What do you think?
Rate this book
How To Be A Liberal
From Brexit Britain to Donald Trump's America, nationalists are launching an all-out assault on liberal values. In this groundbreaking new book, Ian Dunt tells the story of liberalism, from its birth in the fight against absolute monarchy to the modern-day resistance against the new populism.
In a soaring narrative that stretches from the battlefields of the English Civil War to the 2008 financial crash and beyond, this vivid, page-turning book explains the political ideas which underpin the modern world. But it is also something much more than that – it is a rallying cry for those who still believe in freedom and reason.
In a soaring narrative that stretches from the battlefields of the English Civil War to the 2008 financial crash and beyond, this vivid, page-turning book explains the political ideas which underpin the modern world. But it is also something much more than that – it is a rallying cry for those who still believe in freedom and reason.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 2020
226 people are currently reading
1283 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
October 4, 2020
Ian Dunt has multiple personas: the sweary critic of Remainiacs and Twitter, lambasting Parliamentary dunces with choice invective (“brain like a piece of crumpled paper, spluttering out little scraps of bullshit”); the polemicist of politics.co.uk, destroying absurd political logic with withering put-downs (“It’s not just their brains that are small, but their hearts”); and the non-sweary but still biting political commentator on the TV. I was wondering which Ian Dunt would show up for this book.
And the answer is: none of the above. Although no swears were harmed in the making of this book, this is not the contemporary political commentary for which Dunt has made his name. In fact, he becomes by turns historian, philosopher, economist and sociologist as he charts the development of liberalism as a political ethos.
Starting with Descartes and the primacy of doubt, moving through the Levellers and their belief in an “innate freedom and propriety”, he performs an excellent comparative analysis of the “three revolutions”: the Glorious, the French, and the American. In particular, what went so wrong in France, where the popular uprising was followed swiftly by Robespierre’s Terror, and later by the tyrant Napoleon, while America’s original constitution is considered the founding document of a successful modern democracy? Dunt simplifies, but his answer is striking: America’s founders put individual liberty at the heart of the nation they created, while the French Republic owed too much to Rousseau’s idea of the ‘general will’, which denied individual rights. This theme, that of individual rights versus the general ‘will of the people’, underpins much of the book.
Developing his theme through the lesser-known figures of Benjamin Constant and Harriet Taylor Mill (given equal billing with John Stuart Mill, as Mill himself did), we come on to the chapter titled ‘Death’, where the ideals of liberalism are destroyed by the two new twentieth-century systems of government, communism and fascism. George Orwell was the first to realise, through his experiences in the Spanish civil war, that fascism and Stalinism were equivalent evils, which he fought against under the umbrella term ‘totalitarianism’. Each one promoted the power of the state over the value of the individual, and in each one this simple reversal of values led to the state brutally repressing the population and killing millions of its own citizens. Once again, when individual rights were denied, murderous regimes, and now on a modern industrial scale, were the result.
After WWII, the attitude of ‘never again’ resulted in a resurgence in liberal ideas. The Marshall Plan was an attempt by America to build strong liberal democracies in Europe, which contrasts with the vicious reparations demanded by the victorious powers after WWI. The EU grew from a determination to link the economies of the warring nations so tightly that war between them would become impossible. The competing visions of Keynes and Hayek were in fact both facets of liberalism: one emphasising freedom through low unemployment and the individual opportunities thereby created; and the other focusing on low inflation and freedom of choice for the individual consumer.
After some handy biographical cameos of Orwell and Isaiah Berlin, we see how the version of liberalism which came to dominate was that of Hayek and Friedman, with Reagan and Thatcher symbolising their victory in the 80s. Even Clinton and Blair, supposedly more left-leaning, did little to disturb the laissez-faire economic consensus. But the victory of unconstrained capitalism did not always safeguard the prosperity of individuals, and increased the fragility of the financial system. Dunt gives an excellent account of the global financial crisis of 2008 (incidentally laying a decent amount of the blame on the often-neglected conflicts of interest inherent in the business model of the ratings agencies), and describes how the resulting austerity fuelled the rise of populism, and ideological conflicts between people subscribing to different tribal identities, all over the world. He points out that opposition to the new nationalism is not automatically liberal: political organisations set up to represent particular interests can promote positions not supported by some of their members, and ideological Marxists subordinate individual interests to that of the group.
Dunt makes the case for a truly liberal opposition to the current rise of national populism. This book, by placing the development of liberalism in its historical context, and re-stating its key tenets in one place, is a valuable contribution to the fight. The rule of law, freedom of speech, separation of powers, the right to a fair trial, and above all, individual rights: these are not just abstract ideals, but are the guarantors of the way of life we hold dear. We will only realise how much we miss them when they are gone.
And the answer is: none of the above. Although no swears were harmed in the making of this book, this is not the contemporary political commentary for which Dunt has made his name. In fact, he becomes by turns historian, philosopher, economist and sociologist as he charts the development of liberalism as a political ethos.
Starting with Descartes and the primacy of doubt, moving through the Levellers and their belief in an “innate freedom and propriety”, he performs an excellent comparative analysis of the “three revolutions”: the Glorious, the French, and the American. In particular, what went so wrong in France, where the popular uprising was followed swiftly by Robespierre’s Terror, and later by the tyrant Napoleon, while America’s original constitution is considered the founding document of a successful modern democracy? Dunt simplifies, but his answer is striking: America’s founders put individual liberty at the heart of the nation they created, while the French Republic owed too much to Rousseau’s idea of the ‘general will’, which denied individual rights. This theme, that of individual rights versus the general ‘will of the people’, underpins much of the book.
Developing his theme through the lesser-known figures of Benjamin Constant and Harriet Taylor Mill (given equal billing with John Stuart Mill, as Mill himself did), we come on to the chapter titled ‘Death’, where the ideals of liberalism are destroyed by the two new twentieth-century systems of government, communism and fascism. George Orwell was the first to realise, through his experiences in the Spanish civil war, that fascism and Stalinism were equivalent evils, which he fought against under the umbrella term ‘totalitarianism’. Each one promoted the power of the state over the value of the individual, and in each one this simple reversal of values led to the state brutally repressing the population and killing millions of its own citizens. Once again, when individual rights were denied, murderous regimes, and now on a modern industrial scale, were the result.
After WWII, the attitude of ‘never again’ resulted in a resurgence in liberal ideas. The Marshall Plan was an attempt by America to build strong liberal democracies in Europe, which contrasts with the vicious reparations demanded by the victorious powers after WWI. The EU grew from a determination to link the economies of the warring nations so tightly that war between them would become impossible. The competing visions of Keynes and Hayek were in fact both facets of liberalism: one emphasising freedom through low unemployment and the individual opportunities thereby created; and the other focusing on low inflation and freedom of choice for the individual consumer.
After some handy biographical cameos of Orwell and Isaiah Berlin, we see how the version of liberalism which came to dominate was that of Hayek and Friedman, with Reagan and Thatcher symbolising their victory in the 80s. Even Clinton and Blair, supposedly more left-leaning, did little to disturb the laissez-faire economic consensus. But the victory of unconstrained capitalism did not always safeguard the prosperity of individuals, and increased the fragility of the financial system. Dunt gives an excellent account of the global financial crisis of 2008 (incidentally laying a decent amount of the blame on the often-neglected conflicts of interest inherent in the business model of the ratings agencies), and describes how the resulting austerity fuelled the rise of populism, and ideological conflicts between people subscribing to different tribal identities, all over the world. He points out that opposition to the new nationalism is not automatically liberal: political organisations set up to represent particular interests can promote positions not supported by some of their members, and ideological Marxists subordinate individual interests to that of the group.
Dunt makes the case for a truly liberal opposition to the current rise of national populism. This book, by placing the development of liberalism in its historical context, and re-stating its key tenets in one place, is a valuable contribution to the fight. The rule of law, freedom of speech, separation of powers, the right to a fair trial, and above all, individual rights: these are not just abstract ideals, but are the guarantors of the way of life we hold dear. We will only realise how much we miss them when they are gone.
