The Fading of Pierre Goodrich’s Dream to Spread the Word about Liberty

“Fade to White”

The party politicization (pro-Trump republican) of Liberty Fund and its rapid turning away from the Founder’s “original intent” of promoting long-term educational and academic goals is the subject of an article in this month’s Indianapolis Monthly magazine. As the victim of the first round of purges of those who defended that vision I learnt with dismay about the victims of the second round in May 2021 which led to my colleague Nico Maloberti taking his own life in despair and hopelessness for the cause. This is the subject of Adam Wren’s article “The Pursuits of Liberty”.

I will let Adam Wren’s article speak for itself but I will note that I was struck by the very clever and insightful graphic the magazine used to represent the fading away of Goodrich’s vision under the current Board and senior management, which I have entitled “Goodrich’s vision for LF: ‘Fade to White’.”

Note: After all that has happened over the past four years the fact that there is now a “Goodrich Resident Scholar” at Liberty Fund is one of the world’s great ironies and a travesty of justice to Goodrich’s memory.

The story of the decline of Liberty Fund has been taken up by Damon Linker in “The Week”: “A libertarian tragedy in Indianapolis: The political struggle over the libertarian soul takes a grim and telling turn” (27 January 2022) online. His sad conclusion is that in addition to its drift towards explicit “politicization” it is also a result of the Foundation’s loss of faith in the power of ideas to change the world:

However one describes it, the shift could well be driven as much by the corporate imperative to demonstrate influence as by naked political passion and ambition. The businessmen who sit on Liberty Fund’s board may be committed Republicans, but they may also have grown impatient with the absence of metrics to show their expensive conferences are making a concrete difference in the world.

In this respect, the story of Liberty Fund’s drift away from its founder’s vision may be one as much about overt politicization as it is about declining faith in the power of libertarian ideas to win the day through erudite conversation alone. And, far beyond this one organization in Indiana, that’s a loss — or, at least, a sign of a larger, deleterious shift — for our country, where once we tried to aspire toward something more reasonable.

I would add small caveat here. I do not think that it is an “either, or” choice between educating people about the history and theory of liberty, and “making a concrete (political) difference in the world.” There is after all a division of labour among advocates of any idea and its policy implications. There are some institutions which develop and promote the ideas at a theoretical level, there are those who teach these ideas to their students, there are “Think Tanks” where policies based on these ideas are developed, there are political parties which endeavour to put these policies into practice, and there are voters who vote (or usually don’t vote) to put these parties into power. If any link in this chain goes missing then the task becomes that much harder to reach.

The old Liberty Fund was situated at the top end of this long “structure of production of ideas” and was placed there very deliberately by its founder Pierre Goodrich to, as Damon accurately notes, “(foster) conversation among intelligent people from a range of backgrounds about the foundations and maintenance of a free society.” These “conversations” were often centered around one of the Great Books of Liberty which Goodrich had spent much of his adult life reading and promoting. He thought these great books provided the “soul” of the liberty movement and thus deserved close and frequent study. Liberty Fund’s place in the broader liberty movement was a unique and very important one but it is now vacant and is waiting for something else to fill it.

There are now four public statements which document what has been going on at LF:

  1. my piece “Nico Maloberti: In Memoriam” posted to my website on July 2 online;
  2. the “Letter to the Board” by long-time LF friend and supporter Chandran Kukathas which he wrote 11 July denouncing their actions and wanting to sever all ties with LF (privately but widely circulated)
  3. the article by Adam Wren: “The Pursuits of Liberty: The Tragic Death of an Idealistic Academic has brought to Light an Existential Struggle within the Halls of one of the Country’s most powerful Education Foundations, the Liberty Fund”, Indianapolis Monthly (Jan. 2022) online
  4. Damon Linker, “A libertarian tragedy in Indianapolis: The political struggle over the libertarian soul takes a grim and telling turn” The Week (27 January 2022) online

Film and the Teaching of History

[Michael Curtiz, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” (1938) – a man who “speaks treason fluently” to tyrants]

[Warren Beatty, “Reds” (1981) – a brilliant political film but about the wrong side]

See also “The Politics and History of/in Film”.

