You pull them together in this book with a larger argument about the failures of liberalism. I thought it might make sense for you to. [inaudible] reading a little bit from that introduction. Oh, sure. Absolutely. The emphasis in essays in this book were written in response to the Anglo American delusions that climaxed in brexit, the election of donald trump and, finally, a calamitous response to the covid19 outbreak. These range from the 19th century dream of imperial liberalism long championed by the colonists in which capital, goods, jobs and people freely circulate through the proclamation of an American Century of free trade and modernization, the attempt by american cold warriors to seduce [inaudible] away from communist revolution and into the gradual u. S. Alternative or consumer capitalism of democracy to the catastrophic humanitarian wars and demagoguic explosions of our times. Wrote in 1957 at the height of the cold war are the fanatics of western civilization who regard the highly contingent achievements of our culture as the final form and norm of human existence. The biggest culprits of history were, of course, communists and fascists. A dedicated anticommunist, the american theologian was vulnerable to phrases such as the moral superiority of western civilization. Nevertheless, he could see the peculiar tragedy of liberalism, how as he wrote a dogma which was intended to guarantee the Economic Freedom of the individual became the ideology of lost corporate structures of the late period of capitalism. Used by them and still used to prevent a proper political control of their powers. [inaudible] the fundamentalist creed e that the shaped our age, that western style capitalism [inaudible] and every society, in short, ought to [inaudible] just as britain and the United States did. Of course, they could not have anticipated that the fanatics would come to occupy at its end historys center stage incarnated as liberal internationalists, democracy promoters and free market globalizers, they would blunder through a world grown more complex and intractable and help unravel large parts of asia, africa and latin america before sowing political chaos in their own society. Thank you for reading from that. I love the phrase land that gnat you cans. Fanatics. And so the book really covers a range of people that might fit that description. Can you give us a sense of who the figures that talking about here are . Well, i think, you know, when [inaudible] published this particular excerpt about land fanatics in the late 50s, he was obviously responding to people who were at that point [inaudible] expect and the idea that the noncommunist party has to be, infused to certain american achievements including democracy and capitalism. And he was, you know, very much questioning the notion whether these highly contingent achievements of the United States could actually be spread in different parts of the world. But it seems the phrase actually quite useful to describe a very broad tendency which is there is now scholarship being done on the early part of the 20th century by historians assuming that the world going to converge on the model supplied by [inaudible] and to an extent the United States. Of course, this also, you know, becomes much, much stronger, that tendency, after of after the end of the cold war when there is absolutely no ideological opposition, no rival whatsoever to american power. And theres a kind of madness in the air, you know . People simply assuming that now they have this opportunity to completely rea make the world remake the world in all kinds of hubristic notions of the new world order. And, you know, on close examination, theres something so blatant lu absurd, but they become the default wisdom of the 90s and the 2000 until the financial crisis. So land fanatics, or you know, 1950s, by the time the 90s arrive, not so grand anymore. I think in that sense [inaudible] has to be qualified a little bit. They really, truly become fanatics of a pretty virulent sort, you know . Think about the iraq war and the kind of, you know, bloody chaos it created in large parts of asia and africa. So we are looking at very, very dangerous fanatics in that context. Yeah. Im thinking, i mean, i think people who fall into the land category perhaps that youve written around here would be someone like david goodhart, you know, people who seem to be you know, so theyre expressing ideas that are quite offensive in many ways but also coating them in a language of still trying to be sort of civil and to be accepted in the broader culture whereas Niall Ferguson whos the subject of the first essay in the book really expresses some ideas very blunt lu. I bluntly. I was actually amazed he would say some of the things he said so bluntly in the New York Times. Whats really interesting about this, obviously, this is the [inaudible] of that particular time, though i couldnt really go into any of these areas, but the fact that ideas like his which you now find so offensive were widely accepted, legitimated, became respectable. The bbc asked them to make a documentary which was also shown in the United States. He was writing for the financial times, he was writing new books, he was writing for pact clue every prestigious practically every prestigious periodical, and there was simply no challenge whatsoever coming to him from those periodicals. There were people, obviously, elsewhere, academics who would say what is this nonsense about the British Empire being this benign benediction to the natives. But, you know, whats really interesting about this ferguson phenomenon just how so many of these individuals that you mentioned who were not obviously speaking [inaudible] but there was all this atmosphere, and, you know, this is the other thing, this, this particular angloamerican group, you know, constitutedded by people being to ivy league or universities, and they have made their way through washington, d. C. , london, new york think tanks, foundations, various publications, periodicals who really in a way came to have a kind of, create a kind of consensus. Even if they were not speaking nile fergusons language, they simply seemed the world was going to be transformed in certain ways, and [inaudible] went and created became a, you know, actually a blair supporter, then a glor done brown