January 5, 2023
A Few Thoughts on Freedom at the End of a Long Struggle
By the end, I had inserted so many little fluorescent yellow tabs to mark moments in this book that I wanted to quote in a review that I had lost my way through it. Yes, I had lost my way seeking an understanding if liberty, sadly reflecting the wider political and philosophical world I grew up in.
And it was really to understand the world I was born into in the mid-1960s into - a free democratic place to parents who had come from a not so free democratic place. They came from a place unfree in terms of rigid social and religious structures, a dictatorship, a military occupation and after civil war a virtual political monopoly. They didn’t leave for these reasons – political freedom, but economic freedom – that other pillar of liberal values. Australia at the time was wealthy beyond their dreams and held together by the social bindings of Britishness, agrarian exports, tariffs and unionised labour agreements. Without that unique wealth, the country would not be so free and easy. The place was harmonious and saw a necessary future in immigration. The newcomers weren’t loved, some were loathed, but accepted as the national view was that they represented the safe future – a numbers game of population increase. It’s hard to defend a big place with a small population.
My parents loved freedom to pursue their interests, which strangely reproduced their pre-existing values of social cohesion, church, family, gardening, home making.
I mention all this because, Ian Dunt goes to great lengths to explain the contemporary xenophobic world of nationalistic politics which turned quickly via free democratic institutions towards fascist style governments imposing endless restrictions on people. Remember freedom is determined at one level as the absence of intrusion into our lives - as imagined by philosophers and economists such as Locke, Smith, Mill (and Harriet Taylor who Dunt acknowledges as an equal contributor to Mill’s work) and Constant, Hayek etc.
Now, as I read this book, I realised how my values reflect this near unfettered idea of freedom. To say as I please, vote as I please, go where I please, see who I like etc. This setting of the life I live is actually a kind of culture, the thing I repeat as an action and everyone around me does more or less the same. We don’t talk about its absence, we simply live it and when we need to we stand up and fight for it, defend it, talk about the way it is threatened. Which is no different to any lived belief system in my mind.
Sadly, the threats outlined here by the author, terrified me. Hungary is now run as a fascist state, by Orban and his cronies, with an outer veneer of freedom. The British government has invented so many new and confounding state intrusions into the lives of people who are either poor or immigrants that they are running a parallel state of government control over people’s lives. (OK, irony noted, as they always did in colonial ventures, Northern Ireland etc). Russian disinformation programs have turned democratic processes upside down eschewing values and beliefs in the west through a program of annexation of Ukraine as they attempted to thwart its entry into Europe. Trump’s America invented the newest dastardliest intrusion of the state into people’s lives when they invoked child minor separations from immigrant parents and locked up children in welfare shelters where they cried and cried until even the republican mafia could no longer stand the polling results.
All these modern day manifestations of the state diminish our freedoms daily. Australia is no better, we invented some of the modern immigration rhetoric and policy as one of our biggest contemporary intellectual exports.
We are so far away from the most elegant of liberal ideas devised by Mill and Taylor in On Liberty – the harm principle. Social tyranny is as powerful as government tyranny, Mill and Taylor understood. The power of the mob, public opinion, Rousseau’s will of the people if we remember led to the tyranny of the French Revolution. Modern political polling is doing the same to us again, dividing our thinking into marginal concepts of tribal thoughts. But much of this is avoidable by a simple principle: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant…”
It’s not a call to arms, but a simple daily negotiation that treats us all as participants in some social purpose where our interests can be pursued. My parents would’ve loved it if they’d heard about it. It could best be understood through the current pandemic experience, the lockdown, mask wearing mandates, vaccination programs. A virulent person carries a deadly cargo around, they are no longer sovereign to themselves but a harm to others, so the argument of the harm principle allows power to be exercised over their behaviours. The pandemic is perhaps the best way to understand the harm principle at work, when the state intervenes to minimise harm.
Dunt thankfully examines, however, the way liberal ideas like the US bills of rights were designed with one eye on freedom and the other on preserving illiberal privileges like slavery, male enfranchisement and property rights. Such absences were always part of the fabric – free for me, slavery for you. Freedom for the mob, guillotine for those against us. Exclusions are part of the fabric of how power works, even when it oppresses. That’s why the modern rhetoric on immigration is so deeply fought over. Denying rights is ingrained in the ideology. And ideologists don't bargain their values.
The sections on Orwell and Isaiah Berlin are wonderful to read. They are both deeply interested in the reality of how people think, whether it is patriotism or group belonging. My eldest son loves Berlin, thanks to him I now have a deeper appreciation of his ideas, so it’s good to have a political philosopher in the house. Oh, and, identity politics as rights gets a long section, too.
Dunt offers one valuable little piece of liberal thinking late into the book. The idea that freedom is always negotiated, seeking compromise is actually a central pillar, because if you are in a conversation, you are guided by the value-system, so it’s always at the forefront of debate. If there is no compromise, no discussion about freedom, we are in a state run organisation with not ability left to negotiate our freedom. After all, the absolutist are all tyrants. They don’t like to talk much. Negotiations on freedom always places the freedom at the centre of the discussion.
v.2
By the end, I had inserted so many little fluorescent yellow tabs to mark moments in this book that I wanted to quote in a review that I had lost my way through it. Yes, I had lost my way seeking an understanding if liberty, sadly reflecting the wider political and philosophical world I grew up in.
And it was really to understand the world I was born into in the mid-1960s into - a free democratic place to parents who had come from a not so free democratic place. They came from a place unfree in terms of rigid social and religious structures, a dictatorship, a military occupation and after civil war a virtual political monopoly. They didn’t leave for these reasons – political freedom, but economic freedom – that other pillar of liberal values. Australia at the time was wealthy beyond their dreams and held together by the social bindings of Britishness, agrarian exports, tariffs and unionised labour agreements. Without that unique wealth, the country would not be so free and easy. The place was harmonious and saw a necessary future in immigration. The newcomers weren’t loved, some were loathed, but accepted as the national view was that they represented the safe future – a numbers game of population increase. It’s hard to defend a big place with a small population.
My parents loved freedom to pursue their interests, which strangely reproduced their pre-existing values of social cohesion, church, family, gardening, home making.
I mention all this because, Ian Dunt goes to great lengths to explain the contemporary xenophobic world of nationalistic politics which turned quickly via free democratic institutions towards fascist style governments imposing endless restrictions on people. Remember freedom is determined at one level as the absence of intrusion into our lives - as imagined by philosophers and economists such as Locke, Smith, Mill (and Harriet Taylor who Dunt acknowledges as an equal contributor to Mill’s work) and Constant, Hayek etc.
Now, as I read this book, I realised how my values reflect this near unfettered idea of freedom. To say as I please, vote as I please, go where I please, see who I like etc. This setting of the life I live is actually a kind of culture, the thing I repeat as an action and everyone around me does more or less the same. We don’t talk about its absence, we simply live it and when we need to we stand up and fight for it, defend it, talk about the way it is threatened. Which is no different to any lived belief system in my mind.
Sadly, the threats outlined here by the author, terrified me. Hungary is now run as a fascist state, by Orban and his cronies, with an outer veneer of freedom. The British government has invented so many new and confounding state intrusions into the lives of people who are either poor or immigrants that they are running a parallel state of government control over people’s lives. (OK, irony noted, as they always did in colonial ventures, Northern Ireland etc). Russian disinformation programs have turned democratic processes upside down eschewing values and beliefs in the west through a program of annexation of Ukraine as they attempted to thwart its entry into Europe. Trump’s America invented the newest dastardliest intrusion of the state into people’s lives when they invoked child minor separations from immigrant parents and locked up children in welfare shelters where they cried and cried until even the republican mafia could no longer stand the polling results.
All these modern day manifestations of the state diminish our freedoms daily. Australia is no better, we invented some of the modern immigration rhetoric and policy as one of our biggest contemporary intellectual exports.
