American Enterprise Institute Why liberalism works: A book event with Deirdre McCloskey Welcome and introduction: James Pethokoukis, AEI Discussion: Deirdre McCloskey, University of Illinois at Chicago James Pethokoukis, AEI 9:00–11:00 a.m. Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Event Page: https://www.aei.org/events/why-liberalism-works-a-book-event- with-deirdre-mccloskey/ James Pethokoukis: All right. I think we should get ready? Do I have official permission to get ready? That’s as official as it gets. Welcome. Thank you for coming by AEI this morning, bright and early after a long, three- day weekend, at least for some of us. Thanks for coming out for this wonderful event. Many in America today say that liberalism is in decline. And it seems that the word itself has become a dirty word on both sides of the aisle. On the left, we see a renewed interest in socialism and a greater skepticism toward free speech. And many on the right seem to have cooled on liberalism as well. The election of Donald Trump is the most obvious political example. But even many conservative intellectuals are having second thoughts about liberalism. Patrick Deneen has written a book, a conservative intellectual, called “Why Liberalism Failed.” So a prominent example of this field. But today we’re going to give a different perspective. We have, today, Deirdre McCloskey with us to make the opposite case, and her new book, “Why Liberalism Works,” which I happen to have a copy right here. Dr. McCloskey is a distinguished professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She’s written many influential works of economic history, most recently including, her “Bourgeois” trilogy. This trilogy, as well as the book we’ll discuss today, argues that poverty and tyranny are the two biggest problems that face mankind. And liberalism is the only philosophy that sustainably combats both of them. She credits the rise of liberal ideas with starting what she calls “the Great Enrichment.” This enrichment dramatically increase the living standards and personal liberties of even the poorest among us. That enrichment lead Britain and then America and then the West more broadly to unprecedented prosperity. This prosperity continues today and has even been lifting inhabitants of Asia and Africa out of extreme poverty. It is these ideas that led to this prosperity that Dr. McCloskey defends, and it’s a delight to discuss it with her today. Excellent. Deirdre McCloskey: That’s an excellent summary, which is why I want Jim to do a book with me. He gets it. James Pethokoukis: And as I said, it would be my honor. I’m not sure what I could contribute. Well, let’s start definitionally for a moment. What distinguishes a liberal from a conservative or a progressive? Because these words have sort of been bandied about so much. What are the differences as you see them? Deirdre McCloskey: Well, I think it’s very easy. A liberal is someone who believes that there shouldn’t be any masters, no tyrants. Not husbands over wives, not masters over slaves, not politicians over citizens, no hierarchies. Whereas the other two, in their own charming way, delight in coercion, in masters. On the left, it’s the masterhood of the state over everyone. On the right, it’s the masterhood of the state over everyone. So, along the conventional left-right spectrum, we’re only arguing about how to use the massive power of the state. The idea that there shouldn’t be any massive power of the state is just off the table. Whereas we liberals, you know, starting with Adam Smith and Mary Wollstonecraft and Tom Paine and Thoreau and Mill — blah, blah, blah — Milton Friedman, we all think that the state should be small — competent but small. So we’re off of the scale. We’re not on the left-right scale. James Pethokoukis: I mean, I thought that what American conservatives were doing at least was protecting and preserving the liberalism of Adam Smith. Deirdre McCloskey: Well, and — James Pethokoukis: I’m not sure it’s doing that anymore. Deirdre McCloskey: Exactly. At 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, as George Will has argued, these American conservatives — as against the reactionaries of Europe, the Carl Schmitts and so forth — they’re protecting the Constitution, the separation of powers and so forth. And I’m fine with that. I asked George once, said, “Aren’t you really a liberal?” He said, “Yeah, I am. I have to admit it. I’m not a conservative. I’m a liberal.” James Pethokoukis: Which is quite a saying for someone who also just wrote a book called “Conservative Sensibility.” Deirdre McCloskey: I know. James Pethokoukis: A rather long summation of his lifetime of work. Deirdre McCloskey: It’s a very good book. I highly recommend it along with mine. And — James Pethokoukis: Not in that particular order. Deirdre McCloskey: Well, mine would make an excellent gift for your Christmas shopping. Buy the book — James Pethokoukis: Timely. Deirdre McCloskey: — I mean, your mom will be delighted to get a copy of my book. Whereas George’s is a little thick. But it’s a good book. James Pethokoukis: You call your sort of brand of liberalism, humane liberalism, I think, 2.0? So how is this different or how does it build upon the previous versions? And what — Deirdre McCloskey: I was just yesterday — and I’m going to go again this noon — over at Cato. And at Cato, there’s some of them — some of the Catoites are what you might call liberals 1.0. At least that’s how they think of themselves. And here’s how to express it. The late first century BCE, Jewish sage, Hillel of Babylon, expressed the golden rule this way: “Do not do unto others as you would not want to have done to yourself.” Shortly thereafter, in the early first century CE, another Jewish sage you may have heard of said, “Do unto others as you’d have done unto yourself.” The first is kind of liberalism 1.0. If you add the second, as I think you should, you get a rounded male and female — if you’ll allow me that distinction — way of looking at the world. The first Hillel way is “Don’t tread on me. I’m free. Go away. Leave me alone.” James Pethokoukis: Yes, leave me alone. Deirdre McCloskey: “You’re not my boss,” as the teenagers say. And the second is “Don’t pass by on the other side. Be a Good Samaritan. Be nice.” And the one you can think of is kind of boyish, and the other is kind of girlish. And the two make up a — the first guards against stupid, often ignorant, busybody, interfering by the tyrants. And the second acknowledges what I think we should all acknowledge — I think everyone here should acknowledge it — that we owe something to the poor. We owe something to the wretched of the earth — namely, allowing them to have a job, allowing them to advance in life. And that’s a liberal idea. And it was very new in the 18th century, both of those. You know, because the earlier agricultural societies were hierarchical. Everyone had a master, from the king down to the family dog. The king’s master was God herself, and then down to the family dog. By the way, dog — I’m a dog lover. Dog is God spelled backwards, think of that. Anyway, sorry, stupid. That’s how people thought things had to be. And alas, a lot of people still think so. Lots of conservatives want a society of hierarchy. Now those tend to be the other conservatives. As George says, they’re kind of European conservatives, not American. So I think you need both. James Pethokoukis: In your previous books — we mentioned this as we were talking earlier — in a way it seems to me almost like you’re doing a running dialogue with folks on the left, other academics, and scholars. Where you’re trying to sort of explain to them that, you know, with sort of great affection, here’s why you’re wrong. You’re very humble about it, but here’s why — please, please, I beseech you, consider the possibility that you may be wrong. Deirdre McCloskey: That you might be mistaken. James Pethokoukis: So is this book still meant for them alone? Because it seems like now you need to make the argument to folks on the left, but you also need to make this argument to the folks on the right. So are you doing that? So why do you have to do that? Deirdre McCloskey: I think so. I’m kind of panicked as many of us are. “Panic” wouldn’t be the word, but very worried about populism of the left and right, worldwide. You know, this, let’s try socialism, which some young people of goodwill in the United States keep saying. Every time I hear that, it hurts. As though it hasn’t been tried in the Soviet Union in 1917 or in Venezuela in 1999. But as you’re suggesting, there’s also a populism of the right. I was in Hungary a couple of weeks before the last election, which Orbán, surprise, surprise, won. And the anti-Semitism and the crazy anti-immigrant feeling was very thick on the ground, shockingly thick. But bear in mind — I think you understand this, Jim, that for a century and a half, liberalism has been under attack.