I have used films in my teaching and lecturing ever since I began teaching at the University of Adelaide in 1986. They were a regular feature in my first year introductory courses on Modern European history, my upper level courses on “German Europe” and “The Holocaust,” and most extensively in my course “Responses to War: An Intellectual and Cultural History” in which, over a period of a decade, I showed about 100 different films. [See “Some Thoughts on how People have ‘Responded to War’”]

The week long Summer Seminars organized by the Institute for Humane Studies during the 1990s on “Liberty in Film and Fiction” gave me an opportunity to show and discuss films with a group of students who were sympathetic to CL/libertarian ideas and who were in creative writing and film studies programs. These films included:

  1. Lewis Milestone, “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930)
  2. Michael Curtiz, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” (1938)
  3. Robert Wise, “Executive Suite” (1954)
  4. Stanley Kubrick, “Dr. Strangelove” (1964)
  5. Andrew McLaglan, “Shenandoah“ (1965)
  6. George Lucas, “Star Wars IV: A New Hope” (1977)
  7. Claude Berri, “ Jean de Florette“ (1987) and “Manon des sources” (1987)
  8. Oliver Stone, “Wall Street” (1987)
  9. Kenneth Branagh, “Henry V” (1989)
  10. Volker Schloendorff, “The Handmaid’s Tale” (1990)
  11. Norman Jewison, “Other People’s Money” (1991)

[Claude Berri, “Jean de Florette” (1987) – on property rights in water and what happens when they are violated]

Since war films were a major interest of mine, during 1995 I held a two week long “film festival” to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, during which I showed two films a day for two weeks. See the full list.

The two Honours level subjects I taught on ”Reel History: History IN Film and Film AS History” (course guide) and “Film and the History of Occupation, Collaboration, and Resistance in WW2” (course guide) provided an opportunity to explore in greater depth some of the key questions which an historian must ask about film, such as

  1. the representation and interpretation of history which takes place WITHIN films, in other words, to examine films as works of historical interpretation by the filmmaker
  2. to study films as important historical documents in their own right, i.e. to use films as just one of many primary sources one might use in order to better understand the past
  3. to compare and contrast the kind of history presented to the public by the film industry in Hollywood, i.e. “Hollywood History”, with other, sometimes more thoughtful historical films made by European and independent filmmakers
  4. to compare and contrast all forms of “filmed history” with the history found in traditional, printed texts

Since I was teaching “history” courses a major question we had to ask and try to answer (if we could) was how historically accurate was the film, and if it was not accurate, to ask the follow up question, why did the filmmaker alter the past or stress certain aspects and ignore or distort others?

A question we kept coming back to was one posed by Robert Rosenstone, who asked:

No matter how serious or honest the filmmakers, and no matter how deeply committed they are to rendering the subject faithfully, the history that finally appears on the screen can never fully satisfy the historian as historian (although it may satisfy the historian as filmgoer). Inevitably, something happens on the way from the page to the screen that changes the meaning of the past as it is understood by those of us who work in words.

[Robert A. Rosenstone, “History in Images/History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really Putting History into Film,” American Historical Review, December 1988, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 1173-85. ]

It should be noted that Rosenstone, as an historian, wrote a biography of the American socialist journalist John Reed, Romantic Revolutionary: A Biography of John Reed (1975) and then advised Warren Beatty in the making of his Academy award-winning film Reds (1981). The film is a brilliant depiction of an immensely important historical event but is is far too sympathetic to the socialist cause, even uncritical. This inspired me to write my own screenplay on a classical liberal on whom I had written a great deal who had also been involved in a revolution – Frédéric Bastiat in the 1848 Revolution in Paris in February 1848. The results, entitled “Broken Windows” screenplay HTML, along with an “illustrated essay” to help the director “visualize the past” can be found here. I found some initial interest by a small-time producer in taking it further but that interest soon evaporated when the complexity and the cost of filming an “historical film” became evident. In the meantime a dreadful “bro” movie about Marx and Engels in Paris at the same time Bastiat was living and working there got made with funding by the EU. [Raoul Peck, “The Young Karl Marx” (2018) and the review in the New York Times by A.O. Scott (22 Feb. 2018) here]

[Raoul Peck, “The Young Karl Marx” (2018) – yet another account of the life of an obnoxious man and his obnoxious ideas]

Other questions I explored in these classes, with particular reference to war films, were the following. To use films:

(1.) to assist in the visualisation of historical events or historical conditions, thus the film acts as a “window on the past” and is an attempt to “restage the past” (Sorlin) or an attempt to create “historical authenticity” (Zemon Davis) on the screen. Examples include:

  1. Carl Theodor Dreyer, The Passion of Joan of Arc (La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc) (1928)
  2. Lewis Milestone, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
  3. Cy Endfield, Zulu (1964)
  4. Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus (1960) and Dr Strangelove (1964)
  5. Peter Watkins, The Battle of Culloden (1969)
  6. Oliver Stone, Platoon (1986)
  7. Maxwell, Gettysburg (1994)
  8. and one film which is not: John Wayne’s Green Berets (1968).