We are so far away from the most elegant of liberal ideas devised by Mill and Taylor in On Liberty – the harm principle. Social tyranny is as powerful as government tyranny, Mill and Taylor understood. The power of the mob, public opinion, Rousseau’s will of the people if we remember led to the tyranny of the French Revolution. Modern political polling is doing the same to us again, dividing our thinking into marginal concepts of tribal thoughts. But much of this is avoidable by a simple principle: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant…”
It’s not a call to arms, but a simple daily negotiation that treats us all as participants in some social purpose where our interests can be pursued. My parents would’ve loved it if they’d heard about it. It could best be understood through the current pandemic experience, the lockdown, mask wearing mandates, vaccination programs. A virulent person carries a deadly cargo around, they are no longer sovereign to themselves but a harm to others, so the argument of the harm principle allows power to be exercised over their behaviours. The pandemic is perhaps the best way to understand the harm principle at work, when the state intervenes to minimise harm.
Dunt thankfully examines, however, the way liberal ideas like the US bills of rights were designed with one eye on freedom and the other on preserving illiberal privileges like slavery, male enfranchisement and property rights. Such absences were always part of the fabric – free for me, slavery for you. Freedom for the mob, guillotine for those against us. Exclusions are part of the fabric of how power works, even when it oppresses. That’s why the modern rhetoric on immigration is so deeply fought over. Denying rights is ingrained in the ideology. And ideologists don't bargain their values.
The sections on Orwell and Isaiah Berlin are wonderful to read. They are both deeply interested in the reality of how people think, whether it is patriotism or group belonging. My eldest son loves Berlin, thanks to him I now have a deeper appreciation of his ideas, so it’s good to have a political philosopher in the house. Oh, and, identity politics as rights gets a long section, too.
Dunt offers one valuable little piece of liberal thinking late into the book. The idea that freedom is always negotiated, seeking compromise is actually a central pillar, because if you are in a conversation, you are guided by the value-system, so it’s always at the forefront of debate. If there is no compromise, no discussion about freedom, we are in a state run organisation with not ability left to negotiate our freedom. After all, the absolutist are all tyrants. They don’t like to talk much. Negotiations on freedom always places the freedom at the centre of the discussion.
v.2
September 19, 2020
Ian Dunt is an excellent writer and starts off the book with a summary of the development of liberalism, which though succinct, is comprehensive and incisive. His view that John Stuart Mill's work on liberty should be regarded as a join effort with Harriet Taylor is a refreshing (and I’m sure accurate) reassessment of their contribution - throughout the book he rightly refers to them jointly.
The latter part of the book examines the modern rise of populism and the challenge it poses to liberal democracy. It’s a depressing account of just how successful the right in Europe and the States has been, all too familiar to anyone who has been following current affairs over the last few years, and how it has forced back liberal ideals around freedom and compassion. He is not willing to give up without a fight, though, and outlines the work that needs to be done to retake lost ground.
The one weakness I found was his analysis of 'Identity Politics', which he clearly regards as a significant threat to liberalism. His description of what it is and the problems inherent within it are the best I’ve seen. But he fails to offer an alternative for disadvantaged and oppressed groups who naturally want to band together to better fight for their rights, a strategy which has undoubtedly been successful in the past. Where would workers rights be without the trade union movement, or women’s rights without the Suffragettes and feminism?
The latter part of the book examines the modern rise of populism and the challenge it poses to liberal democracy. It’s a depressing account of just how successful the right in Europe and the States has been, all too familiar to anyone who has been following current affairs over the last few years, and how it has forced back liberal ideals around freedom and compassion. He is not willing to give up without a fight, though, and outlines the work that needs to be done to retake lost ground.
The one weakness I found was his analysis of 'Identity Politics', which he clearly regards as a significant threat to liberalism. His description of what it is and the problems inherent within it are the best I’ve seen. But he fails to offer an alternative for disadvantaged and oppressed groups who naturally want to band together to better fight for their rights, a strategy which has undoubtedly been successful in the past. Where would workers rights be without the trade union movement, or women’s rights without the Suffragettes and feminism?
December 20, 2021
First half of the book was OK, though a lot of important liberal thinkers are ignored and it moves too fast to the 20th and 21st century. Sometimes I was seriously thinking how the title relates to the content of the book and I still have no been able to figure it out as the second half of the book was a mess. I think the author tried to make a point along the lines of, no matter how admirable the ideas of liberalism were at its origin it has opened up a pandora's box way beyond our imagination and led to the proclamation of god knows which minority having rights too and that these minorities in turn have started silencing the main line of liberal though. So in a way liberalism's ideas of freedom of speech, creed, sexual orientation, nation, ideology, etc have been turned against itself.
Although I do agree with that conclusion, it was poorly and flimsy argued (liked the possibility of Descartes as the accidental founder of liberals though) and so many important contributions to the ideas of liberalism that were not mentioned or discussed, Popper, Rawls, Dworkin, Sandal, etc. From that perspective is the book Liberalism : The Life Of An Idea of Edward Fawcett a much better choice.
Although I do agree with that conclusion, it was poorly and flimsy argued (liked the possibility of Descartes as the accidental founder of liberals though) and so many important contributions to the ideas of liberalism that were not mentioned or discussed, Popper, Rawls, Dworkin, Sandal, etc. From that perspective is the book Liberalism : The Life Of An Idea of Edward Fawcett a much better choice.
April 15, 2024
Two books in one. I so nearly missed the excellent second one due to lack of interest in the first.
The first book is a long history of the writings on liberalism and what has become Dunt's interpretation of liberalism, it tested my patience and interest to breaking point.
The second book is an interesting canter through the modern impact of liberalism and modern history through the eyes of a liberal thinker. This is an excellent piece providing real insight to events and the potential of liberal ideas to influence the future.
Stick with it, or skip until it piques your interest. There's a great book hiding behind the dry research section.
The first book is a long history of the writings on liberalism and what has become Dunt's interpretation of liberalism, it tested my patience and interest to breaking point.
The second book is an interesting canter through the modern impact of liberalism and modern history through the eyes of a liberal thinker. This is an excellent piece providing real insight to events and the potential of liberal ideas to influence the future.
Stick with it, or skip until it piques your interest. There's a great book hiding behind the dry research section.
March 7, 2022
Oh wow. Everyone should read this book. I probably learnt more relevant history than I did the entire history curriculum at school (in the UK). Ian Dunt eloquently explains a number of liberal milestones and the thinkers behind them. For centuries liberalism was a white man’s politics, which is addressed well as is the sexism and racism of the time in previous centuries. It appears liberalism was splintered in more recent decades and fear of being labelled woke has prevented some to think along the lines of their values rather than against the grain of the many (or at least the loudest on social media).
Now liberalism needs to weave all the threads it has become together to become stronger.
The final chapters are a real call to action, and who can ignore that?
Now liberalism needs to weave all the threads it has become together to become stronger.
The final chapters are a real call to action, and who can ignore that?
February 24, 2022
Before reading this book I had never heard of Ian Dunt, and so did a little bit of background reading on the guy. My impression was that he stands among the many commentators trying to offer explanations for the s**t show that is Western politics since the 2008 financial crash, and after reading the book I found that I wasn't entirely wrong in that assumption.
However, instead of an explanation I found merely a description of a phenomenon that I was already familiar with: liberal failure. Dunt's book didn't offer (me, at least) any original insight into the failure of the Western liberal consensus; although, as a consolation I can say that it does provide an interesting history of certain liberal thinkers.
I think my biggest gripe with the book is that it doesn't do what it says on the tin, i.e., teach people how to be liberals. For that reason, I will spend the rest of this review putting forward alternative titles and explaining them.
