{"id":1177,"date":"2021-09-06T12:21:09","date_gmt":"2021-09-06T01:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/?p=1177"},"modified":"2026-04-07T22:22:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T12:22:21","slug":"the-success-of-liberal-ideas-has-led-to-the-decline-of-radical-liberal-parties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/davidmhart.com\/wordpress\/the-success-of-liberal-ideas-has-led-to-the-decline-of-radical-liberal-parties\/","title":{"rendered":"The Success of Liberal Ideas has led to the Decline of Radical Liberal Parties"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n[The Chimera on a red-figure Apulian plate, c. 350\u2013340 BC (Mus\u00e9e du Louvre)]<\/p>\n

[Note<\/strong>: This post is part of a series<\/a> on the History of the Classical Liberal Tradition]<\/p>\n

In a rather unfair and perhaps perverse result of its success over the past 250 years, the impressive success of CL ideas and organised movements (Richard Ebeling\u2019s five \u201ccrusades\u201d of CL) has led to its gradual attenuation or even disappearance as a separate movement. Since so many of its core beliefs have been taken up by other political ideologies it seems to no longer have a raison d\u2019\u00eatre or its own mouthpiece, with the possible exception of the modern American Libertarian Party (founded 1971).<\/p>\n

Left wing ideologies like socialism, social democracy, Fabian Socialism, Australian and British \u201cLaborism\u201d, American \u201cProgressivism\u201d or the Democrat Party, as well as right wing \u201cconservatism\u201d in the form of the American Republican Party, the British Conservative Party, the Australian \u201cLiberal\u201d Party have all adopted what were once CL ideas about the rule of law, democratic elections, constitutionalism, individual rights, legal equality (women, gays), the greater efficiency and productiveness of free markets. They have incorporated CL ideas into their platforms which in my view makes them a kind of political \u201chybrid\u201d (or \u201cbastard\u201d or \u201cillegitimate child\u201d if you are feeling churlish) of two very different political traditions. Their other ideological \u201cparent\u201d are various forms of statism, socialism, interventionism, and economic planning (\u201cnon-comprehensive planning\u201d in Don Lavoie\u2019s terminology)<\/p>\n

This \u201cideological hybridisation\u201d has given rise to what one might call LINOs and SINOs: liberals and liberal parties which are \u201cLiberal In Name Only\u201d and their socialist counterparts which are \u201cSocialist In Name Only\u201d.<\/p>\n

LINO parties would say they have corrected the problems and weaknesses of CL and created a better kind of politics and governance, that they have \u201cmoved beyond\u201d the limitations of the CL tradition and that this is a good thing. In other words, they have combined the best parts of socialism and interventionism (government guidance\/direction), and the best parts of liberalism. SINOs would say they have done the same thing by finding a \u201cThird Way\u201d (Tony Blair and BIll Clinton) between the two ideologies.<\/p>\n

Radical Liberals (and Libertarians) would, on the contrary, say that any \u201cThird Way\u201d between liberalism and socialism will fatally compromise core CL principles, and that the logical inconsistencies are unsustainable in the long run. In fact, they argue that this combination is fatally contradictory because the amalgamation of these ideas from totally different traditions is not stable, that there is an inbuilt and thus unavoidable tendency of the state to constantly expand its powers, and that there is always the problem of the \u201ccapture\u201d of state institutions by those who work in it and those whom they regulate.<\/p>\n

The idea that there can be a \u201cGoldilocks\u201d mixture (not too liberal and not too socialist) of different aspects of CLT and socialism (government regulation and interventionism) and that one can \u201cmix and match\u201d the different possible combinations to suit national, geographic, or religious differences\/requirements\/needs, is a false hope – \u201cUtopian if you will.<\/p>\n

Thus , on the \u201csmorgasbord\u201d table of political ideologies and policies the LINOs and SINOs can choose from the following plates. On the left hand side of the table one can select from the following<\/p>\n