Liberalism is a term that has been adopted and adapted in different ways over the centuries of its use. How do we need to rethink and communicate the core principles of liberalism in the face of modern challenges?

Helena Rosenblatt is a professor in the History, French, and Political Science departments at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). She is also the author of several books, including The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century and Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion.

Greg and Helena discuss the shifting meanings and history of liberalism, focusing on key themes such as the Anglo-American appropriation of liberalism, the evolution of liberal values, and the struggle between individual rights and civic virtues. Helena also touches upon the impact of religious influence, the educational system, the rise of new liberalism, and the relevance of civic education in contemporary society.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Episode Quotes:

Liberalism began with character, not politics

09:10: With the advent of Christianity, we started to talk about God's liberality towards, so there was no liberalism. The noun was liberality, as you mentioned. And then it became Christianized, and it meant then charitable. And then eventually, in the 18th century, with the Enlightenment, it started to mean tolerant and sociable. A gentleman was liberal in that he was open-minded. He was polite. He was educated, and we should not forget liberal arts education. Right? So very important to liberality. And it is good to think about today when the liberal arts, we think anyway in the humanities, are under siege, if you will, you know, and people lamenting the decline of civic engagement and of qualities of a citizen—that is what the liberal arts education was supposed to teach.

Why liberalism was never meant to be direct democracy

26:00 We are for the people, and we are accountable to the people. But it is for the people. It is not by the people. Government—we are supposed to be generous. We are supposed to be thinking about them. We are supposed to rule for them, but we cannot possibly allow them to rule.

What happens when liberal face strongmen

22:00: The notion that a strongman politics, which we are seeing again today, was something that liberals became very especially concerned with because they saw what could happen when people place their faith in a strongman who appealed directly to—you know, populism is not a recent thing. They did not call it populism then? I do not think so. But this idea that I am the people, I understand the people, your so-called representatives are just, you know, in deadlock. They cannot make—they are just talking. They are just a bunch of lawyers who, you know—this is an old, very old accusation that strongmen used in order to get, very often, elected democratically, but then unravel and destroy all the safeguards that were there or were meant to be there to safeguard individual rights, for example.

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

Guest Profile:

Guest Work:

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Thinking with Rousseau from Machiavelli to Schmidt

Mentioned by

Mentioned in 0 episodes

The AI-powered Podcast Player