THE LIBERAL MI ND: TWO COMMUNICATIONS
AND A REPLY
LIBERALISMAND LITERATURE
If
we take the word "liberalism" literally, it suggests two
things: a belief in freedom and a copiousness and openness of mind
and sentiment. For us, human beings involved in history, these two
basic ideas cannot for long be considered apart from the instrumentality
of Enlightenment doctrine. The practical instruments of modern liberal–
ism are democratic, libertarian politics and the doctrine that the human
reason, in its secular function, is capable of establishing the social con–
ditions of freedom. I take this to be fundamental truth for our time,
and think that no declared liberal can be taken seriously who does not
base his liberalism upon this truth.
These thoughts are aroused by the remarks on my opinions in
recent issues of the
PARTISAN REVIEW
by Messrs. Arvin, Davis, Aaron,
Barrett, and Howe-remarks which, though ranging individually from
the careless to the incisive, seem to me on the whole very valuable. I
venture to think that the five critics will find my preliminary definition
of liberalism tentatively acceptable.
If
they feel that I am preaching to
them no more than exactly what they are preaching to me, that will indi–
cate the extent to which the controversy has issued from easily reparable
misunderstandings.
But the controversy is real, and ought to be continued in whatever
clear language the contestants can muster. To begin with, there is a
disagreement about the scope of the word "liberalism." The five critics
wish to restrict the meaning of the word to a particular kind of ration–
alism and a particular kind of politics. I wish to make of liberalism a
somewhat broader and more octopus-like ideal and to emphasize its
qualities of copiousness and openness of mind and sentiment. And I do
not regard this desire for latitude and exploration as a stratagem, con–
scious or unconscious, for establishing relationships with reaction or
religious obscurantism.