[The sensational original release movie poster of a slave revolt in ancient Rome which does not show any inkling of Kubrick’s deeper ideas about the subject.]

(2.) to study the history of prevailing attitudes or mentalités, since sometimes the film tells us more about the time of its making than the events it sets out to depict, that the film reflects the “climate of opinion” of the society in which it was made, in other words it acts as a “mirror of contemporary society”.

  1. the left-wing and humanitarian pacifism of Remarque/Milestone’s All Quiet (1930) and Pabst’s Westfront 1918 (1930) in the late Weimar Republic;
  2. the officially sanctioned or supported war propaganda of Olivier’s Henry V (1944) and Frank Capra’s series on Why We Fight (1942); and on the German/Nazi side, Veit Harlan, Kolberg (1945)
  3. he paranoia and fear of communist infiltration and invasion at the height of the Cold War in Siegel’s Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (1956);
  4. and the anti-authoritarianism, even anarchism, of the swinging sixties depicted in Altman’s MASH** (1970) and Nichols’ Catch-22 (1970).

(3.) to study the ideas of individual filmmakers (especially those who were war veterans); in this case, the film is a “personal memoir” by someone who had first-hand experience of the events depicted on the screen.

  1. films made by directors who were engaged as official filmmakers during war who went on to make films after the war, such as John Ford’s They Were Expendable (1945) and William Wyler’s The Best Years of Our Lives (1946).
  2. Three examples of filmmakers who personally experienced combat include Jean Renoir’s La Grande Ilusion (1936), Masaki Kobayashi’s The Human Condition (1959-61), and Oliver Stone’s (again) Platoon (1986) and Born on the 4th of July (1989).
  3. or indirectly, when a director makes a film based upon a novel or memoir by someone else who was a participant, such as Lewis Milestone (Erick Maria Remarque), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

(4.) to reflect on the nature of war, history and the human condition in a general way; in this case, film can function as a philosophical or historical “essay” which attempts to interpret or make sense of the past in some way.

  1. films based upon Shakespeare – Laurence Olivier’s and Kenneth Branagh’s versions of Shakespeare’s Henry V (1944/1989), Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood (1957) and Ran (1985);
  2. Akira Kurosawa, The Seven Samurai (Shichinin no Samurai) (1954)
  3. Sergei Bondarchuck’s version of Tolstoy’s War and Peace (1968);
  4. Jean Renoir, La Grande Illusion (1936); Kon Ichikawa, The Burmese Harp (Harp of Burma – Biruma No Tategoto) (1956) and Fires on the Plain (Nobi) (1962)
  5. Stanley Kubrick’s oeuvre of war films: Paths of Glory (1957), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Dr. Strangelove, or How I learned to stop worrying and love the Bomb (1964)
  6. Masaki Kobayashi’s The Human Condition (1958-61).


[Lewis Milestone, “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930) – the classic anti-war movie to which we all keep coming back.]

An important question which was often raised in my courses was one articulated by the Romanian film historian Manuela Gheorghiu-Cernat who expressed it this way: is the showing and studying of war films (especially violent ones) “a pedagogy of peace or a school of violence?” [Arms and the Film, pp. 303-23]. Perhaps Fritz Lang was correct when he stated in 1958 interview: “Could anything new be possibly said on war?… No. But, it is essential for us to repeat over and over again, the things previously uttered.” (Quoted in Manuela Gheorghiu-Cernat, Arms and the Film, p. 304.)

Lang’s unstated assumption is that in the 20th century film would become the medium through which this restatement of the horrors and evil of war can and should be made. We need to ask ourselves whether film, rather than the written word (or perhaps art), is the proper medium for this dialogue. Or perhaps Georges Duhamel is closer to the mark with his prediction: “I shall no longer be able to think what I want. My thoughts will be replaced by mobile images.” (Quoted in Manuela Gheorghiu-Cernat, Arms and the Film, p. 305.) The American soldiers in Vietnam who had watched John Wayne westerns and war movies when they were growing up had such mobile images in their minds – images of heroic actions, self-sacrifice for the state, and glorious death on the battlefield. The great power cinema has is the capacity to offer such “mobile images”, with their associated political and moral meanings, for the purposes of distraction, excitement, amusement, and the political control of audiences. Thus educators have a special responsibility to use this medium carefully.

