (1835–40). Tocqueville traveled to the United States in 1831 to study its prisons and returned with a wealth of broader observations that he codified in “Democracy in America”, one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its trenchant observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville's work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to themselves. Tocqueville's works shaped 19th-century discussions of liberalism and equality, and were rediscovered in the 20th century as sociologists debated the causes and cures of tyranny. Source What does cancel culture mean? (pg. 6 of the transcript or 00:32:27)Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming. Source Democracy in Question?  is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: Novel

Certain words are central to our civilization, so it is good to reflect on their meaning. The most central words, such as the word liberty, often carry multiple meanings and has been the theme for debates over the centuries. The definition of and interpretation of the concept of liberty is key to the understanding of the liberal tradition, which is continuously under discussion and scrutiny. For Timbro these discussions are at the center of our interest. It is therefore a great pleasure for Timbro to host two of the most prominent participants in the debate on liberty in this week's Ideology Pod, professor Daniel B Klein and professor Helena Rosenblatt.   In this talk Dan Klein [econfaculty.gmu.edu] initially reviews four meanings of liberty, and relate those meanings to Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), and Raymond Aron (1905-1983). One of those meanings is the classical liberal meaning, centered on "others not messing with one's stuff", he says.    Helena Rosenblatt has argued recently [oll.libertyfund.org] in response to Klein's suggested interpretation of liberty “that it would be a great shame if any person calling themselves “liberal” adopted such a narrow and materialistic definition of liberty. In today's climate particularly, we need to draw on other resources within the liberal tradition to articulate and defend a more generous articulation.” Daniel Klein is Professor of Economics, JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center George Mason University and director of the Adam Smith Program. He is the author of Knowledge and Coordination: A Liberal Interpretation (OUP, 2012). He is chief editor of Econ Journal Watch.  Helena Rosenblatt, recent recipient of a prestigious Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, teaches in the PhD Programs in History, French, and Politicial Science, and the MA Program in Liberal Studies at the Graduate Center at the City Universtiy of New York. She is also a faculty member of the M.A. Program in Biography and Memoir. Her 2018 book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-first Century has been the theme for earlier talks on liberalism at Timbro.  Björn Hasselgren introduces the talk. Björn Hasselgren is Senior Fellow at Timbro and has a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and is a Guest Researcher at the Economic History Department at Uppsala University. He arranges Timbro activities in relation to the classical liberal heritage, such as the Classical Liberal Summer Seminar.

Repost: Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia’s Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century

