The ideological weakness of modern liberalism has long been recognized as one of the more striking features of contemporary politics. Although constitutional democracy has on the whole proved rather more successful than totalitarian government in satisfying the ordinary needs of men, its achievements have generally failed to arouse a great deal of enthusiasm. In comparison with the aggressive self-confidence of communists and fascists, the attitude of contemporary liberals is notoriously defensive and pessimistic. What are the causes underlying this curious failure of liberal morale? To what extent can it be attributed to deficiencies in the theoretical structure of modern liberalism? These questions must be of interest to anyone who is concerned with the problems of contemporary political thought.

When substantial accomplishments fail to evoke enthusiasm, it is reasonable to suppose that those accomplishments are being measured against standards which in some way or other are alien to their nature. A good deal of the weakness of modern liberalism arises out of the fact that it insists on judging the achievements of constitutional democracy, an essentially pluralist system, in terms of standards which are still largely absolutist in character. Liberal government depends in practice on the existence of a multi-myth, multi-group society. Policy is determined not, as in totalitarian countries, by imposing the will of a homogeneous ruling group upon the rest of the community, but by a process of parliamentary negotiation between the supporters of widely varying points of view. In a society of this sort, the coercive functions of government are necessarily limited by the claims of rival individuals and groups.