What I try to do in my use of film in the teaching of history is to make explicit what is implicit in the mobile images on the screen, to place in historical context what might appear at first sight to be timeless and “normal” to the viewer, to discuss the moral beliefs and the political orientation of filmmakers and the impact these ideas have on their filmmaking, and to examine the reception of the films by the audiences of their day.

[Source: Manuela Gheorghiu-Cernat, Arms and the Film: War and Peace in European films. Translated into English by Florin Ionescu and Ecaterina Grundbock (Bucharest : Meridiane, 1983).]

Some additional thoughts on the connections between film and history can be found in the following essays and guides:

“A Guide to the Study of War, History, and Film”

“Further Thoughts on War Films and the Study of History”

“Bastiat goes to the Movies, or “Filming Freddie”: How to Popularise Economic Ideas in Film” (2017)

“Some Thoughts on an ‘Austrian Theory of Film’: Ideas and Human Action in a Film about Frédéric Bastiat” (Sept. 2019)

The History of the “Great Liberal Emancipation” 1750-1914

Francisco Goya, “The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters” Abolitionist Medallion – “Am I not a Man and Brother?”

I have put online some old teaching material (both lecture notes and Seminar Reading Guides) I wrote decades ago when I was working in the Department of History at the University of Adelaide. I wanted to show the students the importance of the “liberal” critique of the privileges and injustices of the old regime (both 18th and 19th centuries) and how liberal revolutionaries and reformers went about “emancipating” ordinary people from these infringements on their lives and liberties, with varying degrees of success. That is, the liberal reformers of the day, as well as me trying to show Australian students in the 1980s and 1990s that liberal ideas were important!

These courses were offered at introductory first year level (in a variety of “modules” in team taught subjects), to 2nd and 3rd year level students in a full year course, and then at the Honors (4th year) level in a semester length subject.

Although I didn’t have an opportunity to do so at the time, I had in mind a coherent and interconnected set of lectures and seminars on “The Great Emancipations” which transformed Europe (and indeed “western civilisation”) in the late 18th and 19th centuries and made possible the emergence of the modern market and liberal order we have today (or at least partly). These lectures would combine the history of ideas (liberal political and economic theory) and the political and social history of the liberal movements which put these ideas into practice. For example the ideas of free markets and free trade in the work of Adam Smith and Turgot in the 1760s and 1770s and the free trade movements which emerged in England and France in the 1840s and 1850s.

The courses I gave were:

  1. The Enlightenment – Reading Guide
  2. The Old Regime and the Enlightenment – Reading Guide and Lecture Notes
  3. Liberal Europe and Social Change 1815-1914 – Reading Guide and Lecture Notes
  4. Europe in the Long 19th Century 1789-1918 – Reading Guide and Lecture Notes

And the ideas/movements I covered were:

The Enlightenment:

  1. Power and Privilege in the Old Regime
  2. The Enlightened Critique of the Old Regime
    1. The Codification and Transmission of the Enlightenment: Denis Diderot and the Encyclopédie (1751).
    2. Rousseau on Freedom and Inequality: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality (1754).
    3. The Attack on Religion: Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764).
    4. Reform of the Law and Punishment: Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
    5. Opposition to Slavery and Colonialism: Abbé Raynal, Philosophical History of the Two Indies (1772).
    6. Commerce and Liberty: Adam Smith, The Weath of Nations (1776)
    7. The Enlightenment in Drama and Opera: Beaumarchais’ and Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro (1778, 1786).
    8. The rights of women: Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
    9. Progress and the Vision of an Enlightened Future: Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (1793).
    10. Criticism of the Ancien Régime in Art: Francisco Goya, Los Caprichos (1799).
  3. Reform and Revolution: Putting the Ideas of the Enlightenment into Practice

