In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. — attributed to St. Augustine

There are times in modern history when the Hegelian dialectic forms the basis for social and political change. The thesis represents the status quo; the antithesis introduces deviation; and the synthesis emerges as the new normal — at least for a time.

One such metamorphosis occurred during the initial rise of industry from 1760 until 1840 with another iteration evident from 1870 until 1914. Broadly speaking the Industrial Revolution marked a formidable displacement away from reliance on hand craftmanship to machine manufacturing as the primary means of production. Mechanical power was harnessed to vastly expand product output and in the process the world was transformed.

The Industrial Revolution did not spontaneously combust. It became conceivable because a philosophical foundation was set to make it possible. A school of thought developed characterized by reason, empiricism, pragmatism, and a systemization of knowledge gain. In the west, social confinement finally began to shift away from the combined dominance of Church teachings and monarchial/aristocratic decrees as the sole roots of incontrovertible truths and guidance for all humankind.

The period known as The Enlightenment began in the mid-seventeenth century with Descartes and Newton and lasted until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. The rational and scientific upheaval of this age of reason made possible the Industrial Revolution. Of significance was the synthesis of the many cultural, political, economic, and technical outgrowths spawned by development of industry.

We not only live at present with the technological and economic features of industrial capitalism, but also with its principal social and political theory known as classical liberalism. From the churn of new philosophical and scientific thought emerged a transfigured social order. A novel conception of what it meant to be human surfaced emphasizing the worth of the individual person. A looming fatigue and disdain for playing the role of chattel manifested. The human condition had had enough of subjugation and exploitation.

Classical liberalism began with a revisitation and reformulation of the concepts of the state of nature and natural law. Though interpretive consensus was lacking there nevertheless existed a prevalent and rising belief in an a priori substructure to the human condition. One that stated inconclusively that we are all born with common qualities, most importantly with universal rights. If there is a clear-cut and explicit focal point to the birth of classical liberalism it is with this crystallization of human rights.

In our hearts we never strayed from Aristotle’s claim that to be fully human means to flourish. Philosophy of the seventeenth century sparked a renewed reverence for what it meant to thrive, to try finally to live a life of wonderment, prosperity, and joy. However, recognition of our sacred solitariness alone was not enough to sustain it. We shared the world with others. We all had the right to flourish. We all wanted the same thing and therein lies the challenge of the collective for the individual.

Classical liberalism was a social contract. A systemized way of honoring individualism within the context of society. John Locke contributed much to articulating how this social contract was to be perfected. Locke perceived the budding natural law ethic of individual rights as consistent with his view of the human as free and equal in the state of nature. And revolutionary for his time, Locke saw the rights of the individual as superseding the authority of monarchs.

The macro movement of limiting the power of monarchs inspired Locke and led to his social contract theory, which became an elegant construction, the influence of which lives on to this day. A key hallmark of the social contract prescribed that government, a concept that Locke admits did not come from natural law, but which was a necessary creation of humans nevertheless, should be constituted and exercised by the governed, by the people. Its key purpose was to achieve social harmony by ensuring all could prosper.

To execute the social contract Locke composed a political theory that centered on four central functional elements for government to follow:

• Individual Rights to protect the freedoms of each person
• A Rule of Law that is applied to all equally
• Limited Government to safeguard against tyranny
• Economic Freedom as the means of achieving abundance

The job of bringing the classical liberal social contract to fruition fell to the early post-church and post-monarch nation states during the eighteenth century, primarily Britain, France, and the young United States. Despite their respective fits and starts and idiosyncrasies what eventually materialized were the liberal democracies, a movement that in time became globally pervasive due to its civilized capacity to merge individual rights with shared decision making. Consensus grew that liberal democracy best secured and expressed the values of classical liberalism.

Adherence to classical liberalism exerted within the context of representative democracy constitutes a humane and effective means of ensuring opportunities for flourishing of all people within a given society. One is hard put to see a system that is better. All other methods of command and control demonstrate an imbalanced concentration of power of one sort or another. Over-convergence of power, whether it be in the form of government, religion, corporations, monarchies, oligarchies, aristocracies, or media, eventually leads to hierarchy, domination, oppression, and a diminishment of individual rights and checks on power.

Retaining classical liberalism is not easy to do, despite its popular appeal. There are muscular forces in most societies which feel constrained and checked by broad and equal disbursement of rights. Classical liberalism promotes sharing of power and wealth among a citizenry. Those with a tendency toward hoarding power and wealth do not want to contend with these fundamental and vexing aspects of liberalism. Rather, they pine for a more traditional and antiquated arrangement in which some people, as in their kind of people, are better than others and more deserving of power and wealth.

Today we see such a regressive social and political movement in the form of illiberalism. This emerging ideology directly challenges classical liberalism. The traditional but menacing leadership practices associated with autocracy, dictatorship, all-powerful monarchs, and a privileged well-heeled class are always at hand. There is a rich history reaching back millennia of groups and individuals who believe in their hearts and minds that an entitlement class is necessary to ensure that a society or national state retains its cultural conventions and to prevent social descent into chaos and debauchery. They alone possess the means and abilities to best steer the populace.

The latest iteration of this authoritarian heritage is illiberalism. This perspective views classical liberalism as anathema to their mission. Illiberalism prides itself on advancing national sovereignty and what is known as national essentialism, an interpretation of a historic national core comprised of a founding people with valued originalist traditions and practices in need of preservation. It promotes a political culture that rejects change and attempts at progress in favor of customary rituals.

To further the illiberalism project, adherents renounce individual freedoms among those not included among the chosen people. Multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and extensions of rights to minorities are shunned, if not forcibly curtailed. Limited government is also abandoned as power is concentrated into an all-powerful executive. To accomplish executive consolidation parliamentary and judicial systems are diminished and enfeebled.

Economically, illiberal supporters do not trust free trade and tend to be highly protectionist despite the many examples of economic decline wrought by protectionism such as high consumer prices, trade wars, inefficiency, supply chain disruptions, and reduced market access. Indeed, illiberalism is ambivalent about free enterprise in general. Its controlling nature can lead to cronyism and state intervention into economic decision making, not unlike communist practices.

Not surprisingly, illiberalism lacks enthusiasm for foreign policy that engages too much with the world and instead favors isolationism. Multilateral treaties and multinational institutions are seen as inconsistent with sovereignty and so are spurned. In the case of the United States, which has played a unipolar role internationally since the end of the Cold War, continued influencing of advancing democratic principles globally is also in conflict with illiberal thought. The conviction remains that a nation state can and should conduct its own affairs in its own interests with as little contact with others, as necessary.

Illiberal political parties are proliferating around the world. Their presence is now found in Hungary, Poland, Türkiye, Brazil, El Salvador, Venezuela, India, Philippines, Russia, Israel, Tunisia, and Egypt — and now here in the United States. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism for illiberalism, and we have a president, who along with the majorities in Congress, practice it.

The Hegelian Dialectic acknowledges that social change happens. Political inertia is not to be expected. However, it is the quality of the antithesis and the resulting synthesis that most matters. The great challenge for our time in America and around the world is to see if the ideals of classical liberalism, which remain a revolutionary enhancement in governance, can survive and thrive in the face of a world disrupted by contemporary technologies and a globalized economy. Illiberalism represents a regression to times and methods ill-suited to address modern problems and opportunities. Rather, illiberalism is based on fear and insecurity and deserves to be soundly repudiated.