ADRIAN WOODLRIDGE, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

LIBERALISM NOW HAS TWO MEANINGS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, IT'S LIKE CLASSIC LIBERALISM ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL STEMMING FROM JOHN LOCKE, I'D SAY, AND LIBERALISM IN THE POLITICAL SENSE WHICH TENDS TO IMPLY BIG STATE, BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING PROGRAMS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY LIBERALISMS AND WHY DO WE HAVE TWO DEFINITIONS OF IT?

>> ONE IS INDIVIDUALISM, AND IT'S A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAT STARTS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AND WORKS UPWARD AND OUTWARDS.

THE LIBERAL IS CONCERNED THAT THE RIGHT'S DUTIES AND SELF-DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

SECONDLY, IT'S A BELIEF AND THE NOTION OF TOLERANCE.

WE MUST BE TOLERANT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND THE ONLY WAY TO COME TO THE TRUTH OR TO ELIMINATE ERROR AT THE VERY LEAST IS THROUGH OPEN DEBATE AND TOLERANCE AS HUMANS AND SOCIETY AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE LIVING IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND THE THIRD THING IS SKEPTICISM ABOUT POWER, SAYING THAT POWER --ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS AND IT'S THIS DANGEROUS DRUG AND THERE FOR RIGHTS AND THOSE ARE THE THREE BIG ISSUES OF LIBERALISM.

THE ISSUE WHETHER IT'S A SMALL STATE -- YOU CAN BE A LIBERAL AND SUPPORT A SMALL STATE.

KAINE WAS A LIBERAL AND WANTED A LIBERAL STATE.

THERE WAS A SECONDARY THINGS, AND THE THREE ESSENTIAL THINGS ARE TOLERANCE, SKEPTICISM ABOUT POWER AND A COMMITMENT TO INDIVIDUALISM, AND I THINK IN THE 1990s THERE WERE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE STATE AND WE HAD PEOPLE WHO WANTED SMALL STATES, AND OTHER PEOPLE WERE LIBERALS AND THAT WAS A BIT OF A DECEPTION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND I THINK WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DECEPTION, THAT CONFUSION IN THE 1990s BECAUSE WE WERE ALL, BASICALLY, LIBERALS.

EVERYONE YEAHED ON THE BIG THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE ERA OF LIBERAL -- >> LET ME PUT A PIN ON THAT.

YOU THINK THAT PRESIDENT REAGAN AND PRIME MINISTER THATCHER WERE LIBERALS IN THAT SENSE JUST AS TONY BLAIR AND BILL CLINTON WERE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YEAH.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

GEORGE W. BUSH, BUT THERE WAS A BIG ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE STATE.

THATCHER WAS ON ONE SIDE, TO SOME EXTENT AND CLINTON BLAIR WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

NOW WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD.

WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE AUTOCRATS ON THE MARCH WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUALISM, WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN SEPARATING POWERS, WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN TOLERANCE.

PUTIN AND IT'S THE BIGGEST ECONOMY OF THE WAR IS POWER.

YOU HAVE TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO, I THINK, DOESN'T AGREE WITH A LOT OF THINGS THAT GEORGE BUSH OR GEORGE H. W. BUSH THOUGHT WAS ESSENTIAL.

WE HAVE TO STOP FOCUSING ON THE SECONDARY DEBATE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE STATE AND ALL OF US, AS LIBERALS WHETHER WE ARE BIG STATE LIBERALS OR SMALL STATE LIBERALS HAS TO AGREE THAT WE WILL SERVE THE FUNDAMENTAL VAT YOUS THAT WE HAVE TO AGREE TO DEFEND, AND THOSE VALUES ARE UNDER ATTACK THAN WE HAD AT ANY POINTS OF THE 1930s.

WHEN YOU SAY A SECONDARY, YOU HAVE A REALLY BIG STATE OR A SMALL STATE AND THAT SEEMS CONNECTED TO LIBERALISM.

A VERY BIG STATE TAXING A WHOLE LOT WOULD IN SOME WAYS SEEM TO BE COUNT ER TO BASIC LIBERALISM, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> NO, THE ONLY WAY TO THE BIG STATE CAN BE A LIBERAL ARGUMENT.