19th Century Europe

  1. Competing Visions of Freedom & Reform: Mill’s Liberalism vs Marx’s Socialism
  2. Liberal Ideas
    1. Individualism and Liberty
    2. Utilitarianism Vs. Natural Rights
    3. Property and Contract
    4. The Free Market and Social Harmony
    5. Limited vs. No Government
    6. Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law
    7. Democracy and Electoral Reform
    8. Freedom of Speech
  3. Liberal Critiques
    1. The Rituals & Imagery of Political Power: Republicanism vs Monarchism
    2. Poverty
    3. War and Empire
    4. Centralisation of Government Power
    5. Socialism
    6. The New Class Society
  4. Liberal Reforms
    1. The Abolition of Serfdom & Slavery
    2. Free Trade
    3. Electoral Reform (men)
    4. Deregulation of Industry
    5. The Emancipation of Women
  5. Other matters of concern and dispute
    1. The National Question
    2. Classical Political Economy and Laissez-faire
    3. Manufacturing and the Machinery Question
    4. Population Growth and Malthusianism
    5. The Social Question. Poverty and Progress
  6. Liberal Politics in the Novel
    1. Alessandro Manzoni, The Betrothed (1827)
    2. Stendhal, The Red and the Black: A Chronicle of the 19th Century (1830)
    3. George Eliot, Felix Holt, The Radical (1866)
    4. Jules Verne, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1870
    5. Theodor Fontane, Effi Briest (1895)

DAVID HART’S “ABC OF ANZAC HISTORY”

The Advertiser of Monday, 31 March, 1997 had a front page article
on an “ANZAC Day School Pack” which has been devloped by the Federal
government and the Australian Army for use in schools on the eve of ANZAC
Day 1997. A key part of the pack is an “ABC” of key words designed
to “encourage young people to remember and appreciate the sacrifice
of veterans”. As a counter to the patriotic, uncritical and even absurd
government-sponsored list I have prepared my own list (which is NOT to be
recited in class but read and reflected upon in private).

The government’s list was modelled on the original 1916 ANZAC Book which I have online and on which I wrote an “illustrated essay” a short while ago. The soldiers who published that book drew up the original “ANZAC Alphabet” in two different versions, one by Henderson and one by “Ubique” (see below for the image of these lists). As I wrote in my illustrated essay on this <Art/WarArt/AnzacBook/index.html>:

An ANZAC Alphabet” by Henderson is one of the best loved illustrations in the ANZAC Book (pp. 115-18). It is a 4 page rhyming poem based upon the letters of the alphabet with rather crude illustrations of each letter of the alphabet along with a two line poem which illustrates various aspects of the soldiers’ life at Gallipoli. This was not the only ANZAC alphabet which appeared in the ANZAC Book. A second one “Another Attempt at an ANZAC Alphabet” (by “Ubique” [Latin for “everywhere”])  appeared a few pages later (pp. 146-47) but it was not illustrated and is less well known. It takes a roughly chronological approach to relating his experiences at Gallipoli and focuses more on the everyday hardships and fear faced by the soldiers.

 

The Federal Government’s List

David Hart’s Alternatives

A

is for

Anzac Amputation, Ace, Armistice, AIF

B

is for

Bully beef Boche, Brass hat, Barrage, Bayonet, Bolshevik Revolution, Bean (C.E.W.)

C

is for

Color (sic) patches Conscription, Comradeship, Conscientious Objector, Capital courts martial

D

is for

Digger “Donkey”, Dictatorship (of Ludendorf and Hindenberg), Death

E

is for

Enlistment Empire (British, French, German, Russian, Ottoman)

F

is for

Friendship Flanders’ fields, Fascism (and other ideologies of total war and the total
state)

G

is for

Gallipoli Gas

H

is for

Home Front Hun, Heroes, “Home by Christmas”

I

is for

Ice Imperial War Graves Commission, “Im Western Nichts Neues”

J

is for

Jacka (Albert Jacka) Jünger (Ernst)

K

is for

Kit Kaiser, King and Country, Karl Kraus

L

is for

Letters home Lee Enfield rifle, “Lost Generation”, Live and Let Live System,
Langemarck, Legend of the ANZACs

M

is for

Medals Mutiny, Machine Gun, Mitteleuropa, Militarism, Morley (John)

N

is for

Nurses No Man’s Land, Nationalism

O

is for

Observation “Old Lie”, Over the Top

P

is for

Poppy Passchendaele, Propaganda, Prosthesis, Poilu, Pacifism, Prostitutes

Q

is for

Questions Quakers, “Questioning”

