… Fawcett faces unflinchingly what too many of liberalismâ€™s historians and defenders ignore: liberalism was, at its origins, an elite and elitist position. It was cool at best towards democracy and consistently determined to define equality in ways that prevented it from entailing political equality. Between about 1880 and 1945, this changed for good. Judith Shklar once wrote, in terms that Fawcett might endorse, that liberalism and democracy shared a harmonious and monogamous marriage â€” but one of convenience. Fawcett chronicles the courtship and the prenuptial agreement. Liberals â€œsilenced,â€ though never â€œabandoned,â€ their doubts about democracy. Making an effort to shed its paternalist, improving disposition â€” swapping the schoolmasterly temperament of a Humboldt for that of the libertine, perpetually indebted Benjamin Constant â€” liberalism dumped its old favorite word, â€œcharacter,â€ for a new one: â€œchoice.â€ Democracy, for its part, changed substantially as well, from a radical and populist doctrine to one that made its peace with representation, elite-staffed bureaucracies, private property, and a definition of popular sovereignty that rendered it fairly empty rhetoric.
One could summarize Fawcettâ€™s story like this: liberals kept their core ideas and gave up their deep, vicious prejudices regarding who could be trusted to live by them. Democrats, in turn, gave up the demos: they would no longer dream of â€œthe peopleâ€ acting, only of discrete people speaking and voting. The bargain seems, in good liberal style, mutually beneficial.
Read the whole review here. And buy the book.