Liberal Failure

Why did the late 1700s Enlightenment liberals lose out to the early 1800s Romantic semi-illiberals? Why did the philosophies of the rational individualists lose out to the philosophies of the semi-irrational individualists? 

In large part, probably because the liberal and rational individualist philosophers were too abstract and theoretical. Their ideas and teachings simply weren’t very practical or workable. The leading liberals of the late 1700s were almost all people of the upper-class or well-educated middle-class. They weren't regular middle-class or lower-class persons, which made up perhaps 90% of the population then, and which dominated the popular culture.   

More to the point, the teachings of the Enlightenment liberals were probably too cold, dry, artificial, sterile, lifeless, and soulless. Reading them today, in the 21st century, the liberal thinkers then seemingly didn’t adequately take into account human emotions, passions, love, lust, drives, and instincts. But it’s the job of a rational liberal philosopher to provide instruction and guidance about all these aspects of life. To help people richly exploit and fully experience all of these important phenomena.

The leading intellectuals of the Enlightenment evidently also didn’t adequately provide men with meaning and purpose to fill the void left by the radical decline of religion. Overall, they didn’t adequately fulfill people’s ambitious, growing, psychological, and spiritual needs and wants. 

And so folks in the early 1800s turned to the irrational and slightly crazy. To the rather senseless and foolish Romantics. They turned to tortured geniuses and magnificent lost souls and suffering artistic greats to lead them. They sought out “Byronic heroes” to rather mindlessly follow, obey, and worship. 

Reasonism and liberalism as ideals didn’t fail or somehow come up short in the Enlightenment era. The ration liberal philosophers of the 1700s probably just did a bad job of explaining and advocating them. Or maybe it was simply too early in the process of human intellectual development and progress. 

What is clear, in looking back, is that the late 1700s Enlightenment liberals never powerfully and convincingly rejected the epistemology of nihilism and religion. Nor the ethics of self-sacrifice to the Other, or "the collective", or "god". Nor the politics of welfare statism, including power and privilege for the rich and upper classes, plus government charity and vice-tyranny for the poor and lower classes.

But mainly the 1700s liberals seem to have failed at adequately studying, understanding, and then explaining, to the intellectual elite and the vulgar masses, the nature of human emotions, passions, love, lust, drives, instincts, meaning, and purpose. Which is quite a failure! 

No wonder the debacle of new-style irrationality, illiberalism, Romanticism, monotheism, progressivism, fascism, and socialism won out. No wonder the old-style disaster of religion, government force, and pervasive self-sacrifice continued. People in the early 1800s wanted "to believe in something bigger than the self". The liberal intellectuals back then didn't provide that or, at least, didn't explain why the Sacred Self was big enough.  

Let’s hope the new liberals, perhaps lead by the Objectivists, do a lot better job of it this time around!