The 1789 Discourse: Benjamin Constant On Liberty
It is easy today to think that conversations about politics have always been the same. Ideas that seem revolutionary are often nothing new, while some philosophies that seem timeless have only recently arrived on the scene. The truth is, the ideas and concepts of freedom as we know it now only got started as recently as the late 18th century. One of the people who best articulated this idea at the time was French writer and philosopher Benjamin Constant.
Living in the days of the French Revolution, Constant wrote about art, religion and culture. He even wrote novels—but what he is best known for today is being one of the earliest champions of classical liberalism. Not liberal in the North American sense as it is regarded today, but in the modern classical sense, which is now more associated with thinkers on the right: ideas of freedom, liberty and the protection of the individual from the power of the sovereign state.
One of his most famous pieces of political writing is not from a lecture give in Paris, 1819. Titled "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns," it is an extraordinary read.
In the lecture, Constant detailed the meaning of "liberty" to the ancient world, which had collectivist societal values, and contrasted it to what the word meant in the modern world, which had individualistic values.
By comparing the differences, we can gather insight into what Constant's philosophical outlook would be in regard to current political issues that are facing us today.
"First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French-man, and a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word 'liberty'. For each of them it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practice it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to
come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone's right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims. Finally, it is everyone's right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed. Now compare this liberty with that of the ancients."
The above is an incredible observation by Constant. In the ancient philosophy of freedom, individuals had a say in government—but their personal lives were not their own. In discussing a topic like COVID-19, for example, one might deduce that the restrictions and lockdowns imposed, appear to be more aligned with ancient rather than modern values. It is likely that Constant would have been repelled by the idea of the scope and scale of government intervention today, and into the nuances of an individual's private life—especially considering the fact that he lived during a time when sickness and disease was a real and present danger—but society still functioned.
Constant then proceeds to equate the benefits of war and trade.
"War precedes commerce. War and commerce are only two different means of achieving the same end, that of getting what one wants. Commerce is simply a tribute paid to the strength of the possessor by the aspirant to possession. It is an attempt to conquer, by mutual agreement, what one can no longer hope to obtain through violence...War is all impulse, commerce, calculation. Hence it follows that an age must come in which commerce replaces war. We have reached this age."
"Commerce inspires in men a vivid love of individual independence. Commerce supplies their needs, satisfies their desires, without the intervention of the authorities. This intervention is almost always—and I do not know why I say almost—this intervention is indeed always a trouble and an embarrassment. Every time collective power wishes to meddle with private speculations, it harasses the speculators. Every time governments pretend to do our own business, they do it more incompetently and expensively than we would"
Could not the last sentence be ripped straight from the headlines of a current newspaper?
This quotation also leads me to believe that Constant would have been a proponent of Free Trade. I believe that he would have offered undying support to these operations because he not only thought it a superior means of keeping the peace, but also because he promoted autonomy of the citizenry. I am also convinced he would certainly be a proponent of what we call populism today. There is no elitist streak to his writing, and his affection for his countrymen seems to jump off the page.
"Political liberty, by submitting to all the citizens, without exception, the care and assessment of their most sacred interests, enlarges their spirit, ennobles their thoughts, and establishes among them a kind of intellectual equality which forms the glory and power of a people."
So, does Constant wish to throw away the ancient concept of liberty into the far-reaching corners of the universe? Not quite. He goes on to describe that the best way forward is a marriage of the two. He infinitely prefers the modern way; however, he says that if the general public does not keep their eye on what their representatives are up to; despotism could be looming.
"Hence, Sirs, the need for the representative system. The representative system is nothing but an organization by means of which a nation charges a few individuals to do what it cannot or does not wish to do herself. Poor men look after their own business; rich men hire stewards. This is the history of ancient and modern nations. The representative system is a proxy given to a certain number of men by the mass of the people who wish their interests to be defended and who nevertheless do not have the time to defend them themselves."
The right to revoke powers of abusive representatives is why Constant would have frowned upon police brutality — as it is a betrayal of the public trust.
I will close with an observation that I believe is pertinent to a discussion that is going on in politics today, pertaining to the role of the state, and what its responsibilities are.
Constant says:
"The danger of modern liberty is that, absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence, and in the pursuit of our particular interests, we should surrender our right to share in political power too easily. The holders of authority are only too anxious to encourage us to do so…No, Sirs, we must not leave it to them. No matter how touching such a tender commitment may be, let us ask the authorities to keep within their limits. Let them confine themselves to being just. We shall assume the responsibility of being happy for ourselves."
