Are You a Liberal?
Labels are dangerous things. Three of the most searched terms on the Merriam-Webster website are fascism, socialism, and communism. People are curious about what these terms mean, and the differences between them. They are labels, and they are dangerous, because they have no fixed meaning.
Creating labels is the business of philosophers. They dissect and analyze complex social phenomena, divine defining characteristics, and create labels. Then other philosophers dissect and analyze the labels, divine fine distinctions, and create sub-labels. It’s like naming stars. Each label you create leaves hundreds behind, waiting to be named.
The danger in labels, especially with respect to theories of governance, is that once a theory is encased in a label, the debate shifts to the label, and away from the theory’s merit, or lack thereof. Thus we have socialism, and following that, democratic socialism, revolutionary socialism, utopian socialism, libertarian socialism, market socialism, green socialism, Christian socialism, and so forth.
The term “liberal” is particularly prone to violence by labels.
Today, when we think of liberals, we think of New Dealers like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes. Or maybe we think about people who fought for civil rights, such as John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.
That’s what we think about when we think about liberals now, but this form of liberalism is relatively new.
Classical Liberalism
According to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, the term “liberal” appeared for the first time after 1812 in the Iberian peninsula, and was soon adopted by the French. (Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of our Time, 1952, p. 4) He was likely referring to the Cadiz Constitution of 1812. The drafters of the 1812 Constitution wanted freedom from the king, and along with it, equality before the law, a centralized government, freedom of contract, and the recognition of property rights — all departures from the existing feudal order.
From there, philosophers stepped in to define the movement. Now, two centuries later, philosophers have defined it as “classical liberalism.” Dr. Nigel Ashford of the Institute for Humane Studies, identified ten central tenets of classical liberalism:
1. Liberty. In politics, the freedom of the individual is paramount. The government should only act to prevent harm to others.
2. Individualism. The individual is more important than the collective. The interest of individuals should not be sacrificed for the common good.
3. Skepticism of power. Individuals are the best judge of their own interests, government should not force them to do things they do not want to do.
4. Rule of law. Laws cannot impinge on certain higher principles, such as freedom of speech or exercise of religion.
5. Civil society. Social problems are best dealt with through voluntary organizations, such as the family or the church, as opposed to government programs and inflexible rules.
6. Spontaneous order. Order does not require rules and institutions, it arises as a natural course of human interaction.
7. Free markets. The economy should be left to voluntary interactions between individuals in free markets.
8. Toleration. One should not interfere with things with which one disapproves. One should not force one’s opinion on others.
9. Peace. It is best achieved by the free exchange of commerce and ideas, not by interfering with other nations.
10. Limited government. The only legitimate use of political power is to preserve life, liberty, and property. There are no other legitimate ends for government.
Doesn’t sound much like the New Deal, does it? Sounds more of a list of prohibitions for government. It has come to be known as negative liberalism. Classical liberalism is basically the same as what today we call neoliberalism, or libertarianism.
Classical liberalism was a transition from feudalism, and thus necessarily emphasized individual rights, including property rights, and essential human rights such as freedom of speech and exercise of religion.
Social Liberalism
Compare this to what philosophers call “social liberalism.” Social liberalism can be traced to Leonard T. Hobhouse and his book Liberalism, published in 1911. Hobhouse was a writer for the Manchester Guardian, predecessor of today’s Guardian newspaper. Hobhouse focused on positive liberalism, giving government an active role in society.
According to Hobhouse, the state’s role under social liberalism is to “secure [the] conditions upon which its citizens are able to win by their own efforts all that is necessary to a full civic efficiency.” To this end, he proposed a tax on income derived from financial speculation, and other measures designed to “quench the antisocial ardor for unmeasured wealth, for social power, and the vanity of display.” (Derbyshire, 2010)
Social liberalism accounts for power inequalities in society. Hobhouse distinguished between property held for use and property held for power. Government was therefore justified in co-operating with trade unions, because employees were at a structural disadvantage. He also theorized that property is not acquired by individual effort alone, but with society’s help. To Hobhouse, wealth has a social dimension; it is, at least in part, a product of the collective — the community. This means that those who have property owe some of their success to society, and thus have some obligation to others.
Social liberalism arose during the Gilded Age, when industrialization created glaring economic inequality, and other social ills. Social liberal thought gave rise to progressive politics, which led to (most would agree) advances in social policy, including anti-trust laws, a ban on child labor, public schools, and women’s suffrage.
The Difference
Classical and social liberalism represent a progression of human social thought. Where classical liberalism was necessary for the transition from feudalism to nationalism, social liberalism represents a transition that is not yet complete, from nationalism to something else.
Social liberalism gained force during the Progressive Era. It took on some bad habits in the October Revolution and the New Deal, and as a result, collapsed under the Reagan and Thatcher neoliberal revolution (or, if you will, counter-revolution). Neoliberalism represents a regression, a return to rugged individualism at a time when, as Dr. King put it, the powerful enjoy state-sponsored socialism.
Some say the difference lies in the role of government. Others say it is a tension between the individual and the collective. Others paint it as a struggle between freedom and equality. The real difference between classical and social liberalism though, is power.
Classical liberalism, with its emphasis on the individual, ignores the power relationships inherent in all social conduct. Parents have power over their children, employers have power over their employees, landlords have power over their tenants. Society is more than just a collection of individuals. It is a collection of individuals who interact with one another. It is a community. The “unity” in community is impossible to avoid. We live on the same planet, together. The objectivist fantasy espoused by Ayn Rand and her acolytes, ignores the reality that one person’s actions affects many other people. We do not live on this planet alone, and we cannot retreat into the woods and live completely apart from others. There are seven billion people on this planet and, in order to get along, we need rules.
Living together necessarily implies a social contract. The question that classical liberals and social liberals struggle with is, how are those rules to be written?
Classical liberals think government should keep out of individual rights, leaving the powerful alone in the room with the weak to negotiate the terms of the social contract. This negotiation is not the fantastic interaction of rational actors hypothesized by Milton Friedman. It is a money grab by the powerful. This necessarily leads to the economic inequality we have today.
Social liberals think a proper role of government is to mediate the power relationships in the social contract. Does it mean equality of result? No. Does it mean worker control of production? No. It means simple fairness.
In his seminal book Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Picketty pointed out that, left unchecked, wealth compounds wealth, leaving grossly unequal power positions within the society. This inequality is unhealthy, and, as Picketty points out, historically leads to economic calamities and global warfare.
We live in a neoliberal era, and unless the power relationships in society are successfully mediated, another Malthusian event is almost certain to come. All is not lost, though. We do have the benefit of history, and if we learn its lessons, we may still negotiate our way though these rough waters.
Social liberalism hasn’t gone away, it’s just looking for its footing.