1. 'An Interesting Albeit Curious History of Certain Liberal Thinkers'
Chapters 1 - 8 (Birth - Belonging) are a history of individual liberal thinkers, or at least people who Dunt thinks are liberals (I really 'doubt' whether Descartes saw himself as one). While these chapters do nothing to justify the title of the book, the highly readable delineation of liberal thought culminating in the tension between Hayek and Keynes is a highly recommendable read for anyone interested in the history of ideas.
Even with this adjustment to the title, though, I still had serious issues with Dunt's historical method. I mean, Descartes? Really? To me, this was totally random and it undermined what it was that he was clearly trying to do. As far as I'm concerned, any history of ideas that begins with an individual hermit who spent his days alone in front of the fire trying hard to avoid people is flawed. Ideas are generated through social interaction; therefore, histories of ideas must begin with social movements. The fact that Dunt barely mentions the humanism of the Renaissance or the anti-authoritarianism of the Christian Reformation just goes to show that his history of liberal thought stands on shaky grounds. To me, it is of far greater importance to know that Descartes thought the way he did due to the socio-religious currents of his time, than it is to know that his ideas may have influenced later movements such as the Levellers.
In retrospect, it actually seems quite fitting that an author who clearly reveres the primacy of the individual would write a history of thought from the perspective of individuals. At least his method is consistent with his bias.
2. 'How to be a Social Democrat'
3. 'A History of Liberal Failure and Why Social Democracy Can Deliver'
There are my favourite titles for the book, as they most accurately summarise Dunt's conclusion. Throughout the book he makes a general distinction between laissez-faire liberalism and what he calls 'radical' liberalism, or, what most people these days would call social democracy. In the final few chapters, he talks about all of the ugly issues of the present day (identity politics, including nationalism; the assault on truth facilitated by new technologies; the West's failed response to the migrant crisis) and the general, continuing feeling of discontent in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Dunt pours scorn on the laissez-faire model, blaming it for the mess we're in, and arguing that:
"(... the laissez-faire) approach to economics left struggling communities behind. Its approach to society trapped marginalised groups in a state of oppression. Many of the people discarded by this form of liberalism then abandoned liberalism in turn - not just laissez-faire, but as a whole."
"... there is another form of liberalism, one which has agitated for justice and equality throughout liberal history. It is radical liberalism: the philosophy of shake things up."
If by this 'other form' he is referring to an organisation of politics which includes democratic institutions and promotes policies that are inclusive, conscientiously egalitarian, and socially considerate, then he is essentially arguing for social democracy. Here, here!
4. 'A Long Book about Politics Which Could be Made Much Shorter'
Dunt's message is essentially about the political mess we are in right now, and an understanding of Descartes' and Constant's lives and ideas doesn't really help convey that message.
I also thought that his message wasn't as insightful as some others that I have read. For example, a recent book by Michael Sandel (2020) gives a much more insightful explanation of Western anger and our current lack of faith in political institutions. I thought that Dunt's book lacked an honest account of liberal failure, which is exactly what you can find in writers like Sandel and others in the communitarian creed.
However, instead of an explanation I found merely a description of a phenomenon that I was already familiar with: liberal failure. Dunt's book didn't offer (me, at least) any original insight into the failure of the Western liberal consensus; although, as a consolation I can say that it does provide an interesting history of certain liberal thinkers.
I think my biggest gripe with the book is that it doesn't do what it says on the tin, i.e., teach people how to be liberals. For that reason, I will spend the rest of this review putting forward alternative titles and explaining them.
1. 'An Interesting Albeit Curious History of Certain Liberal Thinkers'
Chapters 1 - 8 (Birth - Belonging) are a history of individual liberal thinkers, or at least people who Dunt thinks are liberals (I really 'doubt' whether Descartes saw himself as one). While these chapters do nothing to justify the title of the book, the highly readable delineation of liberal thought culminating in the tension between Hayek and Keynes is a highly recommendable read for anyone interested in the history of ideas.
Even with this adjustment to the title, though, I still had serious issues with Dunt's historical method. I mean, Descartes? Really? To me, this was totally random and it undermined what it was that he was clearly trying to do. As far as I'm concerned, any history of ideas that begins with an individual hermit who spent his days alone in front of the fire trying hard to avoid people is flawed. Ideas are generated through social interaction; therefore, histories of ideas must begin with social movements. The fact that Dunt barely mentions the humanism of the Renaissance or the anti-authoritarianism of the Christian Reformation just goes to show that his history of liberal thought stands on shaky grounds. To me, it is of far greater importance to know that Descartes thought the way he did due to the socio-religious currents of his time, than it is to know that his ideas may have influenced later movements such as the Levellers.
In retrospect, it actually seems quite fitting that an author who clearly reveres the primacy of the individual would write a history of thought from the perspective of individuals. At least his method is consistent with his bias.
2. 'How to be a Social Democrat'
3. 'A History of Liberal Failure and Why Social Democracy Can Deliver'
There are my favourite titles for the book, as they most accurately summarise Dunt's conclusion. Throughout the book he makes a general distinction between laissez-faire liberalism and what he calls 'radical' liberalism, or, what most people these days would call social democracy. In the final few chapters, he talks about all of the ugly issues of the present day (identity politics, including nationalism; the assault on truth facilitated by new technologies; the West's failed response to the migrant crisis) and the general, continuing feeling of discontent in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Dunt pours scorn on the laissez-faire model, blaming it for the mess we're in, and arguing that:
"(... the laissez-faire) approach to economics left struggling communities behind. Its approach to society trapped marginalised groups in a state of oppression. Many of the people discarded by this form of liberalism then abandoned liberalism in turn - not just laissez-faire, but as a whole."
"... there is another form of liberalism, one which has agitated for justice and equality throughout liberal history. It is radical liberalism: the philosophy of shake things up."
If by this 'other form' he is referring to an organisation of politics which includes democratic institutions and promotes policies that are inclusive, conscientiously egalitarian, and socially considerate, then he is essentially arguing for social democracy. Here, here!
4. 'A Long Book about Politics Which Could be Made Much Shorter'
Dunt's message is essentially about the political mess we are in right now, and an understanding of Descartes' and Constant's lives and ideas doesn't really help convey that message.
I also thought that his message wasn't as insightful as some others that I have read. For example, a recent book by Michael Sandel (2020) gives a much more insightful explanation of Western anger and our current lack of faith in political institutions. I thought that Dunt's book lacked an honest account of liberal failure, which is exactly what you can find in writers like Sandel and others in the communitarian creed.
April 30, 2021
Nationalism claims that liberalism represents the powerful. In fact, liberalism is the shield that protects the powerless. It is the safeguard for those who have no other defences. When it fails, there is nothing left.
A powerful and accessible history of liberal thought, from Descartes through to current times. Ian Dunt writes with passion and clarity about why liberal thought matters now, maybe more than ever. He takes us through the troubles liberalism has faced in the past and the development of modern liberal thought. Far from dry and academic, the writing is easy to follow and engaging. A must-read for all living through these turbulent times.
A powerful and accessible history of liberal thought, from Descartes through to current times. Ian Dunt writes with passion and clarity about why liberal thought matters now, maybe more than ever. He takes us through the troubles liberalism has faced in the past and the development of modern liberal thought. Far from dry and academic, the writing is easy to follow and engaging. A must-read for all living through these turbulent times.
January 14, 2022
Dunt is trying to make sense of liberalism in the 2020s. He is wrestling with how a philosophy that claims to liberate the individual have led to excluding all but white property-owning men from the political sphere, provided the ideological justification for the financial crisis, stood by while the US and EU pushed barbaric border policies, and many other valid failures of the West.
The book is more confessional than a manifesto or an argument. He endlessly recounts the problems with liberal ideas. A philosophy that claims to liberate the individual excluded all but white property-owning men from the political sphere, and provided the ideological justification for the financial crisis. Many anti-liberals would have nodded along as he did an excellent job of summarising these points. At other times, he points out how anti-liberal ideas caused problems like barbaric border policies, Orban's Hungary, Russian led fake news, identity politics as mob rule etc.
