Did John Locke have it right?
Liberalism is often referred to as “idealism” in the literature of the field. Do you feel this term accurately describes the liberal view of international relations?
When the word “liberal” is invoked, I have to admit it brings to mind the derogatory epithet used by George H.W. Bush to attack Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential race. I also think of tree-hugging hippies having love-ins at Woodstock. So to discover that the term “liberal” actually means:
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Tolerant
of change.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. (Dictionary.com)
And that a further definition of “liberal”, this time more apropos to international relations, “a family portrait of principles and institutions… individual freedom, political participation, private property, and equality of opportunity…” (Doyle 181). Seems to make Bush’s narrow, disparaging definition a little ham-handed and inaccurate.
Liberalism as defined by John Locke is synonymous with idealism. (Lecture notes, “Introduction”) Locke’s economic outlook said that all rational people were obligated to work for monetary and material satisfaction in order to achieve happiness. Capitalism is based on the laissez-faire principles of Locke. Rational beings competing with one another therefore must work together to achieve mutual fulfillment.
This brings a social contract and subsequently government, which allows people to subsist as competing but mutually respectful entities. This government of mutually respectful entities establishes mutually agreed-upon laws and punishments, which all within the social contract live by because that is what they agree to when signing on. (Ibid., “Lockean Liberalism”)
The Locke ideal is certainly not achievable, but it is something for which humanity may strive. You see, this relatively peaceful coexistence requires a level of mutual responsibility, and it is very difficult to achieve that level of human perfection for sustained periods of time. Over time, human nature will overtake the rational man and envy, class distinctions, greed, and envy will inevitably set in; “liberals assume that human beings are rational rather than passionate” (Ibid.)
The world around us is changing daily. From the coca fields of Colombia to the battlefields of Iraq, we see man striving to kill, to maim, to destroy, to undermine. The insurgents who blow up a mosque to incite a religious/civil war are certainly not acting rationally, with the good of the whole in mind. This is what Locke was hoping for in his "Perpetual Peace": he posited that mankind must embrace concepts like "universal hospitality" and "mutual trust" (167-9).
To believe that mankind may one day free itself from the shackles and bounds of passion and irrationality is a fine goal. I share that hope. But for humanity to coexist happily, without envy, greed, ambition, pride, or lust… you get the picture. “Ideal” is the only word to describe what Locke is positing in his treatise. That is why the term “idealism” is so perfectly synonymous with classic liberalism.
Sources:
Doyle, Michael W. “Liberalism and World Politics.” From Kaufman, et. al., Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.
Lecture notes, week 5. Norwich University, 2006.
“Liberal.” Dictionary.com, Internet: Link
Locke, John. "To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch." From Kaufman, et. al., Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.