R

is for

Rising Sun Random death

S

is for

Simpson and his donkey Shell shock, Strafing, Sport and War, Somme, “Storm of Steel”,
Soldier Settlers

T

is for

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Trench foot, Total War, Thirty Years War of the 20thC

U

is for

Uniforms Unknown Soldier, “Under Fire”, Unconditional Surrender

V

is for

Villiers Brettoneux VAD, Versailles, Verdun, VC, VD

W

is for

War memorials War Socialism, War Widows, Western Front

X

is for

Xenyl chloride Xenophon (classical defender of the “Old Lie”)

Y

is for

Years apart from family and friends Ypres

Z

is for

Zimmerman Zeppelin

 

Some Thoughts on Liberal History

[Hyacinth Rigaud, “Louis XIV” (1701)]

[Pierre-Paul Prud’hon, “Liberty” (1793) slaying the hydra monster of tyranny]

I interpret “liberal history” in several ways. It might mean

(1.) The history of the classical liberal tradition, which has at least two components:

  1. a history of how and when liberal ideas first emerged and then evolved over time – so the “intellectual history” of liberalism;
  2. a history of “liberal movements” where liberal minded people organized to join forces in order to change / reform society along the lines suggested by their liberal philosophy and values – so a social and political history of liberal reform movements, such as the movement to abolish slavery, or to abolish tariffs (the Corn Laws in England)

(2.) The history of societies or entire countries during periods when liberal ideas and movements had sufficient strength to influence the course of history, such as the late 18th century in north America and western Europe when revolutions took place (e.g. Palmer’s “The Age of Democratic Revolutions”), or the 19th century when many European countries enacted liberal reforms and restructured their societies according to some liberal principles (democratic reform, free trade, constitutional limits on the power of the state, freedom of speech) (Hamerow’s “The Birth of a New Europe”)

(3.) The use of liberal political, economic, and social theory to analyse the power structures, government policies, and the problems they caused in the broader society, in writing the history of any society (liberal or illiberal). For example the use of classical liberal class analysis and theory of “interventionism” developed by Mises, to study the nature of the class system of Ancient Greece and Rome, the class structure and the economic crises faced by “old regime” states in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, or communist regimes during the course of the 20th century.

I have tried to make contributions to all three forms of “liberal history” which I have listed here. Since 1987 I have been teaching and lecturing on the history of the classical liberal tradition (history of ideas) and its impact on the world (political, economic, social, and military history). This has taken the path of formal courses taught at university (the University of Adelaide 1986-2001), occasional lectures/seminars for groups such as the Institute for Human Studies (since 1991), the Center for Liberal Studies, the Centre for Independent Studies (since 1999), and the Mannkal Center, as well as lectures to student groups and the general public wherever and whenever the opportunity arose (Students for Liberty, Bastiat Societies all across the US).

For example,

(1.) On the history of classical liberal ideas and the movements they inspired to bring about liberal reforms see the following:

  1. about half of my full-year course given at the University of Adelaide on “Liberal Europe and Social Change, 1815-1914″ (1987) was devoted to an intellectual history of 19th century classical liberal thought and the other half to the movements for reform which it inspired. Course Reading Guide and Lecture Notes.
  2. the entire one semester upper level course on “The Enlightenment: Ideas of Criticism and Reform in an International Context” (1990) dealt with both ideas and liberal reform movements before the French Revolution. Course Reading Guide.
  3. as did the short three week module in a first year subject “The Old Regime, Enlightenment, and Revolution in the 18th Century” (2000). Lecture Notes and Seminar Reading Guide.
  4. and the lecture/seminar series I have been giving since 2006 on “The Classical Liberal Tradition: A 400 Year History of Ideas and Movements” (which is currently being revised and rewritten) here.

(2.) On the history of more extended periods when European societies were undergoing radical social and economic changes inspired largely by classical liberal ideas see:

  1. significant portions of the course “Liberal Europe and Social Change, 1815-1914” (1987). Course Reading Guide and Lecture Notes.
  2. most of the semester length first year course on modern European history “Revolution(s) and the Struggle for Emancipation in Europe: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1789-1914″ (1998-1999). Lecture Notes and Seminar Reading Guide.