His most interesting contribution is beginning the arc of liberal thought with Descartes' skepticism and self doubt. In this view, it is liberal to wrestle with the truth and try to discover it in specific problems, rather than applying universal policies and resolutions. Supposedly, this is why international institutions like the IMF should be defended by liberals, because they engage in reasoned thought and debate.
The final chapter argues liberals should be less apologetic. He suggests the intellectual argument was conceded because liberals held political supremacy. For example, liberals stayed quiet on the immigration issue, leaving intl lawyers isolated in fighting for immigrants rights.
Ultimately, I felt he ducked a lot of big questions. He does a nice job of engaging with Hayek and showing him as a contemporary and intellectual partner of Keynes, and rightly spends time critiquing Hayek. But this critical view isn't extended to Keynes. He will rightly critique colonial Britain and also the US, but he won't ask "what contemporary governments were less barbaric". In this way, I felt like he conceded too much to the illiberal side of progressive thought on these issues.
There was also a discontinuity between the first half of the book that followed liberal thought from Descartes to Locke to Mill to Hayek, Keynes, Orwell and Isaiah Berlin etc. And then the second half, which covers 20/21st century historical events. He doesn't circle back to the philosophical ideas from the first part. Where was Mill's harm principle in how the neoliberals embraced financial catastrophe? How can liberals use Berlin's sense of belonging to overcome charges of being citizens of nowhere? What would Orwell have made of the Syrian civil war? I don't think these are easy questions, but that kind of ambition is needed for a 5 star book in my view. Dunt played it too safe.
The book is more confessional than a manifesto or an argument. He endlessly recounts the problems with liberal ideas. A philosophy that claims to liberate the individual excluded all but white property-owning men from the political sphere, and provided the ideological justification for the financial crisis. Many anti-liberals would have nodded along as he did an excellent job of summarising these points. At other times, he points out how anti-liberal ideas caused problems like barbaric border policies, Orban's Hungary, Russian led fake news, identity politics as mob rule etc.
His most interesting contribution is beginning the arc of liberal thought with Descartes' skepticism and self doubt. In this view, it is liberal to wrestle with the truth and try to discover it in specific problems, rather than applying universal policies and resolutions. Supposedly, this is why international institutions like the IMF should be defended by liberals, because they engage in reasoned thought and debate.
The final chapter argues liberals should be less apologetic. He suggests the intellectual argument was conceded because liberals held political supremacy. For example, liberals stayed quiet on the immigration issue, leaving intl lawyers isolated in fighting for immigrants rights.
Ultimately, I felt he ducked a lot of big questions. He does a nice job of engaging with Hayek and showing him as a contemporary and intellectual partner of Keynes, and rightly spends time critiquing Hayek. But this critical view isn't extended to Keynes. He will rightly critique colonial Britain and also the US, but he won't ask "what contemporary governments were less barbaric". In this way, I felt like he conceded too much to the illiberal side of progressive thought on these issues.
There was also a discontinuity between the first half of the book that followed liberal thought from Descartes to Locke to Mill to Hayek, Keynes, Orwell and Isaiah Berlin etc. And then the second half, which covers 20/21st century historical events. He doesn't circle back to the philosophical ideas from the first part. Where was Mill's harm principle in how the neoliberals embraced financial catastrophe? How can liberals use Berlin's sense of belonging to overcome charges of being citizens of nowhere? What would Orwell have made of the Syrian civil war? I don't think these are easy questions, but that kind of ambition is needed for a 5 star book in my view. Dunt played it too safe.
January 5, 2022
This is a jolly romp through the history of liberalism. We jump from Descartes to the Levellers to Locke before smashing through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries to conclude with the War on Terror, Brexit, the refugee crisis, and Donald Trump. For the most part it is good fun and informative in a sort of GCSE way but such a lung bursting thrash through modern history does means some things are left out and other bits somewhat unclear.
The whole journey, as Dunt tells it, starts with Descartes, who woke up one night and realised that he couldn't be sure he had woken up and that he wasn't still dreaming (or being tricked by an evil demon). His realisation that you cannot truly trust sensory perception is not only the basis of the doubt which still bares his name, but of idealist philosophy.
In attempting to assuage himself of this ontological angst, Descartes came up with his Cogito, which asserts that I may be sure that I exist because I am contemplating my existence and if I didn't exist I would be in no position to do so. Dunt describes this argument as "A closed system of perfect confidence…it proves itself, in a circular motion, by virtue of what it contains." He even claims it to be "the single most beautiful thought in the history of human kind". That most circular arguments are fallacious doesn't seem to bother Dunt, or Descartes for that matter.
The main problem with Descartes argument is that it singularly fails to do what it says on the tin. As Bertrand Russell noted, the 'I' in this is really an unproved hang on, a grammatical excess which comes from our languages' need to affix arguments to verbs. All that Descartes has shown is that thoughts exist, who says that thoughts need to be thought by someone? Even if the thought were self-referential (it were the 'I') Descartes has proved an epistemological 'I', perhaps an ontological one, but definitely not a political one.
Indeed that you are self-aware and the fundamental object of consciousness does not preclude you being a mere cog in the machine (here read medieval neo-Aristotelianism). Indeed Descartes immediately sets about trying to prove that we are created by God and part of a wider system.
Doubt continues to crop up throughout the book without ever being properly explained. What is weirder is that we then embark upon 300 page march through liberalism with two empiricist philosophers, Locke and JS Mill, (who believed that knowledge could only come from sensory perception), at the for. Neither of these men ever lost any sleep over the thought that they might still be asleep or in the Matrix or that the World was anything other than as it presented itself to be.
Along this progress Dunt tries to develop the following thesis: Liberalism is the best means of protecting the individual and preventing the rise of collectivist Fascist and Stalinist regimes. The problem with this is that for it to be true large bits of history have to be ignored. The rise of liberal governance in Europe coincided with the expansion of the transatlantic slave trade, the newly independent United States disenfranchised and legally dehumanised Black people and continued to transport them across the Atlantic in great numbers for generations and then discriminated against them for generations more. Later, in the twentieth century, liberal regimes in both Italy and Germany allowed the rise of fascism rather than risk succumbing to communism. Throughout its history liberal governments have been marked by those they have been illiberal towards: poor people, racial and ethnic minorities, women, LQBTQ+ people.
That liberal institutions and people do illiberal things is not necessarily a criticism of liberalism. That Locke played a hand in the writing of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, merely means that Locke didn't live up to his creed. The problem with liberal regimes is not their liberalism but that they are insufficiently liberal. Yet to claim that liberalism is the strongest defence against political extremism requires some serious historical editing.
Nor is it merely liberalism which receives a light historical airbrushing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given modern conditions, Dunt's greatest enemies are populists and nationalists who generally emanate from the political right. This means other foes are discarded. There is little here to refute the Marxist critique of liberal capitalism and his assaults on communism tend to be of the 'they weren't very nice to the kulaks' variety rather than thoroughgoing critiques.
Dunt is strongest then he talks theory, less so when he is providing a historical dialogue. Unfortunately History takes up much of the book. In these sections he fails to engage with the nuances all ideological practice entails. In the space of two paragraphs he hails the liberalisation of women's rights in 1960's America through the equal pay act and through Roe vs Wade without pausing to consider that whilst the latter constitutes the removal of an illiberal impediment on the free action of women the former amounts to the state imposing one on business owners. Squaring such a circle is not always so easy.
Where he does engage with the dilemmas a liberal may face his analysis is often so shallow it would struggle to wet a mouse. "Was it right" he asks, "to exempt Sikhs, who wear a turban, from legislation requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets?" Some liberals, Dunt informs us, may say it isn't as they are merely choosing to practice their religion and therefore choosing not to drive a motorcycle, whilst others will claim that failure to exempt them would amount to an imposition on their right to freely express their faith. In fact, almost every self respecting liberal would say neither of these things but point out that a law which governs how an individual dresses when it has no impact on anyone else is fundamentally illiberal.
