Liberalism does not guide us it is the opposite of a messianism

SHOULD WE SAVE

LIBERALISM

by Monique Canto-Sperber

and Nicolas Tenzer

Grasset, new College

philosophy, 172 pages,

12 euros.

The demonisation of liberalism, the France is at the cutting edge. Without that person was surprised, the "anti-liberal" adjective has become the unifying label of a part of the political class, trivializing the idea that a new enemy now stands against the happiness of the people. Such active, in a country that was one of the homes of liberal thought, could not only intrigue philosophers. Two of them one is the Director of the Ecole normale supérieure, the other head of the journal "Le Banquet" meet thus in turn to the question: "should we save liberalism." Save in a double sense: rehabilitate its image in the eyes and justified as ideal of life in society.

First, why so many hate Because responding Monique Canto-Sperber, liberalism was betrayed by those claiming him. In the economic order, it is assimilated, wrongly, to capitalism and the cult of "any market". In the political order, adds Nicolas Tenzer, the disappointment was born of the realization of a "uptake" of the public thing by the parties, leaders and interest groups.

Should not confuse liberalism with its deformation, what is its true nature This is not an absolute and immutable principle, but, as explained by Monique Canto-Sperber, the fruit of a long intellectual history. In the 17th century, the founding themes are defined: the integrity of the individual, the respect for its autonomy, but also the belief that the resolution of the conflict "in a strictly human order", without reference to a transcendent model.

"Real freedom."

On the one hand, enhancement of pluralism, of the Exchange, or even confrontation between individuals, has led to the recognition of the virtues of the market and competition. But on the other, the concept of freedom has enriched and extensive: from the end of the 19th century imposed the idea that political and economic freedoms remained very incomplete if they did not incorporated a social component. The "true freedom" is to give all initiative and personal development opportunities provided by the detention of the wealth. These minimum allocations change over time: yesterday it was stable employment, equal access to public services, control of a business. Today, it is quality education, training, a wide range of jobs, decent housing, working conditions, transport and security. In short, true liberalism is also social.

If he shares this conclusion, Nicolas Tenzer is achieved by other paths, a more radical and more provocative way. Liberalism, says, is "the only doctrine to make promises and hopes for greater equality." Its ideal model, indeed, is a collection of equally free individuals, i.e. with, initially, in the more egalitarian way possible, and placed in a situation of competition even if they accept and internalize the standards of life in society. Liberalism was a great enemy: the "annuity" in all its forms (social positions, monopolies, collusion, various privileges, and same inheritance). Although his fate is to face always the realities of the world as it is, its logic internal the shoot in a perpetual struggle against unjustified inequalities.

But if the "social" within the meaning of the equality of opportunities is liberating, he can also enslave. The autonomy of the individual implies a degree of mistrust towards the collective, whether various communities (ethnic, religious, sexual, professional, political) or conformism. The intermediary bodies that constitute "civil society" perform necessary functions, but tend to push as far as possible their grip. Liberalism needs a strong State, supports our author, is also to "help the individual to resist the invasion of the social."

The aspiration to security

Liberalism is a flexible doctrine because its central value, freedom of the individual, has a meaning multiple, variable and subject to discussion. But the breakdown he suffered, particularly in France, is also, said Tenzer, another reason, more fundamental and more disturbing: that is the idea of freedom that would be devalued. First because that struggles for conquest are behind us: If we are still celebrating their heroes and their martyrs, we do not always know what to do with this unmarked freedom. Then because the future yesterday harbinger of hope, appears now threatening: freedom, involving the invention by each of its own conduct the vagaries of the existence, we prefer security, albeit at the cost of a limitation of our autonomy. Liberalism does not guide us: it is the opposite of a messianism. This is why it is difficult to live.