IF YOU SAY NEED A BIGGER STATE IN ORDER TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY AND IN ORDER TO GIVE CONDITIONS WHERE THEY CAN DEVELOP THEIR CHARACTERS AND PERSONALITIES AND INTO BEING ONE PEOPLE, YOU NEED PENSIONS OR NEED SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, IF WE'RE DOING THAT TO GIVE YOU THE QUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, TO GIVE THEM THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP THOSE AS INDIVIDUALS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY A LIBERAL.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE BIG SPACE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE THOSE IMPOSED ON SOCIETY BECAUSE THEY WANT SOCIETY TO MARCH TOGETHER AS A SINGLE, DISCIPLINED UNIT AND A REGIME AND IT'S ANTI-LIBERAL.

CLINTON BELIEVES IN THE BIG STATE, AND HE'S ANTI-LIBERAL.

YOU HAD LYNDON JOHNSON --THAT WAS -- THAT WAS, THAT WAS, BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THESE THINGS TO EMANCIPATE THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL TO ACHIEVE THEIR BEST IN PEA.

>> SAID OUR WAY SDPSHGS IT GOING TO AFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

>> ONE COMES FROM THE RIGHT WHICH BELIEVES IN POWER AND BELIEVES IN PUTTING PEOPLE INTO CERTAIN CATEGORIES, BUT IT COMES FROM THE LEFT AND THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT THAT ARE OBSESSED WITH GENDER, BIOLOGICAL CATEGORIES.

YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE BORN INTO A CERTAIN ROLE IN LIFE BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE, AND THAT YOU CANNOT TRANSCEND THAT WERE THROUGH HEALTH.

THERE ARE THREATS ON THE LEFT AND THREATS ON THE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE CONCEPTUAL OF SIZE AND THE INDIVIDUALIST.

>> AND YOU SAY THAT IN THE BOOK.

YOU SAY THAT THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT IS AS LIBERAL AS THE TRUMPIAN RIGHT, BUT LOOK, IT SEEMS LIKE A BIT OF AN EQUIVALENCE, AND PUSH BACK, ARE THEY THE SAME AS THE PRESIDENT THAT REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION?

>> I THINK YOU HAVE A POINT THERE.

I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT MORE, THOUGH, IT WAS MORE A RESULT OF THE ELECTION, I THINK, AND THE FIRST TRUMP TERM WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO WAS SOMEWHAT CONSTRAINED UNTIL THE VERY END.

WE HAVE I MUCH MORE SELF- CONFIDENT, AND I THINK THAT HE HAS OVERSTEPPED THE MARK ON MORE AND MORE OCCASIONS, AND I DO THINK IT WAS A BIGGER THREAT FROM THE RICE.

HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK IF YOU'RE A PROFESSOR OR COLLEGE XHUNT, YOU WOULD BE GOVERNING TO THE IMPORTANTANCE OF DEBATE, TOLERANCE AND A FREE EXCHANGE OF VIEWS AND TO SHAKE PEOPLE DOWN IF A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IS EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE AND DANGEROUS.

IF THOSE PEOPLE GET POWER THEY ARE MORE LIKELY, IF THEY START OFF IN THE POSITION OF BECOMING .

IT IS THE -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ] >> TRUMP'S NEVER PRETENDED TO BE IN THE BOOK.

THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE LIBERALS ARE NOT ACTING IN A LIBERAL FASHION.

>> DO YOU THINK THE LEFT AS YOU CALLED IT OR FOR THAT MATTER, SELF-INDULGENT LIBERALISM, AS YOU SAY HAPPENED IN THE '90s OR THE EARLY 2000, DID THAT PAVE THE WAY FOR TRUMP, AND IF SO, HOW?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THE 1980s AND 1990s THAT PREPARED THE WAY FOR THE GENERAL CRISIS OF LIBERALISM WHICH LED TO TRUMP, AND THAT THING WAS THAT WE ABANDONED THE PUBLIC SQUARE THAT ABANDONED THE NOTION OF THE WAR WHERE WE HAD DUTIES AND CONSTRAINTS AS WELL AS FREEDOM AND WE HAD THE STRANGE MARRIAGE OF TWO SORTS OF LIBERALISM.

ONE WAS THE LIBERALISM OF THE 1960s WHICH WAS JUST GO HANG, AND THE SECOND WAS THE THATCHER AND REAGAN.

THE MARKET'S BUSINESS SHOULD ALL BE GOVERNMENT AND THAT'S PUSHED AWAY A WHOLE SET OF CONSTRAINTS, CONSTRAINTS IN THE WAY THAT CAPITALISM OPERATES AND CONSTRAINTS ON THE WAY INDIVIDUALS TEND TO COOPERATE.