By the end we are treated to accounts of the rise of Trump Brexit and the refugee crisis. What the liberal take on these things is were are left to guess at. I have the suspicion that we are not to far away from liberalism being merely those things which Dunt agrees with. Brexit is depicted as being illiberal because the leave campaign were economical with the truth (a contention which again requires a fair amount of historical editing). If there is liberal argument for leaving the EU, such as an the European Commission being an executive which is not directly elected or the European Parliament being elected by an electorate which had no homogenous identity and inspires no loyalty, then you won't find it here.
For all that, I quite enjoyed reading this book. The font is nice, it has an excellent index, and, perhaps most importantly, I agreed with it. Which at the end of the day is what this book is for; to be read by people who already agree with Dunt and smugly think themselves to be enlightened liberals. If you don't well…there's always Roger Scruton.
The whole journey, as Dunt tells it, starts with Descartes, who woke up one night and realised that he couldn't be sure he had woken up and that he wasn't still dreaming (or being tricked by an evil demon). His realisation that you cannot truly trust sensory perception is not only the basis of the doubt which still bares his name, but of idealist philosophy.
In attempting to assuage himself of this ontological angst, Descartes came up with his Cogito, which asserts that I may be sure that I exist because I am contemplating my existence and if I didn't exist I would be in no position to do so. Dunt describes this argument as "A closed system of perfect confidence…it proves itself, in a circular motion, by virtue of what it contains." He even claims it to be "the single most beautiful thought in the history of human kind". That most circular arguments are fallacious doesn't seem to bother Dunt, or Descartes for that matter.
The main problem with Descartes argument is that it singularly fails to do what it says on the tin. As Bertrand Russell noted, the 'I' in this is really an unproved hang on, a grammatical excess which comes from our languages' need to affix arguments to verbs. All that Descartes has shown is that thoughts exist, who says that thoughts need to be thought by someone? Even if the thought were self-referential (it were the 'I') Descartes has proved an epistemological 'I', perhaps an ontological one, but definitely not a political one.
Indeed that you are self-aware and the fundamental object of consciousness does not preclude you being a mere cog in the machine (here read medieval neo-Aristotelianism). Indeed Descartes immediately sets about trying to prove that we are created by God and part of a wider system.
Doubt continues to crop up throughout the book without ever being properly explained. What is weirder is that we then embark upon 300 page march through liberalism with two empiricist philosophers, Locke and JS Mill, (who believed that knowledge could only come from sensory perception), at the for. Neither of these men ever lost any sleep over the thought that they might still be asleep or in the Matrix or that the World was anything other than as it presented itself to be.
Along this progress Dunt tries to develop the following thesis: Liberalism is the best means of protecting the individual and preventing the rise of collectivist Fascist and Stalinist regimes. The problem with this is that for it to be true large bits of history have to be ignored. The rise of liberal governance in Europe coincided with the expansion of the transatlantic slave trade, the newly independent United States disenfranchised and legally dehumanised Black people and continued to transport them across the Atlantic in great numbers for generations and then discriminated against them for generations more. Later, in the twentieth century, liberal regimes in both Italy and Germany allowed the rise of fascism rather than risk succumbing to communism. Throughout its history liberal governments have been marked by those they have been illiberal towards: poor people, racial and ethnic minorities, women, LQBTQ+ people.
That liberal institutions and people do illiberal things is not necessarily a criticism of liberalism. That Locke played a hand in the writing of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, merely means that Locke didn't live up to his creed. The problem with liberal regimes is not their liberalism but that they are insufficiently liberal. Yet to claim that liberalism is the strongest defence against political extremism requires some serious historical editing.
Nor is it merely liberalism which receives a light historical airbrushing. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given modern conditions, Dunt's greatest enemies are populists and nationalists who generally emanate from the political right. This means other foes are discarded. There is little here to refute the Marxist critique of liberal capitalism and his assaults on communism tend to be of the 'they weren't very nice to the kulaks' variety rather than thoroughgoing critiques.
Dunt is strongest then he talks theory, less so when he is providing a historical dialogue. Unfortunately History takes up much of the book. In these sections he fails to engage with the nuances all ideological practice entails. In the space of two paragraphs he hails the liberalisation of women's rights in 1960's America through the equal pay act and through Roe vs Wade without pausing to consider that whilst the latter constitutes the removal of an illiberal impediment on the free action of women the former amounts to the state imposing one on business owners. Squaring such a circle is not always so easy.
Where he does engage with the dilemmas a liberal may face his analysis is often so shallow it would struggle to wet a mouse. "Was it right" he asks, "to exempt Sikhs, who wear a turban, from legislation requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets?" Some liberals, Dunt informs us, may say it isn't as they are merely choosing to practice their religion and therefore choosing not to drive a motorcycle, whilst others will claim that failure to exempt them would amount to an imposition on their right to freely express their faith. In fact, almost every self respecting liberal would say neither of these things but point out that a law which governs how an individual dresses when it has no impact on anyone else is fundamentally illiberal.
By the end we are treated to accounts of the rise of Trump Brexit and the refugee crisis. What the liberal take on these things is were are left to guess at. I have the suspicion that we are not to far away from liberalism being merely those things which Dunt agrees with. Brexit is depicted as being illiberal because the leave campaign were economical with the truth (a contention which again requires a fair amount of historical editing). If there is liberal argument for leaving the EU, such as an the European Commission being an executive which is not directly elected or the European Parliament being elected by an electorate which had no homogenous identity and inspires no loyalty, then you won't find it here.
For all that, I quite enjoyed reading this book. The font is nice, it has an excellent index, and, perhaps most importantly, I agreed with it. Which at the end of the day is what this book is for; to be read by people who already agree with Dunt and smugly think themselves to be enlightened liberals. If you don't well…there's always Roger Scruton.
February 3, 2023
A really powerful book charting liberalism from its inception, showing how different thinkers conceived of liberty and human rights until the present day. Far from using rose tinted glasses, it offers a powerful rejection of property-based liberalism and highlights how so often the defence of ‘individual rights’ basically means the rights of heterosexual white males.
The discussion on nationalism at the end I felt was less relevant to the topic of liberalism on the whole, and for a book called ‘How to be a Liberal’ I expected more than a straightforward history, but an interesting read nonetheless.
The discussion on nationalism at the end I felt was less relevant to the topic of liberalism on the whole, and for a book called ‘How to be a Liberal’ I expected more than a straightforward history, but an interesting read nonetheless.
December 31, 2020
Ho divorato questo libro. Mi ha insegnato molto, fatto pensare, preoccupato, entusiasmato.
Mi ha fatto riflettere su quali siano i doni, i rischi, le sfide di una società liberale. E soprattutto ha richiamato l'impegno che ci è richiesto per promuovere e conservare una società aperta, solidale, rispettosa di ogni singola persona.
Quanto ci racconta e ricorda Ian Dunt rappresenta una call to action alla quale non possiamo sottrarci.
Mi ha fatto riflettere su quali siano i doni, i rischi, le sfide di una società liberale. E soprattutto ha richiamato l'impegno che ci è richiesto per promuovere e conservare una società aperta, solidale, rispettosa di ogni singola persona.
Quanto ci racconta e ricorda Ian Dunt rappresenta una call to action alla quale non possiamo sottrarci.
December 13, 2020
Details of historical events and movements I just didn’t know about, combined with analysis and commentary of modern situations I didn’t fully understand, all contained in an accessible work.
I think I might be a better person going forward for reading this - I’ll certainly be much more aware, in so many areas.
I think I might be a better person going forward for reading this - I’ll certainly be much more aware, in so many areas.
December 15, 2020
Five phrase review.
broad-brush
selective
interesting
very eurocentric and western focussed
That thing when you think the biggest problem in the world is the problem you're worried about.
I liked it. It was well worth reading. But the "how to be" in the title doesn't really come across for me.
broad-brush
selective
interesting
very eurocentric and western focussed
That thing when you think the biggest problem in the world is the problem you're worried about.
