Felon Voting Rights". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016 . Retrieved 23 April 2021.

Reforms and revolutions helped move most European countries towards liberal democracy. Liberalism ceased being a fringe opinion and joined the political mainstream. At the same time, a number of non-liberal ideologies developed that took the concept of liberal democracy and made it their own. The political spectrum changed; traditional monarchy became more and more a fringe view and liberal democracy became more and more mainstream. By the end of the 19th century, liberal democracy was no longer only a liberal idea, but an idea supported by many different ideologies. After World War I and especially after World War II, liberal democracy achieved a dominant position among theories of government and is now endorsed by the vast majority of the political spectrum. [ citation needed] Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher T. H. Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of our moral character. [86] :54–55 In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, allowing genuine choice. [86] :54–55 Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

Opposites for liberal

Dunin-Wasowicz, Roch (November 2018). "London Calling Brexit: How the rest of the UK views the capital". London School of Economics.

Citizenship 1625–1789". The National Archives. Archived from the original on 11 January 2016 . Retrieved 22 January 2016 ; "Rise of Parliament". The National Archives. Archived from the original on 17 August 2018 . Retrieved 22 January 2016. Pappas, Takis (2019). Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford Scholarship Online. p.219. In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession of civil liberties, the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states and the inevitable result of creating a mercantile society where there were no slaves, but almost everybody had to earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would elect representatives who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement. [81] The importance of Constant's writings on the liberty of the ancients and that of the "moderns" has informed the understanding of liberalism, as has his critique of the French Revolution. [83] The British philosopher and historian of ideas, Sir Isaiah Berlin, has pointed to the debt owed to Constant. [84] British liberalism W. Ken Farr, Richard A. Lord, J. Larry Wolfenbarger, (1998). "Economic Freedom, Political Freedom, and Economic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis" (PDF). Archived from the original on 3 February 2007 . Retrieved 11 April 2005. {{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL ( link). Cato Journal, Vol 18, No 2. Schmitter P.C. and Karl T.L. (1991) "What Democracy Is...and Is Not", Journal of Democracy, 2(3), pp. 75-88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033.Ralph Waldo Emerson, " Self-Reliance"; Nikolas Kompridis, "Struggling Over the Meaning of Recognition: A Matter of Identity, Justice or Freedom?" in European Journal of Political Theory July 2007 vol. 6 no. 3 pp. 277–289. Several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, rise of the public sector or income inequality. [9]