The clash between modern and classical liberalism: Modern liberalism is inimical to the spirit of classical liberalism

Liberalism in general terms has two cases; one as modern and another as classical, but each has different manifestation on a moral basis. However, it appears that the differences are juxtaposed on the principle of liberalism. Although the fact that modern and classical liberalism’s view are unanimously framed within liberalism, there are distinctions in approach. Classical liberalism is generally known as an ideology protecting individuals and limiting government’s role. The term means old. Conversely, modern liberalism is typically known as a progressive doctrine—an idea of welfare state unlike classical liberalism.

In the light of variation between the lines, it is not easy to draw assumption between modern and classical liberalism of which both of the chains are clashing in the form of ideology. The difference is obvious when it adds to the ideal of moral and cultural progress. The modern liberals are more tied to self-dependence, rather than state sponsorship (or state control) on which this basis there comes to disagreeing with classical liberals.

Modern liberalism, represented by John Stuart Mill as a progressive being, reverses the ambitions and restraints of classical concepts on which defenders of classical liberalism thinks modern liberalism as a menace to the gains and achievements of the classical liberals. With a view of classical side, it is alleged that modern liberals are overcommitted and giving people unrealizable promises which are, to some degree, not relevant to the system of social welfare state. In theory, classical liberalism is found out to be linked up with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich von Hayek, whereas modern liberalism is with John Stuart Mill and von Humboldt and John Rawls.

Given the understanding of why classical liberalism feared modern liberalism being inimical to its intent, the latter’s gains which are thought to be threatened are as the following; firstly, it is the thought which is ideologically or metaphysically overcommitted. Secondly, it is the thought that makes everyone an unreliable promise of a degree of personal fulfillment that welfare state cannot deliver (Alan Ryan 1995). These phenomena are apparently regarded as basic elements opposed to the ways classical liberals hold steadfast, and considering that these modern thoughts undermine the previous success of classical liberalism.  

                                                                                                

For classical liberals, the political theory of modern liberals is seen problematic in a virtual world with the thought—a survey that can be justified unrealistic and not viable. Moreover, the second appraisal is closely linked to fostering individual freedom for others at a high price.

To sum up, in spite of much of the gist expression as mentioned above, the two things threatened by modern liberalism are believed to be the ideological thought which is overcommitted and promises unachievable to deliver as a welfare state. The extensive use of bureaucratic power is failing to give up good things tasked and the system being likely possible for the few educated bourgeoisie but not for most of the population.