supporters. Which kind of connects the center to the far right and the reactionary elements. [inaudible] to larry summers. Again, particular journey. Staying in the center but actually flirting with all different kinds of political tendencies. So youre right, i mean, i think bland that gnat you cans in this fanatics in its most fundamental sense refers to people of that particular angloamerican group who are not as blatant, who are not as aggressive as, you know, someone like Niall Ferguson. But nevertheless, exercise a great deal of power and authority and speak softly. Right. And these are the group of people who do not present themselves as radical, even though many of the propositions they put forward are actually quite extreme in certain causes. They causes. They always, i think its said they identify as liberals. What i want to clarify is what form of liberalism youre taking aim at here. Because it can take many forms. You talk about a version of liberalism that essentially consists of unregulated markets [inaudible] on behalf of them. Is that kind of the summation of what were talking about as liberalism in this incarnation . Well [inaudible] is, of course, neoliberalism that various or societies have suffered from in the last two, three decades. But i think, you know, if you take the broader historical view, if you look at a magazine like the economist which i write about, starting off with, essentially, you know, classical liberalism, free trade, open borders but this huge military power of britain behind the ideas. So that is one particular tradition that i was, you know, interested in, and thats something i return to again and again in the book. Because this is something that is actually working in a alliance with tremendous military and political and diplomatic power. And then, of course, you know, the economist becomes a great cheerleader of american neoliberalism and starts a new american career for itself in the 1980s. In many ways, it becomes actually an american magazine headquartered in london. So i think in that sense and especially the book that i was reviewing is ill human naughting in the way illuminating in the way the magazine often adheres to [inaudible] at one point, then departs very sharply at some point and starts to talk about, you know, how we need to have a social welfare system. We really cant, you know, go on like this anymore and then withdraws again. But whats really interesting about it is that how liberalism becomes this ideology, essentially, of the elite everywhere. And this is something that the elites want because, you know, its certainly [inaudible] but its also something that allows them to feel progressive. And, essentially, in tune with history. So, you know, even as extreme farright aims are being advanced for instance, you know, the overthrow of [inaudible] or the iraq war which the economist also supported, but this almost then becomes legitimated because we are actual liberals. The kind of moral prestige of liberalism that these writers are drawing upon. And then, of course, the cold war you have this very much [inaudible] attempt to create a very prestigious intellectual ancestry for liberalism where all kinds of people are recruited, you know, whether its locke or [inaudible] various people. So there is, you know, this is something im interested in, you know, how people seeming to represent liberalism are claiming to advance liberal ideas then make alliances with all kinds of different political movements, individuals, organizations and tendencies. The point of your book is the ideals and the rhetoric and then the mismatch between those ideals and the reality as its lived by most people. Can you talk a bit about that . I mean, what you think are the discontents of this version of liberalism . Well, i think i mean, i should say, and i say this in the introduction, that what really in many ways alerted me to this disconnect that you just mentioned was an indian experience, ab experience of an indian relative. There isnt a strong tradition in understood ya, but what india with, but what exists is profoundly secular. And taunt, very deep and at the same time, very deeply alive and connected to the old establishment. Of course now you have a new regime in place which has absolutely no time for secularism or the oldfashioned kind of liberal. But in the past the liberal elite secularists in india were very closely connected to political power, and they had this vision of kashmir, for instance, which as of you would know a disputed territory, has been right from the beginning. That was really my education into the very shocking disconnects between very high minded rhetoric about superior morality and a superior set of ideas. And then actually when you see it working on the grounds, you see violence, suffering, despair. Many people over the last two or three decades this promise of prosperity this promise of economic growth, and also equality. In the realities they can correspond to. This kind of promise. So for that reason there is a huge reservoir of disaffection kind of a backlash who called themselves or could be defined as a liberal. With a certain kind of compromise in the 1970s the london times were she says please dont call me a liberal, it is a dirty word in south africa. Liberals are too complicit. In this horrible regime there. This is not something i want to use for myself. And for many people the world has become so tainted that they dont have to go near it. There is an ideals that we should ivanas. And it be hard to realize except that liberals are really not the right people. Host the a lot of the book is about excavating that history i guess. I think that because a wider view of liberalism its securing individual rights of freedom and yet a recurring theme in the essays is for hundreds of years liberalism has been tied up with hierarchy. With them. Listen, violence, and a form of racism that may be being experienced in the colonizing countries now and the lefty for 50 years or more. Its seeing it overwhelmingly for a long time. And so, you talk in the book about the crises that we are describing now as being essentially the thing of imperial liberalism coming home. What do you mean by that phrase . What is the process coming home . Guest i think we wouldve been much more aware of these problems and to diagnose