I THINK THAT DOUBLE LIBERALISM CAN DO AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOOD FOR A WHILE.

IT CREATED GREAT MILEAGE AND GOT RID OF OVERMIGHTY COMPANIES THAT WERE RUNNING THINGS VERY BADLY.

IT GAVE THE ECONOMY A BURST, BUT I THINK THE FULL CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CAME MUCH MORE DANGEROUS IN TWO WAYS.

ONE THE NOTION OF THE PUBLIC GOOD AND PUBLIC CONSTRAINTS AND SECONDLY, IT'S EMPOWERED SELF-SEEKING REMEMBER TO OF CAPITALISM, AND SO YOU HAD A SOCIETY IN WHICH EVERYBODY WAS MAXIMIZING THEIR FUTILITY.

THEY WERE SAYING WE MUSTN'T HAVE LIBERATION CONTROLS AND WE MUST DECIDE TO INTO --THEY'RE BOTH REVOLUTIONARIES DID ULTIMATELY LEAD TO TRUMP, AND IN SOME WAYS TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN AND THIS EMBODIMENT OF BOTH THOSE REVOLUTIONS?

YOU SAY PART OF A LIBERAL REVOLUTION OF THE 1990s WAS ALLOWING MORE OPEN BORDERS AND FREE IMMIGRATION WHICH SEEMS TO BE A TENET IN SOME WAYS, FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE SHOULD BE A TENET OF LIBERALISM, AND THERE WAS SOMETHING IN YOUR BOOK, AND I'M GOING TO READ IT TO YOU BECAUSE IT WAS SO TOUGH IN WHICH YOU SAID, SWEDEN SUFFERS FROM THE HIGHEST RATE OF DEATH BY SHOOTING IN EUROPE THANKS TO THE PROLIFERATION OF IMMIGRANT GANGS.

THE BRITISH NORTHERN CITIES THAT POWERED THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IS THREATENING BY AN ENCLAVE WITH PUNISHMENT AND GANGS.

THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THESE IMMIGRATION POLICIES, YOU SAY.

DON'T LIBERAL IMMIGRATION POLICIES, ISN'T THAT AT THE HEART OF TOLERANCE OR DIVERSITY THAT A LIBERAL SHOULD BELIEVE IN?

>> WHAT YOU WILL READ IN MY BOOK IS LIBERALISM IS RESPONSE --YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE UMBRELLA.

>> I THINK IN THE 90s AND THE 2000s WHO SAID IMMIGRATION COULD ONLY BE GOOD.

GOOD ECONOMICALLY AND GOOD CULTURE BECAUSE IT LED TO MORE PLURALISM AND VALUES AND LIFESTYLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND IT'S A WELLIC RAL THING TO DO.

I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO LIBERALISM IS COMING FROM THE PUBLIC REACTION TO VERY HIGH LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION, AND THAT THOSE HIGH LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION HAVE SOMETIMES LED TO VERY GOOD THINGS AND NOT ALWAYS LED TO VERY GOOD THINGS.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM OF ASSIMILATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.

IN SWEDEN, WE HAVE A MASSIVE NUMBER OF GANG VIOLENCE IN COMMUNITIES, AND WHERE YOU GET IF YOU GET THAT SOCIETY IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL, BY OVER LIBERAL POLICIES IS YOU GET TRUMPISM OR YOU GET IN SWEDEN DEMOCRATS PART OF THE PARTY, A PART OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THERE'S A PRACTICAL ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE BAD GUYS FROM GETTING IN, BUT THERE'S ALSO A BIGGER ARGUMENT THAN THAT AND IT ISN'T JUST THATS ISSITY ISN'T JUST ATOMIZED INDIVIDUALS PURSUING THEIR INTERESTS AND IT WOULD BE COOL TO HAVE SIMILAR --LIBERALISM WENT TOO FAR IN ONE PARTICULAR MARKET AND DIRECTION, AND WE NEED TO SAVE LIBERALISM BY MAKING IT A BIT MORE TOWARDS A MORE RESTRAINT ON THE MARKET AND PARTICULARLY WITH TECH.

MORE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS DOING THEIR OWN THING.