I liked it. It was well worth reading. But the "how to be" in the title doesn't really come across for me.
September 7, 2021
With the liberal consensus under siege by popularism on the right and undermined by the fragmentation of the left this book should be read by anyone with a sensible mindset who is interested in politics and good governance.
January 5, 2025
The best book I read last year and probably the best one I will read this year. Ian Dunt’s explanation of complex concepts is masterful. He almost makes the causes of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis understandable.
Dunt traces the origins of liberal thought from Descartes, through the English, American and French Revolutions, Harriet Taylor and John Stuart-Mill, to mention a few. He looks at the threats to liberalism posed by Fascism and Communism and how liberalism triumphed over both. In the twentieth century, he also looks at the tension between Keynesian economics and the laissez-faire approach of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
The strongest part of the book are the final chapters that are a call to arms against all the threats to liberalism from both the left (identity politics, cancel culture) and the right (Nationalism, opposition to immigration, Brexit, Trump, cancel culture). He explains how social media amplifies conflict, entrenches extreme attitudes by suppressing thoughtful debate and removes any hope of nuanced argument. This stuff isn’t new, but Dunt excels in both conciseness and clarity.
A very worthy addition to the political debate, particularly on the eve of the inauguration of the Trump 2.0 virus.
Dunt traces the origins of liberal thought from Descartes, through the English, American and French Revolutions, Harriet Taylor and John Stuart-Mill, to mention a few. He looks at the threats to liberalism posed by Fascism and Communism and how liberalism triumphed over both. In the twentieth century, he also looks at the tension between Keynesian economics and the laissez-faire approach of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.
The strongest part of the book are the final chapters that are a call to arms against all the threats to liberalism from both the left (identity politics, cancel culture) and the right (Nationalism, opposition to immigration, Brexit, Trump, cancel culture). He explains how social media amplifies conflict, entrenches extreme attitudes by suppressing thoughtful debate and removes any hope of nuanced argument. This stuff isn’t new, but Dunt excels in both conciseness and clarity.
A very worthy addition to the political debate, particularly on the eve of the inauguration of the Trump 2.0 virus.
April 20, 2022
A fantastic read! The author takes you through stories of key notable figures which he believes encapsulate the evolution of liberal thought.
To clarify, this book is by no means a comprehensive history, nor does the book contain sources apart from the author citing the experts he worked with in the Afterword. So while I can't say you'll get a thorough education on liberalism, you will receive a very engaging summary on how liberal ideas evolved over time. You'll read about the liberal emphasis on property rights of John Locke to the egalitarian liberalism of John Stuart Mill to the laissez-faire liberalism of Friedrich Hayek to the "liberalism" know today as identity politics.
At times I've stepped away from the "liberal" label, simply because I don't want to be associated with the identity politics "liberal" I see today. Arguably, it shouldn't even be called liberalism! But this book argues there still is a liberalism out there, one which has been unreasonably trashed upon, one which the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, but if we continue using it it's still the most powerful tool we have in all us living together rather than not dying together.
To clarify, this book is by no means a comprehensive history, nor does the book contain sources apart from the author citing the experts he worked with in the Afterword. So while I can't say you'll get a thorough education on liberalism, you will receive a very engaging summary on how liberal ideas evolved over time. You'll read about the liberal emphasis on property rights of John Locke to the egalitarian liberalism of John Stuart Mill to the laissez-faire liberalism of Friedrich Hayek to the "liberalism" know today as identity politics.
At times I've stepped away from the "liberal" label, simply because I don't want to be associated with the identity politics "liberal" I see today. Arguably, it shouldn't even be called liberalism! But this book argues there still is a liberalism out there, one which has been unreasonably trashed upon, one which the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, but if we continue using it it's still the most powerful tool we have in all us living together rather than not dying together.
May 28, 2022
Political journalist Ian Dunt has wrriten an urgent book for our times that is a must-read for everyone seeking to understand how western politics got to where it is today. Breathtaking in its scope, the book traces the origins of liberal thought — from Descartes to Constant, Mill and Taylor (Dunt takes pains to attribute the ideas in On Liberty to Harriet Taylor as well), through to Keynes and Orwell, but also their counterparts such as Rousseau and Hayek — and lays clear what liberalism is and isn't. He shows from history what happens when liberalism is rejected (Hitler, Stalin, etc) and also in present day, with identity politics and the rise of nationalism. Dunt also points out liberalism's failings and its current challenges, and presents a rallying cry to revive it. I find the author's non-fatalistic viewpoint refreshing, but I can't quite share in his cautious optimism.
There were many light-bulb moments for me in that there were things in this book I was already aware of but didn't know how they connected, or what led to them. This book helped fill in the missing pieces and enabled me to see the whole picture.
How To Be A Liberal is an utterly absorbing and illuminating page-turner. Highly recommended!
There were many light-bulb moments for me in that there were things in this book I was already aware of but didn't know how they connected, or what led to them. This book helped fill in the missing pieces and enabled me to see the whole picture.
How To Be A Liberal is an utterly absorbing and illuminating page-turner. Highly recommended!
November 16, 2020
Charting the history and development of liberal ideals from Descartes onwards this book also delineates the many enemies of liberal thought, including communism, fascism, nationalism, and identity politics. It shows how those enemy ideologies seek to homogenize - "the will of the people" - and tribalize - anyone who disagrees is shouted down rather than engaged in debate. To be honest, the last couple of chapters covering the extreme nationalism and outright lies of politics in recent days left me feeling rather depressed and defeated, which I'm sure is not what the author intended as his last chapter was somewhat a rallying-cry for liberalism and humane values, but I have trouble seeing how that enthusiasm is going to be put into practise.
Read
November 13, 20242+ years later I've finished this "Bible on Liberalism". Multiple times I found myself completing reading referenced in the book in between chapters. Though this delayed the completion of the book, the value I feel I've gained from this experience as a whole can't be underrated. Brilliant writing with countless eye-opening moments
February 17, 2021
I loved this book. Threaded together various ideas and events I had vaguely learned about through school, university with topics from today’s world and made me see the connections between them. Clear, easy style. Definitely recommend. (Also if you are on Twitter, follow Ian live tweeting from parliamentary debate, v entertaining!)
November 28, 2024
More like 4.5 stars. Strong recommendation.
Dunt provides an engaging history of liberalism in the Western European tradition, beginning with what he sees as the birth of reason with Descartes and growing in fits and starts through the English, American, and French revolutions before being articulated fully by Constant and Taylor/Mill. Dunt's individualist liberalism stands opposed to the excesses that have always followed from a "general will" that subsumes people and their rights to a group identity and mission and the leaders who claim to represent that will.
Dunt continues his discussion with the evolution of liberalism through the 20th century in response to its failures under fascism and communism, and throughout he provides a compelling story of the two strains of liberalism (he dubs them "leave things be" and "shake things up" liberalisms) and the tension between them from the Putney Debates to the present day. We see Hayek and Keynes, Orwell and Berlin, Reagan and Thatcher. (Poor Brian Mulroney.)
Discussion of contemporary politics is more challenging. Dunt's overview of the 2008 financial crisis is thorough and laid out well—those who want to lay the blame for the crisis at the feet of the U.S. government should be able to answer his narrative. (I have to admit, I can't to my satisfaction.) His handling of left-wing identity politics has not held up as well in light of the scrutiny applied to the familiar anecdotes—because they are so familiar—of censorious campus overreach in particular. I'd read an update of this section with interest.
I found especially valuable Dunt's summary of Orban's rise to power in Hungary and the rise of populism in the UK through Brexit. Dunt's final chapters bluntly outline the contemporary failure of liberalism to protect immigrants and refugees as a faltering of liberalism in the face of authoritarian populism taking hold in European and U.S. governments.
