THE WANING OF LIBERALISM. T HERE is one political phenomenon of
the present day to which we have more than once alluded in these columns, but which has hardly, on the whole, received the attention it deserves—we mean the almost simultaneous disappearance in every country in Europe of the old Liberal parties, and the relegation of their political tenets and modes of thought to the limbo of forgotten fashions. In its origin, the product of middle-class minds and the creed of middle-class rulers, Liberalism, of the kind strictly entitled to the name, seems nowhere to have struck any deep root or found any lasting favour in a Democracy. It lingered on for a time after the submergence of the middle classes, as a tree lingers on when its roots have been severed, by virtue of its in- herent vitality ; but within the last few years it has received shock after shock, till now it is almost every- where either extinct or evanescent as a force in politics. In Austria the workmen of Vienna are engaged at the present moment in shouting outside the walls of its last stronghold. In Belgium it has just been deprived of its footing by the triumph of Democracy. In Germany the great feature of the recent elections was the discomfiture of the National Liberals and the annihilation of the party of anti-governmental Radicals. In France, soon afterwards, the Clemenceau Radi- cals of the same political character met a similar fate ; for Radicalism of this type was an offshoot of the older Liberalism, and in their death they have not been divided. Among ourselves the change, as always, has come about with less dramatic suddenness. Liberalism has not fallen, but has been transformed, and the name has been pre- served, and will no doubt continue to be preserved for the sake of its traditional popularity. But if Liberalism, not as a name, but as a habit of mind and a practical policy, anywhere survives, we certainly should not search for it among the supporters of the present " Liberal " Administration. The alliance with the Nationalists in 1886, and the subsequenc disruption, marked the point of transition to the new order. That catastrophe represented the first serious breach in the defences of Liberalism made by the newly-awakened forces of Democracy, and it has proved to be as the letting nut of waters. The accept- ance of the Home-rule policy by the Liberals was the beginning of a profound and far-reaching transformation in the composition and doctrines of the party, till now the Liberalism of a generation ago would find it impossible to recognise itself in its successor, and the remnant who have remained faithful to the old beliefs have had to take shelter in the camp of their traditional opponents. The change was not greater from the united Whig party of Fox and Burke to the Liberal party of Grey and Brougham than from the Liberalism of 1873 to the Gladstonianism of 1893. The Glad stonians, no doubt, may say that it is the nature of Liberalism to be pro- gressive; but in trying thus to explain away the change they do but mock themselves. The change has been of the nature of revolution, not of evolution ; and what it really amounts to is, that Liberalism as an effective force in politics is dead, and somethingo. else—chaos, we are inclined to think—reigns in its stead. That fact may be disguised from us by our extraordinary conservatism in names and mere externals, but we have only to look at the Continent to see it in its naked truth. There parties are not sufficiently strong or coherent to give a semblance of continuity where none exists. The group-system enables us to see more clearly the forces that are waxing and those that are waning, and what we see is that the Liberals are everywhere in process of extinction. With them go the Radicals of the individualist type, and among ourselves likewise this group has lost all its influence and vitality.
No one seems to care to shed a tear over the grave of this once so potent system, and yet, when its history comes to be written, it will be found that during its reign of half-a-cen- tury it accomplished great things for Europe and especially for ourselves. English by origin, it remained English in its spirit and methods ; and where French revolutionary vio- lence only produced reaction, Liberalism, with its weapons of compromise and moderation, managed the transition to Democracy—in our own case by a completely peaceful revolution, and on the Continent with far less friction than might have been expected. But it has rendered other services far lees equivocal than the enlargement of the bounds of the State, by which, indeed, it has wrought its own destruction. By knocking off the shackles of trade and industry, by enlarging and giving security to the free- dom of the individual, by waging a vigorous and continual warfare with tyranny, and injustice, and corruption wher- ever they were to be found, by striking at unjustifiable privi- lege and championing the cause of the oppressed nationali- ties, it has leftethe world a great deal better than it found it. How much, for instance, has Europe gained by the free- dom and unification of Italy, to which Liberal sentiment contributed so greatly ? The creation of Germany cannot indeed be credited to the Liberals in like degree. They made their attempt in 1848 and. failed, and when the work was finally carried through by other means, the result was rather a check and a cause of bewilderment to them than a triumph. Liberalism was all-powerful to destroy the abuses which interfere with the free action of con- structive forces, but its genius was not specially construct- ive in the positive sense. The making of Germany was a work altogether beyond its ken. And if we were asked why the Liberal creed has so suddenly lost its popularity, we should answer, partly owing to this limitation. The work which it was best fitted to do has been done, for it is impossible now to point to any glaring abuses that call for correction, unless indeed we accept the view of that order of politicians who believe that the English still exercise a sort of medieval tyranny in Ireland. And what we now need is a policy of reconstruction on the ground which has been prepared, a party which shall show us how to bring order out of the chaos of Democracy, and reconcile the jarring forces of industry and social life. The process of reconciliation must be slow, deliberate, and tentative, and sweeping panaceas of the Socialist kind will not avail ; but neither has the older Liberalism much guidance to offer, except in a negative sense...
That perhaps explains from one point of view why Liberalism has proved so unenduring, and in this one great theoretic limitation, the lack of constructive power, are summed up nearly all its shortcomings. But its failure with the Democracy has been owing to more immediate reasons. To the Democracy it seems cold, hard, and unsympathetic. In the days of its strength it was often self-confident and shallow, and now it seems dreary, soulless, and uninspiring. But it suffers hardly less for its virtues than for its vices. The Liberalism of the olden type had an unpleasant habit of accepting facts as they are, such facts at least as it was fitted to appre- hend, and its enterprise was limited by a prcfound conviction that two and two make four. This does not by any means fall in with the ways of the new Democracy. Its aspirations are not to be bounded by any limitations of time or space or arithmetic. Liberalism used to be accused of making base utility its ideal, and its spirit was certainly rather irreligious and unimaginative. But it is not utilitarian enough for the new Democracy, which wants its mess of pottage above all things, and that speedily ; and Liberalism of the true type, being too logi- cal to believe in impossibilities, and too honest to promise them, is quite out of the running in the competition for Democratic favour. It is from this point of view that its disappearance is most to be regretted. A little more of its unrelenting and matter-of-fact logic would be a most salutary ingredient in the political discussions of the day. Cold perhaps it was, except when kiudled to fervour by hatred of oppression ; but being dispassionate by nature, it could be just, and that is more than can always be said for the more impassioned Liberalism of to-day. With the Democracy still inchoate and untrained, with one party uncertain in its voice and doubtful as to its policy on social questions, and the other given up to the competi- tion of rival makers of confusion, we have lost not a little through the disappearance of the Liberals of the older school, who were always at least well-informed, and usually only too logical in their arguments and views.
Previous page