>> LET ME TAKE YOU BACK IN HISTORY BECAUSE MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE IN A PERIOD VERY MUCH LIKE THIS ONE WITH HUGE TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, PROBABLY LIKE TECH CHANGE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE HAD ELECTRICITY AND LIGHT BULBS, AND TERRAIN --IT ALSO LED LIBERALISM TO REINVENT ITSELF.

TELL ME HOW LIBERALISM REINVENTED ITSELF IN THE EARLY 1900s AND WHAT THE LESSONS ARE FOR TODAY.

>> IT'S CENTRAL TO THE ARGUMENT OF MY BOOK BECAUSE IT HAS SIMILAR WAYS, AND I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF 19th CENTURY.

Y BELIEVE -- SUPREMACY BEING THE VSHALL AND THE MARKETS --AND THE STATE INTERVENTION WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REGARDED AS VERY BAD.

BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES, GROVER CLEVELAND OR --AT THE END OF HIS CAREER WHO CLUNG TO THAT IDEA.

THEY HATED THE NOTION OF STATE INTERVENTION.

OTHER LIBERALS SAY IF WE GO TO THE DOCTRINE WE KNOW WE'LL BE ON THE WINNING SIDE OF HISTORY BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GETTING IS THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY.

IN HAD A DEMOCRACY IN THAT PERIOD, AND DEMOCRACY REALLY DIDN'T.

WE'RE GETTING THE RISE OF GREAT, BIG, MASSIVE INDUSTRY.

SO IT'S NOT JUST A FREE MARKET TRANSACTION AND THERE ARE COOPERATIONS AND HUGE ENTITIES, AND WE HAVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION IN TERM WAS SEWAGE AND LACK OF CHAOS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STREETS.

THEY SAID IN ORDER TO SAVE CAPITALISM AND IN ORDER TO SAVE LIBERALISM AND BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL, WE NEED A MORE ACTIVE STATE.

IT WAS VERY INTERESTING HERE BECAUSE HE SAID THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, PARTICULAR LY OUR INDIVIDUALS ARE INHERITING FORTUNES AND FOR THE BATTLE OF LIFE, AS HE SAW IT, BUT HE ALSO SAID FUNDAMENTALLY, THAT IF YOU GET GIANT CORPORATIONS THAT CONTROL THE ECONOMY, YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN FREE MARKETS AND HE WAS A SUPPORTER OF ANTITRUST AND ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE TO HAVE ANTITRUST IN THAT WAY.

YOU HAD THE INVENTION OF THE PROTOTYPE AND FREE EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, AND PENSION PROVISION AND MORE ACTIVE ROLE FOR THE STATE WITH PEOPLE, LIBERALS, AND ALL OF THIS WAS PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT INDIVIDUALS COULD FLOURISH IN A MASS SOCIETY, DOMINATED BY BIG CORPORATIONS WAS FOR THE STATE TO MAKE A --TO TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE, AND I THINK A LOT OF THOSE PROBLEMS ARE BEING RE-PRESENTED TO US BY THE CURRENT DIGITAL REVOLUTIONS AND A LOT OF THE SOLUTIONS REQUIRE US TO BE MORE ACTIVE IN RELATION TO THE STATE.

IN THE 1980s AND THE 1990s, LIBERALISM BECAME A DOCTRINE THAT SAID THE MARKET IS GOOD AND BUSINESS IS GOOD.

WE SHOULD GIVE BIG BUSINESS AND IT ALLOWS US TO DO IT ONCE, AND THAT'S STILL THE IDEOLOGY OF A LOT OF PEOPLE AND CENTRIST DEMOCRATS, I WOULD SAY, AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO BE MUCH MORE ACTIVE IN DEALING WITH THE BIG TECH COMPANIES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD ALLOW US TO BE FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IS THEY'VE GOT TOO MUCH POWER AND GO BACK TO THE FORMULATION THAT POWER CORRUPTS AND IT IS A WARNING ABOUT A PRIVATE SECTOR AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND ALSO THEY ARE SELLING US AND THE WAY THAT THEY'RE SELLING US LEADS TO ADDITION, DISTRACTION.

DESTROYS HABITS OF CONCENTRATION AND HABITS OF SELF-CONTROL THAT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THREATENING TO THE ESSENCE OF A LIBERAL SOCIETY AND THE ESSENCE OF LIBERAL SOCIETIES IS A SELF-CONTROLLED AND SELF- CONSCIOUS INDIVIDUAL.

>> ADRIAN WOODLRIDGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.