them. The reason that did not embark on the critique that many of us are engaged in different ways from the left or even more laissez sensible right. It is because liberalism during the cold war became this entrenched ideology. If you did book reviews if i were to write a book which was a kind of unified things when i put all these Different Things together, and what i am really critiquing as a kind of cold war liberalism that became dominant in america and maines dream journalism indefinitely mainstream academia. Cecil intellectual tradition back in the 1950s. Obviously in contrast to communism. And of course having defeated fascism. It may look like the best game in town. Even today people would say but what you really want . If you do away with liberalism what is really left . Because those were the choices back then. Either you have this version of liberalism or you have totalitarianism of the kind represented by stalin and the soviet union. What they didnt relate was to hide this longer part of liberalism, its complicated history, the ways in which liberal practices was compromised by the association with imperialism right from the 19th century onward. So the ideal that liberalism could become a workable ideology for a United States where more and more people are becoming aware of their rights. We have the civil rights movement. There is something deeply delusional about those assumptions. When you think of someone outside berlin back in the 50s, john lewis even in the 60s and 70s. About liberty and justice. When are the non white people in the vision . Where are the africanamericans . Where are the countries that theyre going to fight for but actually achieving dissemination and sovereignty and independenc independence. So what i am trying to say is what liberalism we are still banging a drum for in different platforms, was it ever intellectually capable of acknowledging the new realities with decolonization with the civil rights movement, with so many Different Things that happened. Was it made by liberalism. Not to mention the fact that inequality starts to become a problem from the 1970s on. And now of course it has barriers, demagogues to emerge. As the deep inadequacy of the same work theyve been carrying for such a long time that developed essentially in response to the communist threats during the cold war. And that basically at this point does not seem to offer except to say after me, and is always the alternative offered. Host im trying to get to the link between some of the contradictions and liberalism and the way they have been enabled by an empire. It seems, correct me if im wrong. Especially in the war that the ability of western european powers to go settle countries and colonize other countries essentially enabled liberalism to be in the home countries until the first world war. And that is the link, that is the original link between liberalism and empire. Is not something i can gain for myself. This is something colonial activists were starting to point out from the early 20th century onward. Even before the first world war, this idea of individual liberties or at least some people in england at that point, even that was the common threats. Somebody like gandhi said this very explicitly either in the 1920s that all of these rights are available to many people all these democratic rights would be endangered once asia becomes free and becomes a rival and a competitor to these imperialist economies. Because as long as they can exploit these nations, as long as they dominate and subjugate in africa and asia, those liberties theyve been able to secure for a small part of the population would be endangered. So that aspiring to think of a different model. We need to think of a different way of being in the world. Not just economically but politically respectful of the environment. That is the whole point of the critique. It has made you somewhat democratic, is not sustainable. And we can see it because we can see and inflicts on different parts of the world on us, in our society. When he can no longer exploit those societies in the same way youre doing right now. Sue and the thing im trying to understand or clarify, how or why liberalism leads to the exploitation. Is it the idea that you have a society where everyone is free to compete with each other it will work out for people and there is an escape valve. How does that work . Guest why should liberalism lead too . Host why should mean 70s to be exploited . I think that most people who are proponents of liberalism or who would like to be in defense of the system they would not automatically assume that liberalism means someone is going to be exploited. What is the mechanism there . Search is simply because it works within the framework of a capitalist economy which is around exploitation. And of course the 19th century it was also in a way carried forward by the expansion. In different markets of the world. And they want to bombard in them sending in gunboats to open up the locket. Liberalism and the idea of expansion, economic growth, freedom, they were from the very beginning of practice when they are starting to be brought into practice. They were always connected with this expanding capitalist economy which was a benefiting which was flourishing which is expanding largely a political based on exploitation. Inference in slavery and even after the abolishment of slavery. Very different forms of coercion. Not to mention largescale dispossession. And you can still argue or if you think luck was an intellectual blue or liberalism. Even with that he had some dealings with the slave trading company. It is very hard to entangle something youve been trying to argue in this book. From history often imperialism and savory. That is what makes it so problematic hughley unfitted for our democratic age. We are living there democratic revolution. That comes from the fact that some are not aware but our conscience and from a unit that has been in provisions of power and privilege for long time. And they find it to share those privileges with more people. Sue went with the ideas of these items coming home is a sense a big expectation is out of you. All a great deal of exploitation within imperial britain two. That now that exploitation is more visible within the United States and in the united kingdom. And ot