Harris 2

The evolution from classical liberalism and modern liberalism appears to be a large

shift as the first form of liberalism rests heavily on the strength of an individual despite the

government, and the second form of liberalism supports the individual with the help of the

government. So what caused this change?

Classical liberalism began as an unreliable and unstable doctrine, undoubtedly

destined for the change. It wasn’t an actual social program but instead a “liberating force

which [rejected] a static and crippling security” of the regulations of the government and

instead embraced freedom of social institutions (Minogue, 423). Ideally, liberalism strives to

find a way of living efficiently without all of the misery and suffering inherent in human

nature through self help. People were expected to get up off of their derrieres and find their

way through the barricades set by the government. With a hands-off government, the people

would have the right and the power to do whatever they need. During this time liberty meant

the ability to get up and do whatever needed to be done without any hindrance from the

government. Ideally, classical liberalism supported a freedom that would be unchained under

government regulations, giving the common people power to start from the ground and create

a business without jumping through loops and laws. However, this was all an idea that had

not yet been successfully applied.

Modern liberalism transformed the original definition of freedom. The classical

liberalists idealized a freedom outside of the government, but they were unable to find this

end, and those who tried found a different type of freedom and a newer form of liberalism

and adjusted accordingly. Classical liberalism appeared to rest on the idea of limited

government; however, “the espousal of State provision is perhaps the most important change

that has taken place in the development of modern liberalism” (Minogue, 424). So what

caused this turn around in beliefs? In order to achieve the individual freedom of classical

liberalism, people used self help by actually speaking against the government and voicing the
 Harris 3

problems. “Each individual is weak and fallible,” and they either “[invest] their moral capital

in the government as the only organizing center of the national effort,” or fight against it.

This results in the people who work in and with the government in addition to those who

form group unions against the government. The unions exist to voice and rally their beliefs

and concerns to the government for social welfare in response. In modern liberalism, people

realized that their social problems could “only be solved by putting pressure on the

government to do something about them” (Minogue, 425).

Minogue argues that modern liberalism is less free than classical liberalism because it

drove the people into the government that the classical liberals were originally trying to

avoid. He argues that the political dependence of modern liberalism is “dependent and

slavish,” however, it is to be noted that classical liberalism was never tangible and that it

naturally led to the political dependence of modern liberalism. Therefore, while classical

liberalism seems to be superior in ideals, it is just that: an ideal that logically progresses to

modern liberalism. It was unavoidable.

Liberalism changed with the time period as different times called for different needs.

A common factor in both classical and modern forms, the liberal belief rested on the

individual and the conscience. Liberalism was first born under the influence of the push for

natural rights amongst those who were suppressed. Therefore, liberals came from the middle

and lower classes, pushing for freedom from the oppressive government. Therefore the

original ideals called for a distanced, limited-power government in order for the common

people to have more strength as an individual to do what they wanted. Classical liberalism

pushed for individualism as the end, and as a result, limited government was added into the

formula. It was never about the type of government; all that mattered was the end product of

individualism. This idea allowed for the evolution of liberalism. Though classical liberalism

began by distancing itself from the government, it initially acted as the glue between
 Harris 4

liberalism and the government as this first form of liberalism pushed the doctrine and the

legislative power together.

Classical liberalism fought for the power of the individual, and inadvertently

democracy “because it allows the people, rather than the privileged few, to determine what

governments should do” (Minogue, 425). Ironically, all of the fighting to have a say in

individualism led to the strength of democracy, and voicing against the government therefore

led to loss of power against the government. Despite the belief in limited suffrage, liberalism

ironically led to more and more suffrage to the point that the people’s individual voices

became smaller to the government as they were muffled by the crowd.

Liberalism changed so dramatically because it was never based on the standard

beliefs. Instead of focusing on a form of government or a method to achieving their end, they

focused purely on the end and allowed the doctrine to change accordingly with time.

Additionally, the definitions of freedom and of the individual were never set in stone.

Classical liberalism displays freedom of an individual through the ability to do whatever

without any hindrance from the government. However, in order to achieve these ends, people

had to go to the government to fight against the preset regulations. With no regards to the

preexisting conditions, classical liberalism was never really possible. Ironically, Minogue

briefly describes the underdeveloped countries that have “the liberal conviction that the

present time is ‘transitional’. . . for the moment the most real thing about them is simply

movement” (Minogue, 425). This suggests that those in the underdeveloped countries

functioned as classical liberalists, working to find their individual stance. This also suggests

that classical liberalism was a doctrine for a less developed country as the strengthening of

the government appeared to be the natural result. Classical liberalism was far too vague in its

methods of getting freedom, and by going to the government and fighting against preset

regulations, these classical liberals created the fight for democracy, and democracy created a
 Harris 5

new creature within itself. Modern liberalism was born out of the discovery that there could

be a form of freedom regulated underneath the government. Rather than the original freedom

of the people, modern liberals fought for “the presence of opportunity,” an end goal that

allowed for a means to meet the liberals’ ends in addition to a relatively more efficient

government where the people worked with the government instead of against it (Bullock and

Shock, 377).

Liberalism was never about the government because both classical and modern

liberalism were a means to an inefficient government, plagued by the people’s whines.

Liberalism is and always has been about the individual. The change from classical to modern

liberalism is due to a change in the meaning of individual and the change in governmental

circumstances. The classical individual ideally was a person who worked outside of the

government without having to worry about the government bothering his progress. The

modern individual is a person who works in correlation with and under the government living

under the provisional welfare and working for the economy. Both forms of liberalism

“accepted without much questioning the ‘necessities’ on which [the changes in human

behavior were] based,” however, they didn’t take into account the changing of the

government in correlation to the change of the people (Minogue, 427). Liberalism never

solidified a doctrine that stated their position on the government, and though they originally

wanted to keep the economy and the government separated, the classical liberalist

unknowingly helped roll them together. Whether the new, modern liberalism is more or less

free than its predecessor, it didn’t lose the original ideas of striving for the rights of the

individual.