Visiting Kent professor at Yale, Dr, Samuel Moyn comes to TU to discuss his newest book “Liberalism Against Itself.”
Dr. Samuel Moyn, a Kent professor of law and history, was hosted by The University of Tulsa’s Political Science department Tuesday, Oct. 22 to discuss history, politics and its implications on Liberalism in his most recent book “Liberalism Against Itself.” In his book, Moyn criticizes reactionary and restrictive international Liberalist policies enacted from 1948-1989 and argues for a return to what he deems the fundamental ideas of Liberalism. Moyn, much influenced by the early work of notorious political philosopher Judith Shklar, advocates for a return to the radical optimism prompted by the Enlightenment in the 18th century and criticizes Cold War Liberals’ willingness to abandon the idea of freedom for all as the end goal of human history.
Dr. Moyn asserts that the Liberal philosophy, referring to traditional political thought, is one rooted in the Enlightenment of Europe in the 18th century and is one that essentially regarded rationalism as the salvation of humanity and radical optimism its counterpart. The idea of radicalism in the context of this political philosophy emphasized reason and rationality’s ability to enable an individual to have autonomy to shape themselves and the world around them. However, subsequent centuries have shown the abandonment of these traditional values, especially at the start of the Cold War period from 1948-1989. During the international, ideological war with the Soviet Union, many Liberals abandoned the origins of Liberalism’s goals (the idea that through reason, the entire world could be free) as more Eastern European nations fell or sided with the authoritarian power. Moyn argues that this situation made Liberals of that era including Shklar (a hardcore optimist in her early works) cynical which led to the Liberal movement being put on the defensive. Instead of the idea of radical optimism, many Liberals shifted their focus to protecting pre-existing freedoms in pre-existing, democratic areas out of fear that Liberalism could not, with complete certainty, compete with authoritarianism. Thus Moyn coined the term ‘Cold War Liberal’ to refer to these thinkers of the era.
During his discussion, Dr. Moyn dove deeper into the nature of Liberalism’s radical goal of salvation in which, under rationality, all people are free. Moyn most notably traces this idea of freedom as the ultimate end goal of human history back to Christian roots in philosophy and Hegel. In some of Hegel’s most prominent philosophical doctrines he essentially makes claims that Christianity allows individuals to completely recognize themselves and enables human autonomy and freedom. However, Hegel asserts that the real agent in Christianity that allows for this freedom to be realized is the way by which it requires individuals to look inward and recognize their spirit. Following this philosophical trail, Moyn uses this framework to analyze the Liberal salvation as rooted in Christianity, but not directly a fruition of religiosity.
Later in the lecture, Dr. Moyn was notably asked to discuss the upcoming presidential election and the critique of complacent liberalism posed by Stephen Holmes and Ivan Krastev. Holmes and Krastev’s critique of Liberalism in the 20th and 21st centuries argues that the international failure of the United States in implementing and sustaining liberal systems in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union directly led to the rejection and resentment of liberal and democratic ideologies both abroad and at home. They argued that Liberalism, because of the failures of the United States in creating and sustaining liberal, democratic systems, has not only become complacent, but Dr. Moyn also agrees with these criticisms of liberalism’s complacency especially in an international context. However, when questioned on the root of anti-liberal and anti-democratic sentiments demonstrated by the radical right during the last few years in the United States, Moyn pushed back on this argument and posited that the blame may instead fall more onto the Democratic party in the United States. Instead of tracing this phenomenon back to the 2008 stock market crash as does Holmes and Krastev, Moyn argues that it has instead been because of the consistent abandonment of constituencies in rural and often republican states. In Moyn’s final remarks he explains, “The core constituency of the democratic party consists of large urban areas” he says, “The Democratic Party has abandoned the rest of the country.” Moyn elaborated, explaining that the current radicalization against democratic and liberal values is a result of the Democratic Party’s fundamental refusal to attempt to extend its constituency base in the last few election cycles.
