A very common claim, made by Anglos and non-Anglos alike, is that Anglos are inherently liberal.1 This widespread notion, which appears to be superficially justified (note: superficially), is one of the many reasons why illiberals in the Anglosphere are so disheartened. Not only do they doubt the prospects of success of illiberal movements in the Anglosphere, but they have difficulty even articulating a specifically Anglo form of illiberalism because they don’t know what thinkers and models to draw upon. Don’t all of the great events of our history, our great thinkers, our great statesmen, seem to confirm the notion that we are inherently liberal? It is the purpose of this essay to show that we are not inherently liberal, that we have plenty of support for illiberalism in our tradition, and that liberalism is therefore not an inescapable fate for us.
Here I will generally focus on English examples. There are three reasons for this:
1. The English are the cultural and historical heart of the Anglosphere, such that undermining the case for them being inherently liberal will cut the ground out from under the claim concerning the Anglosphere in general.
2. My concern is to appeal to the English in particular.
3. In order to address the broader issue, I would have to extend this essay to an unreasonable length, so I have restricted it to a more manageable domain.
That being said, there is no reason why similar arguments could not be made for Anglos from, say, Australia, or the USA. A long list of illiberals could be cited for both countries, and we could point to elements of public policy and periods of their history during which the inhabitants of those countries displayed markedly illiberal tendencies. In any case, without further ado, let us begin.
What is an Anglo?
“Anglo” is used very loosely to refer to people native to the British Isles, including people whose ancestors emigrated to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and parts of the United States from the British Isles. It is perhaps an inappropriate term because it includes many people in whom specifically Anglo-Saxon heritage is not pronounced. However, these people are closely related ancestrally and have cultural similarities, including overlapping intellectual traditions and English as a first language. Thus, whatever reservations one might have about the term used, the phenomenon to which it refers is real, and we seem to be stuck with the term we have. Anglos constitute a folk group, that is, a collection of folks that are sufficiently similar, ancestrally and culturally, that assimilation of individuals from one folk into another is relatively easy. A person with a Scottish mother and an English father, raised in England, is likely to be taken as English, and so on. Under such conditions, cultural exchange and intermarriage will be relatively common.
Although my main focus here will be on the English, on occasion I may refer to authors who are not English, or strictly speaking, even Anglos, such as Anthony Ludovici. Regardless, since they are drawing at least in part upon an earlier Anglo tradition in support of their illiberal positions, and thus demonstrating that this can be done, I thought it justified to include them.
What is Liberalism?
We should clarify at the outset, what is meant by liberal, the root of the word liberalism. “Liberalism”, like “democracy”, “communism”, “socialism”, or “racism” is a nebulous term that is used in many different senses by different people. For some, it has a positive connotation; for others, it has a negative one. In either case, there is a tendency for people to associate it with everything they like or dislike respectively. This can result in confusion as to what the word really means.
The first use of the word “liberal” in England was as part of the phrase “liberal arts”. Liberal arts were contrasted with servile, or mechanical arts. They were a proper study of free and noble men, and thus an education in them was a mark of distinction. This use of the word can be traced back to at least the 14th century. Other meanings of “liberal” include freeness of expression, or generosity, or open-mindedness.2
Although liberal political theories were articulated in England in the 17th century,3 “liberal” did not come into widespread use in its political sense until the early 19th century. Frequently, the word “liberalist” was used at this stage, by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, to refer to the proponents of a particular political doctrine.4
But what do liberals believe? What are their key ideas? John Gray has given a very useful and concise answer:
Common to all variants of the liberal tradition is a definite conception, distinctively modern in character, of man and society … It is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of the individual against the claims of any social collectivity; egalitarian, inasmuch as it confers on all men the same moral status and denies the relevance to legal or political order of differences in moral worth among human beings; universalist, affirming the moral unity of the human species and according a secondary importance to specific historic associations and cultural forms; and meliorist in its affirmation of the corrigibility and improvability of all social institutions and political arrangements. It is this conception of man and society which gives liberalism a definite identity which transcends its vast internal variety and complexity.5
For the rest of this essay, we will assume that Gray’s identification of liberalism’s key tenets is correct. However, I want to exclude his fourth tenet—meliorism—as not particularly interesting for our purposes. Meliorism is arguably shared by other progressive, but not necessarily liberal worldviews.6 Therefore, we will proceed on the understanding that individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism are central to liberalism, and that without them, an individual, group, or doctrine cannot be said to be liberal.
The Meaning of the Claim
Having sketched out what Anglos are, and what liberalism is, we should get clear as to what is meant when one says that Anglos are inherently liberal.
If one means that it is literally impossible for a person of Anglo heritage to be anything other than a liberal, then this is obviously untrue. All that would be necessary to refute it is to show one counterexample. Robert Filmer.7 Well, that clears up that matter. Now, this would be such a tremendously stupid claim that I will be charitable and assume that this is not what is meant. But certainly, various proponents of the thesis we are critiquing here come across as though that is what they mean, particularly when they say things to the effect that “it’s in our blood”,8 as though an Anglo is biologically determined to be liberal. It is mentioned here to discourage people from putting it in these terms, as it is misleading to do so.
Most likely, what it means is that liberalism is in some way a deep expression of the folk character of Anglos, the fulfilment of their nature, and thus the form of ideology and government for which they are best suited. But it is a claim that, in order to be substantiated or refuted, necessitates an inquiry into our history and our folk character. I cannot hope to do justice to such an enormous topic as our folk character in such a short essay, when others have written whole books on the topic.9 Therefore, something more modest will be attempted. The three features of liberalism outlined above will each be considered in turn. We will evaluate them in relation to basic sketches of episodes in English history and thought, and consider whether it is even coherent to claim that they are inherent to a people. I cannot hope to convince everyone with such a meagre work. If the plausibility of the claim can be at all shaken, then this essay will have served its purpose.
As is my usual practice, I will not mention specific names, to avoid unnecessary controversy.
Bear this in mind, as it will be important in later sections.
Notably, in the works of John Locke. See his “Two Treatises of Government”.
E.g. “We are forced, little by little, to turn liberalists”.
John Gray, Liberalism, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1986, x.
This will be dealt with in a later essay.
Robert Filmer (1588-1653) was an English political theorist who is remembered now as a defender of the Divine Right of Kings. His main work, Patriarcha, has been published (along with his other works) by Imperium Press, and I recommend it to the reader.
Yes, I have heard this numerous times, each more irritating than the last.
This is a much larger project, which may take about a year to complete, given the range of material that has to be consulted. For now, I suggest that the reader look at Arthur Bryant’s The National Character and George Santayana’s Soliloquies in England for some excellent and touching words on the English.
Looking forward to this. Your book recommendations led me to an ISI piece on Arthur Bryant which has put him firmly on an all too long reading list: https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/whos-afraid-of-arthur-bryantbr-a-once-beloved-historian-three-decades-on/
Looking forward to reading this series, although I disagree with its premise. I do believe that the Anglo tradition is inherently liberal, which is steeped in a combination of ratcheting-egalitarianism ultimately deriving from Christianity plus the British desire to control the European continent, which necessitates a focus on financial control and extreme anti-nationalism. The Anglos care more about maintaining this control than they do about anything else, even at the cost of maintaining the British empire, the future of their children, or even the future of their civilization as seen in unlimited open non-white immigration, etc. I see the Anglos as a death cult. Of course there are always exceptions to generalizations and I could point to Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech (1968), but the exception does not disprove the rule...