(3.) On liberal social theory to explain historical events, my focus has been on classical liberal theories of class analysis and how it can be used to explore the tensions within societies which lead to opposition and even violent resistance (revolutions). My work on CLCA as a social theory can be seen here, and my application of this theory to specific historical moments in the following courses:

  1. “The Old Regime, Enlightenment, and Revolution in the 18th Century” (2000). Lecture Notes and Seminar Reading Guide.
  2. “Revolution(s) and the Struggle for Emancipation in Europe: The Long Nineteenth Century, 1789-1914″ (1998-1999). Lecture Notes and Seminar Reading Guide.
  3. and the numerous lecture/seminars I have given on class analysis for the IHS and other groups which are listed here.

The trajectory of my teaching, lecturing, and research has followed a fairly circuitous path but I believe that in spite of these twists and turns I have pursued a consistent approach to the study of history, namely the struggle between “liberty” and “power”. By this I mean that a select group ( a ”class”) has commonly enjoyed positions of power and privilege at the expense of ordinary people; that this power and privilege has been challenged at various times, first intellectually (the Enlightenment in the 18th century, and then by the ideologies of liberalism and socialism in the 19th century) and then politically, sometimes peacefully through gradual reform, and sometimes violently through revolution; this challenge to entrenched power and privilege resulted sometimes in radical and systemic change (particularly in post-revolutionary America) and at other times to only partial and temporary changes which were limited or even undone by the “counter-revolutionary” activities of the surviving members of the old regime. Nevertheless, the end result by the end of the 19th century was a new kind of society in “the West” with many important liberal institutions and practices which dramatically improved the lot of the ordinary working person.

Yet, in spite of these liberal reforms there remained powerful groups who wished to undo or moderate these reforms and to reassert their power and reclaim their privileges beginning in the 1870s and 1880s (Mayer’s “The Persistence of the Old Regime in Europe”). This took the form of the reappearance of protectionism for well-connected agricultural and industrial interests, the policies of colonialism and imperialism which saw the carving up of the world into spheres of interest and exclusive trading blocks, the formation of mass conscript armies and a naval arms race, the creation of a new bureaucratic regulatory state, and the beginnings of a “transfer” or welfare state.

A more coherent chronological statement of my view of the evolution of modern European history between 1750 and 1914 would consist of the following main points:

  • a description of the power and privileges of those groups /classes who benefited from the old regime (church, state, and military), and the ideas which justified and legitimized them
  • the critique of these powers and privileges during the Enlightenment, both by (proto) “liberals” and by (proto) “socialists”
  • the insoluble “crisis” of the old regime created an opportunity for more radical reform, even violent revolution, as happened in north America and then France and parts of occupied Europe
  • these revolutions allowed many different factions with very different ideas of what should be done to reform society to jostle for power within the new regimes: there were liberal factions, socialist/interventionist (Jacobin) factions, republican/democratic factions, and defenders of the old order (church, aristocracy, monarchy, military); very rarely did the “liberal” faction win a complete victory (possibly they did for a brief period in America – Jonathan Israel, “The Expanding Blaze How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775–1848”), thus the “liberal revolution” was an incomplete and unfinished one
  • in most cases, the revolutions were followed by a partial “restoration” of the old order, but since the underlying political and economic problems had not been resolved there gradually emerged a new generation of critics of the old regime in the form of modern liberalism and socialism
  • this criticism led to the mobilisation of groups (using their newly enfranchised status as voters) to agitate and often get significant reforms during the course of the 19th century, such as free trade, freedom of speech, deregulation of parts of the economy, constitutional limits to state paper, and the rule of law
  • at the same time the remnants of the old order continued to defend their powers and privileges, often by adapting to the demands of the growing liberal, socialist, and democratic forces which were challenging their position, by making concessions, or by making sure they still controlled the key institutions of the state and the economy (the central bank, the judiciary, the military, the state education system)
  • by the late 19th century liberalism was in decline, especially ideologically as it compromised many of its core beliefs – the “New Liberalism” – in order to appeal to working class supporters of the new socialist and labour parties; just as conservatives (Bismarck) accepted some “welfare” policies as a way to ward off violent challenges to their position from below; and socialist and Marxist parties grew in strength both politically and ideologically, thus positioning themselves to play a much more influential role in the 20th century
  • the partial “liberal order” which had emerged at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was largely destroyed by the cataclysm of the First World War which saw massive regulation of all European economies, the suspension of most of the hard-won liberties citizens enjoyed, death and destruction of property on a massive scale, and the collapse of societies like the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires and the coming to power of new, virulent forms of statism which the world had never seen before (communism and fascism)