I am more sympathetic to the laissez-faire strain of liberalism that Dunt condemns as a failure than the "shake things up" liberalism he advocates. But my sort of liberalism simply has to learn from the challenges Dunt raises. Dunt is right when he criticizes not just laissez-faire, but all liberalism for struggling to reckon with the human need for belonging and the political importance of the groups into which individuals constitute ourselves. Centring the individual as forcefully as Dunt does has also shaken up my thinking about how different levels of government have interacted with the individual over time. Our failure to take these issues seriously will leave us impotent, at best, in the face of threats to human dignity and freedom. What we've been doing is not good enough.
This book has left me with a longer reading list and important questions that deserve more thought and time—as good books should. And Dunt is an excellent writer.
(P.S.- The dedication is lovely. I teared up. )
Dunt provides an engaging history of liberalism in the Western European tradition, beginning with what he sees as the birth of reason with Descartes and growing in fits and starts through the English, American, and French revolutions before being articulated fully by Constant and Taylor/Mill. Dunt's individualist liberalism stands opposed to the excesses that have always followed from a "general will" that subsumes people and their rights to a group identity and mission and the leaders who claim to represent that will.
Dunt continues his discussion with the evolution of liberalism through the 20th century in response to its failures under fascism and communism, and throughout he provides a compelling story of the two strains of liberalism (he dubs them "leave things be" and "shake things up" liberalisms) and the tension between them from the Putney Debates to the present day. We see Hayek and Keynes, Orwell and Berlin, Reagan and Thatcher. (Poor Brian Mulroney.)
Discussion of contemporary politics is more challenging. Dunt's overview of the 2008 financial crisis is thorough and laid out well—those who want to lay the blame for the crisis at the feet of the U.S. government should be able to answer his narrative. (I have to admit, I can't to my satisfaction.) His handling of left-wing identity politics has not held up as well in light of the scrutiny applied to the familiar anecdotes—because they are so familiar—of censorious campus overreach in particular. I'd read an update of this section with interest.
I found especially valuable Dunt's summary of Orban's rise to power in Hungary and the rise of populism in the UK through Brexit. Dunt's final chapters bluntly outline the contemporary failure of liberalism to protect immigrants and refugees as a faltering of liberalism in the face of authoritarian populism taking hold in European and U.S. governments.
I am more sympathetic to the laissez-faire strain of liberalism that Dunt condemns as a failure than the "shake things up" liberalism he advocates. But my sort of liberalism simply has to learn from the challenges Dunt raises. Dunt is right when he criticizes not just laissez-faire, but all liberalism for struggling to reckon with the human need for belonging and the political importance of the groups into which individuals constitute ourselves. Centring the individual as forcefully as Dunt does has also shaken up my thinking about how different levels of government have interacted with the individual over time. Our failure to take these issues seriously will leave us impotent, at best, in the face of threats to human dignity and freedom. What we've been doing is not good enough.
This book has left me with a longer reading list and important questions that deserve more thought and time—as good books should. And Dunt is an excellent writer.
(P.S.- The dedication is lovely. I teared up. )
September 22, 2022
I'm a big fan of Ian Dunt's takes, especially his frequent contributions to political podcasts Remainiacs (I'm still not calling it by its newer, worse name), and The Bunker, and always found him able to succinctly explain complex issues surrounding the Brexit process, so it's no surprise that his work translates well onto the page.
This book should really be called 'A short history of liberalism', because that's what it is for most of its page count, a journey through the lives and thoughts of the men and the one woman who Dunt chose to showcase.
It's an entertaining look at how liberal thought changed from protection of privileges of rich parliamentarians to the inalienable rights of all people, but does leave you questioning when it's going to get to the modern stuff.
This finally happens in chapter 10 of 13, where Dunt goes on to discuss identity politics, echo chambers and post-truth. This is where the book really shines, and I wish there was more of this, but the earlier historical episodes was invaluable to the wider context.
This book should really be called 'A short history of liberalism', because that's what it is for most of its page count, a journey through the lives and thoughts of the men and the one woman who Dunt chose to showcase.
It's an entertaining look at how liberal thought changed from protection of privileges of rich parliamentarians to the inalienable rights of all people, but does leave you questioning when it's going to get to the modern stuff.
This finally happens in chapter 10 of 13, where Dunt goes on to discuss identity politics, echo chambers and post-truth. This is where the book really shines, and I wish there was more of this, but the earlier historical episodes was invaluable to the wider context.
May 31, 2021
I enjoyed reading this book and indeed once started I hardly put it down until I had finished it. His history of the origins and development of liberal ideas was a very interesting read and I found that much of his approach fitted with my own thoughts and previous study. The account he gave of the more recent growth of nationalistic and identity politics and the impact of social media was of course deeply worrying, though not new, and I felt that he did not really address the ways in which an intolerant liberalism of the left has contributed to the current problems. I had also hoped that he might have pointed more directly and persuasively to how we could progress liberal ideas. I did not really get much of a sense of any new proposals from him to address the challenges other than to keep on keeping the faith. It was, however, a good, stimulating and worthwhile read and I am grateful to the colleague who suggested it.
January 20, 2024
At first Ian Dunt attempts an impressive exploration, unraveling the intellectual labyrinth that is the history of liberalism. Despite offering a fresh perspective on thinkers like Benjamin Constant, John Stuart, and Henriette Taylor, he ultimately succumbs to providing a progressive interpretation of recent political events. The nuanced facets of liberalism he presents are consistently associated with progressive politics. 'True liberals' are portrayed as opposing Trump's border policy, but the rationale behind this stance remains unexplored. Dunt's analysis of political events lacks a detailed examination of the liberalism he initially outlined, and he fails to present robust counterarguments. In the concluding chapter, Dunt endeavors to persuade the reader that 'egalitarian liberalism' is the future of liberalism without providing a substantive explanation.
January 27, 2021
I tend to prefer fiction to fact books. However, this was a surprisingly easy read for a book that covers such a wide sweep of western political history and philosophical ideas. It was well structured, well researched and I loved how he linked the personal to the political in his exploration of key figures. It was also quite uplifting (ideas persist and evolve even if we live in difficult times) and empowering (each of us has a part to play and can choose how we do this). The sign of a good book for me is one in which I know as I read it that I would like to reread it again at some point. This is a good book.
October 12, 2020
A great read. Intellectually meaty yet accessible. The first couple of chapters are a bit of a slog but keep going; it is well worth it. As a layman, I particularly like the way this book appears to seamlessly move from questions of philosophy, politics, economics, anthropology, psychology and sociology without the reader even noticing.
A very interesting and enlightening look at where we are and how we got here, and more importantly how we can step into a different future if we choose to do so. Highly recommend
A very interesting and enlightening look at where we are and how we got here, and more importantly how we can step into a different future if we choose to do so. Highly recommend
June 20, 2021
I liked the first part of the book very much. Dunt narrated liberal philosophy well from Descartes to Berlin. His discussion of identity politics was adequate, but I felt that he failed to make a convincing argument towards the end of the book in his discussion of modern British politics and nationalism. He advocates egalitarian liberalism that is but one interpretation of liberal philosophical thought. The historical narrative in the book was intellectually honest but I felt that he allowed his own political preferences overtake him in the end - shame.
November 17, 2020
The title is pure centerist dad but the book is really good. I started reading chapters that looked interesting. One on Mill then the English Civil war etc. That way I got through a doorstopper of a book pretty fast.
I prefered the historical chapters to the ones on what is happening now. But that could just be because I hate what is happening now.
I prefered the historical chapters to the ones on what is happening now. But that could just be because I hate what is happening now.
December 26, 2023
Strong narrative and well written. Learned a lot and feel strongly grounded in some core principles. The book zips along but then simply gets stuck from the 20th century onwards with too many examples to illustrate a point or adds colour and people that don't contribute much to the book.
Conclusion is great and rewarding but by comparison feels short and could have been more fleshed out.
Conclusion is great and rewarding but by comparison feels short and could have been more fleshed out.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews