The author charts the problem from one of the oldest splits in Liberalism; that between Radical Liberalism and Laissez-Faire Liberalism. I was given this as a present and was so impressed that I bought two more copies for my (grown-up) kids. So in a way liberalism's ideas of freedom of speech, creed, sexual orientation, nation, ideology, etc have been turned against itself. Where would workers rights be without the trade union movement, or women’s rights without the Suffragettes and feminism?

And it was really to understand the world I was born into in the mid-1960s into - a free democratic place to parents who had come from a not so free democratic place.Far more dangerous, however, are the zealots who aim to “force the end” and establish the messianic kingdom—or the Islamic Caliphate or Jesus Christ’s Holy Commonwealth or any other religious version of the end of secular history. Australia at the time was wealthy beyond their dreams and held together by the social bindings of Britishness, agrarian exports, tariffs and unionised labour agreements. Liberal socialists don’t necessarily deny that the final overthrow of capitalism might require measures of that sort. In fact, almost every self respecting liberal would say neither of these things but point out that a law which governs how an individual dresses when it has no impact on anyone else is fundamentally illiberal. I used to teach Rousseau’s politics, and I always felt that his republic was an overheated community.

From the rise of nationalism and populism to the decline of trust in institutions, liberals are facing unprecedented challenges. Grief will result,” Rosselli says, “from trying to fetter a movement with a development spanning centuries, a movement irrepressibly polyphonic, to a given philosophical creed. The world changes; new inequalities emerge in place of old ones; we never stop arguing among ourselves; socialist politics is steady work. For example, a recent book by Michael Sandel (2020) gives a much more insightful explanation of Western anger and our current lack of faith in political institutions.Populist victories are disasters for everyone on the losing side, perhaps especially for liberal journalists, the everyday voice of opposition, who are often falsely charged with corruption or sedition and locked up. After some handy biographical cameos of Orwell and Isaiah Berlin, we see how the version of liberalism which came to dominate was that of Hayek and Friedman, with Reagan and Thatcher symbolising their victory in the 80s. The narration tends towards the monotonous and the pronunciation of too many words is mangled - particularly non-English words. There is little here to refute the Marxist critique of liberal capitalism and his assaults on communism tend to be of the 'they weren't very nice to the kulaks' variety rather than thoroughgoing critiques.

The competing visions of Keynes and Hayek were in fact both facets of liberalism: one emphasising freedom through low unemployment and the individual opportunities thereby created; and the other focusing on low inflation and freedom of choice for the individual consumer.Presumably all these people believe in the legitimate existence of other religions; “liberal” is still a pluralizing adjective.

The blood is always mixed; the geography changes over the years; God isn’t involved; and the history is entangled with other histories. As we learn about each of the important concepts of liberalism, we are immersed in the historical context in which the idea took shape.The latter part of the book examines the modern rise of populism and the challenge it poses to liberal democracy. Details of historical events and movements I just didn’t know about, combined with analysis and commentary of modern situations I didn’t fully understand, all contained in an accessible work. Dunt has shown it is none of these things; Liberalism is outspoken, radical and evolves relentlessly.