It introduces, in clear and compelling language, a new way of making sense of the development of liberal ideas, by distinguishing between what he labels “rationalist” (consistent, transparent, state-centric) and “pluralist” (variable, private, culture-dependent) responses to the threats to individual freedom which have arisen throughout the history of liberalism.
Pointer from Tyler Cowen. I also recommend this podcast with Levy, Aaron Ross Powell,, and Trevor Burrus.
Should a restaurant owner be allowed not to serve someone based on race? The “rationalist” theory of liberalism says “no.” The pluralist theory of liberalism says “yes.” An often forgotten aspect of Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom is that he took the pluralist side on this issue.
Before you jump to the pluralist side of this debate, consider what Fox calls
the rational reformer who wishes to get rid of inconsistent trade barriers and idiosyncratic excise and sin taxes, all in the name of maximizing the benefits of creative destruction
Think of the Commerce Clause as being on the rationalizing side.
Do you mean the Commerce Clause before or after the New Deal?
I think he means it in a way that’s not as affected by the change in the 1930s– while the affirmative grant of power in the commerce clause was massively *expanded* then, the original authority and the reasons for it didn’t go away. Perhaps as importantly, the dormant commerce clause wasn’t much changed in the 1930s– the implied prohibition on states burdening interstate commerce. And I agree with Arnold here entirely: yes, the commerce clause is a rationalizing force in my sense. I talk in the book about Adam Smith’s balancing act between rationalism and pluralism, too (and Russell was picking up on that here)– breaking the power of the guild system was a rationalization.
I just assume the restaurant owner has their own individual freedom. Calling that is not rational and is inconsistent is declaring victory before the debate even takes place, so I’m not pleased with the framing.
“Rationalist” in this sense is very far from meaning just “rational.” Think about the way Oakeshott and Hayek use the word– or think about Weber’s description of the advancing bureaucratic centralizing state as being an ongoing process of rationaliztion.