Democracy is a popular topic among scholars of politics in Southeast Asia. Liberalism is not. Or at least it hadn’t been up until the last few years, which have seen a spate of books with liberalism in the title: on Islam in Indonesia, capitalism in Singapore, post-colonialism in the Philippines, and now, Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar (Oxford University Press, 2018). In this new study, Roman David and Ian Holliday draw on extensive survey and interview data to argue that people in Myanmar show inconsistent commitments to the tenets of liberalism in its adjacent aspects: by being, for instance, highly tolerant of some minority groups but highly intolerant of others, notably Rohingya; and, by showing support for democracy but also for the military’s continued role in national politics. They characterize this condition as “limited liberalism”, which they distinguish from semi-liberalism and other hybrid types. Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia’s Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century Nick Cheesman is a Fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy is a popular topic among scholars of politics in Southeast Asia. Liberalism is not. Or at least it hadn’t been up until the last few years, which have seen a spate of books with liberalism in the title: on Islam in Indonesia, capitalism in Singapore, post-colonialism in the Philippines, and now, Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar (Oxford University Press, 2018). In this new study, Roman David and Ian Holliday draw on extensive survey and interview data to argue that people in Myanmar show inconsistent commitments to the tenets of liberalism in its adjacent aspects: by being, for instance, highly tolerant of some minority groups but highly intolerant of others, notably Rohingya; and, by showing support for democracy but also for the military’s continued role in national politics. They characterize this condition as “limited liberalism”, which they distinguish from semi-liberalism and other hybrid types. Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia’s Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century Nick Cheesman is a Fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy is a popular topic among scholars of politics in Southeast Asia. Liberalism is not. Or at least it hadn’t been up until the last few years, which have seen a spate of books with liberalism in the title: on Islam in Indonesia, capitalism in Singapore, post-colonialism in the Philippines, and now, Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar (Oxford University Press, 2018). In this new study, Roman David and Ian Holliday draw on extensive survey and interview data to argue that people in Myanmar show inconsistent commitments to the tenets of liberalism in its adjacent aspects: by being, for instance, highly tolerant of some minority groups but highly intolerant of others, notably Rohingya; and, by showing support for democracy but also for the military’s continued role in national politics. They characterize this condition as “limited liberalism”, which they distinguish from semi-liberalism and other hybrid types. Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia’s Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century Nick Cheesman is a Fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy is a popular topic among scholars of politics in Southeast Asia. Liberalism is not. Or at least it hadn’t been up until the last few years, which have seen a spate of books with liberalism in the title: on Islam in Indonesia, capitalism in Singapore, post-colonialism in the Philippines, and now, Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar (Oxford University Press, 2018). In this new study, Roman David and Ian Holliday draw on extensive survey and interview data to argue that people in Myanmar show inconsistent commitments to the tenets of liberalism in its adjacent aspects: by being, for instance, highly tolerant of some minority groups but highly intolerant of others, notably Rohingya; and, by showing support for democracy but also for the military’s continued role in national politics. They characterize this condition as “limited liberalism”, which they distinguish from semi-liberalism and other hybrid types. Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia’s Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century Nick Cheesman is a Fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Democracy is a popular topic among scholars of politics in Southeast Asia. Liberalism is not. Or at least it hadn't been up until the last few years, which have seen a spate of books with liberalism in the title: on Islam in Indonesia, capitalism in Singapore, post-colonialism in the Philippines, and now, Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar (Oxford University Press, 2018). In this new study, Roman David and Ian Holliday draw on extensive survey and interview data to argue that people in Myanmar show inconsistent commitments to the tenets of liberalism in its adjacent aspects: by being, for instance, highly tolerant of some minority groups but highly intolerant of others, notably Rohingya; and, by showing support for democracy but also for the military's continued role in national politics. They characterize this condition as “limited liberalism”, which they distinguish from semi-liberalism and other hybrid types. Roman David and Ian Holliday join us on New Books in Southeast Asian Studies to talk about limited liberalism in Myanmar and beyond, about trust in government and the Coronavirus pandemic, prospects for transitional justice, and about doing survey and interview research on politics in Myanmar in the 2010s. Like this interview? If so you might also be interested in: • Astrid Noren-Nilsson, Cambodia's Second Kingdom: Nation, Imagination and Democracy • Helen Rosenblatt, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century Nick Cheesman is a Fellow in the College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University.

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism”...

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How is it that “liberalism” is a word so ubiquitous and yet we can hardly seem to agree on its meaning? In her book The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton University Press, 2018), Helena Rosenblatt traces the history of the words “liberal” and “liberalism” in order to understand how liberals defined themselves, and what they meant when they spoke about liberalism. In recovering liberalism’s roots in the French Revolution, as well as highlighting the centrality of the German thinkers who transformed it, Rosenblatt debunks the myth of liberalism as an Anglo-American tradition centered on individual rights. Emily K. Crandall is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professor Helena Rosenblatt is a professor of history whose specialty is 18th and 19th century European intellectual history. At a time of rising global nationalism and populism, she has produced a timely and critically acclaimed book, Lost History of Liberalism From Ancient Rome to the 21st Century, as discussed in today's podcast.

Mike talks with Helena Rosenblatt, a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York about her latest book, The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century ( https://amzn.to/2LbHSCG ). Topics Mike & Helena discuss include: * the meaning of liberalism in ancient Greece and Rome * liberalism as an aristocratic virtue * the connection between liberalism and education * the Catholic Church as an historical opponent of liberalism * classical, ‘laissez faire' liberalism * progressive Republicans, Wilsonian Democrats, and 20th century American liberalism * how mid-twentieth century totalitarianism affected liberalism * the key challenges to modern liberalism Helena Rosenblatt on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/helenarosenblat ) *Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible*. If you're interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys ( https://www.patreon.com/politicsguys ) or politicsguys.com/support ( http://www.politicsguys.com/support ). Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy