Introduction
The more I read of political philosophers like Patrick Deneen, Yoram Hazony, and Francis Fukuyama, the more I am struck by their divergent treatment of one term: liberalism. If you asked Patrick Deneen to define liberalism, he would likely say that it is a system of government that seeks to tear down all imposed restraints upon self-actualization, whether that be social structures or barriers to commerce. Hazony, on the other hand, stresses the importance of enlightenment rationalism to derive the liberal principles of freedom and equality and apply them as axioms. Fukuyama has been a bit more specific, defining “classical liberalism” as constitutionalism and separation of powers, protections for individual autonomy, and the importance of moderation.
While these thinkers have a lot to offer in terms of criticisms of policies or values, it is striking that they would hold such contrasting beliefs over this supposedly pervasive and widely known philosophy. While one could argue that critiquing a misnamed philosophy should still grant us more knowledge of the effects of its policies or values, the mislabeling of liberalism does lead to some nagging issues.
The term “liberalism” (which can be defined) is overly broad and nearly useless in political discussions. Instead, it is vital to properly label political philosophies by their intellectual branches within liberalism (or outside of it) and to critique the strengths and weaknesses of those subsections. Conservatives tend to attack liberalism overall, presenting conservatism as the only alternative. However, this false dichotomy results in throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Conservatives typically attack one particular strain or branch of liberalism and tend not to consider the others. Only by understanding these branches precisely can we make progress in determining a sound political philosophy rather than chasing the wild goose that is “liberalism.”
Liberalism
In the simplest terms, liberalism is a political philosophy that holds that individual liberty is the highest political value. However, a wide range of thinkers who often have opposing ideas have contributed to liberal thought. Liberal writers include Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Milton, Adam Smith, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Rawls, Mises, T. H. Green, Keynes, Hayek, and arguably, Karl Marx.
Liberalism places the liberty of the individual first. Liberals argue for universal protections for individuals, established in positive liberties (freedom to x without constraint) or negative liberties (freedom from x). However, liberty is a highly abstract concept interpreted in many ways. For example, some liberals believe in freedom from unhealthy desires, while others support the freedom to pursue these desires.
The primary goal of liberalism is to devise a system that maximizes “freedom” (in an abstract sense) for the individual. The term “individual” implies the universality of liberty to all people. This liberty is only forfeited when violating another's rights or if sacrificed to maximize net freedom for all. The main disagreement amongst liberals is deciding what specific rights establish the purest and most effective liberty. One may take this in many different directions, and we have seen liberalism manifest itself in many camps.
To best understand these camps, it is necessary to examine the development of liberalism throughout history.
Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism, and liberalism itself, is thought to have been born in the 17th century with the works of John Locke. Classical liberalism asserts that the freedom that best suits the individual is freedom from violence and theft. This rule sets immense restrictions on the state, freeing the individual from arbitrary power. Classical liberals believe that neither the state nor the individual should initiate violence or coercive force. Therefore, the government may only intervene to prevent or punish violence. One can derive this principle in a few different ways, but the primary way is through Locke's natural rights. Natural rights focus on ownership of the self and property, but “life, liberty, and property” is a good summary. Libertarianism is the most radical form of classical liberalism, supporting the comprehensive application of the “non-aggression principle” (NAP), which is the rule that no violence or theft shall exist in society by individuals or the government. Violent coercion is only acceptable in response to itself.
John Locke is considered the father of classical liberalism. His Second Treatise on Government provides the earliest moral and ethical basis for classical liberalism. Most importantly, Locke believed that humans once lived in a “state of nature” with no general authority. Instead, humans were bound by “natural law.” Locke believed the essence of natural law is that “as much as possible mankind is to be preserved.” Locke combines this with rule-based deontological ethics, which asserts that we should not treat each other as means to our own ends. Locke then argued that individuals own their bodies and their labor. Next, Locke declared that when one mixes his or her labor with natural resources, the product becomes an extension of that labor and the self, becoming his property. Locke concluded that individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke asserted that a government is a social contract made by individuals to protect their natural rights from the lack of security of the state of nature. When a government no longer protects natural rights or exercises power beyond these ends, it becomes illegitimate. The best summary of Locke’s Second Treatise is the first two paragraphs of the American Declaration of Independence. Locke believed that his conclusions were “self-evident,” or that one could learn them through experience or observation.
In summary, classical liberalism assigns the government the role of protecting natural rights. Libertarianism is often radical classical liberalism, but anarchism is inconsistent with classical liberalism, as classical liberalism sets a clear role for the state.
While Locke, and later Kant, may have provided a moral justification for classical liberalism, many dismissed its effectiveness. This dismissal changed with the self-ruled American colonies and with the birth of classical economics by Adam Smith. The colonies (while definitely not libertarian) were decentralized and self-ruled. American independence was the first major experiment of a government run by the people rather than lords, aristocrats, or monarchs. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations provided the first theoretical basis for a classically liberal economic system based on free choice and limited government intervention. This justified classical liberalism as a system not only grounded in ethics and morality but essential to the prosperity of citizens.
Classical liberalism has its critics, of course. The main criticism is that Locke’s premises are unfounded and speculative and that structuring a government based on a few axioms is not sustainable in a complex human society. Additionally, there are economic criticisms regarding capitalism’s role in inequality and monopoly, as well as concerns over the well-being of workers. There is additional criticism that classical economics treats individuals as rational actors when this is generally false. Finally, there are criticisms from the left and right regarding the social problems of classical liberalism.
On the right, critics attack classical liberalism for allowing citizens to engage in self-destructive behavior while not beholding them to their duties to the community. Classical liberalism, they argue, leads to the degradation of formative institutions which would foster good behavior.
On the left, critics attack classical liberalism for allowing discrimination and unjust social practices to oppress particular individuals or groups and placing barriers before self-actualization.
Economic Intervention: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Liberalism took a sharp turn with the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Unlike his social contract predecessors Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau believed that man's natural state is not one of constant war or lack of security but one of pure equality and nobility. Individuals, he theorized, would live separately and without property. Due to the rarity of contacts with one another, individuals were free of tension or hostility with each other. According to Rousseau, the introduction of civil society shattered this peace. Rousseau claimed that as humans became less dependent on nature and more dependent on themselves, they developed private property and formed a civil society. Property, Rousseau argued, is the basis for all inequality and problems in civil society.
Rousseau believed in two kinds of inequality. The first is “natural inequality,” which is unavoidable and not the basis of inequality in civil society. The second is “moral inequality,” which proceeds from private property. Moral inequality is an imbalance in "wealth, nobility or rank, power and personal merit." Rousseau sought to attain moral equality by abolishing private property and organizing governments around the general will. Rousseau, in some sense, was the first anarcho-communist, and his works would heavily influence Marx and Engels. While many consider Rousseau a radical progressive (and he was radical economically), he was not progressive socially. Rousseau believed in the importance of cultural homogeneity in fostering a general will. He believed in the necessity of religion and was a Calvinist, but rejected the idea of original sin (in favor of the noble savage). Rousseau also ardently believed in the importance of the patriarchal structure and the traditional family. He believed that women should be confined to a domestic role unless they could be constrained by modesty, lest men are “tyrannized” by women’s ability to arouse. Rousseau, then, while progressive economically, was not progressive socially. Rousseau’s belief in freeing the individual from inequality provided the basis for modern socialist and communist movements.
The Role of Society: the Birth of Social Liberal Theory
The 19th century was a crucial period for liberalism, as it marked the birth of a new major intellectual branch: social liberal theory. Its primary philosophy is that laissez-faire classical liberalism is not suitable for guaranteeing freedom within society or equal opportunity. The government must intervene to ensure these outcomes. However, the allowance of government intervention plagues social liberal theory with a question of the role of tradition. Conservative social liberals believe traditions are critical for the individual's success and thus must be aided by the government. Progressive social liberals believe traditions are barriers to social freedom the state must dismantle.
While many believe that social liberalism is a progressive concept founded by John Stuart Mill, its primary founders were conservatives. The most influential of these founders was Thomas Hill Green. Green believed that the state must promote the economic, social, and political conditions necessary for individuals to live according to their conscience. Thus, individuals must be free to live a good life. However, he was cautious in his approach and believed that the state should only intervene when a specific liberty had a clear tendency to enslave the individual. For Green, this meant alcohol, but today this applies more broadly to drugs, sex, pornography, and more. It is striking how similar the philosophy of Green is to the self-proclaimed “postliberal” Patrick Deneen. Ironically, Deneen is today’s spearhead for conservative social liberal theory. He believes the individual must have an equal opportunity to live a good life, and the government must foster the optimal conditions (social and economic) for this. Much of what Patrick Deneen criticizes is progressive social liberalism rather than liberalism itself. He, like Green, is a conservative social liberal.
Progressive social liberalism and conservative social liberalism are two sides of the same coin. While conservatives noted the importance of traditions in society, progressives rejected traditions. The most dominant progressive social liberal was John Stuart Mill, who believed custom and social mandate were restrictive of individual freedom. He argued for utilitarianism and that each individual is entitled to an equal opportunity for success. Progressive social liberalism played a sizable role in the early feminist movement.
Progressive social liberalism would be taken to its extreme by critical theory and later thinkers like John Rawls.
Keynes and Embedded Liberalism
The Great Depression shook many people’s confidence in free markets and classical economics. This distrust of free markets sparked an economic upheaval, (re)establishing the system known as embedded liberalism. Embedded liberalism seeks to develop an economy suited to societal benefits. It attempts to grant individuals equal economic opportunities and embed markets within society. These goals justify government intervention in the economic field, particularly in establishing social programs and workers’ rights. The term “embedded liberalism” was coined by John Ruggie, building off the work of Karl Polanyi, a socialist economic anthropologist. Polanyi argued that most of history saw markets embedded within society. The market was often a single place, like the agora. However, economic liberalization disembedded markets from society in the 19th century.
The Great Depression saw markets re-embedded within society. In America, this occurred through FDR’s New Deal programs, which attempted to help workers and lower unemployment. More importantly, Keynes’s General Theory sought to establish how the government could respond to recessions. This response involves the government boosting aggregate demand through budget deficits, inflation, and artificially lowering interest rates. Advocates of embedded liberalism support New Deal and Great Society programs as well as Keynesian economics, workers’ rights, and unions. They believe in steering the economy to benefit workers, and societal good should precede the economy.
Modern supporters of embedded liberalism are social democrats (not democratic socialists) and appeal to a nordic-style welfare state. Patrick Deneen is a present-day conservative proponent of embedded liberalism, as he has advocated for re-embedding markets through blue laws, welfare, union protections, and more.
Critics of embedded liberalism argue that the New Deal prolonged the Depression significantly and that the Depression itself caused central bank manipulation of interest rates. Critics point out that between 1949 and 1960, America saw four recessions (four recessions in eleven years) under embedded liberalism, making it an incredibly turbulent economy. They claim that LBJ’s Great Society programs subsidized poverty and single motherhood, which has caused a fatherlessness and crime crisis (especially in African American communities) and damaged the traditional family. They argue that an outdated theory of inflation led to the stagflation crisis of the 70s and that credit inflation and artificially low interest rates resulted in the dot-com crash and housing market crisis.
Neoliberalism
After the stagflation of the 1970s, the U.S. returned to a disembedded market and reestablished economic freedom through the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The most accurate definition of neoliberalism is a revival of classically liberal economics, but some suggest it has its own traits. One common idea is that neoliberalism stresses the importance of competition in the market. However, this idea is closer to the German concept of ordoliberalism and the coordinated market economy. However, many believe neoliberalism supports interventionist-competition policies, like school vouchers. But this is usually because neoliberal thinkers consider these policies a step in the right direction rather than the best possible option. Considering neoliberalism encompasses a wide range of economists from the Chicago and Austrian schools, it should be viewed primarily as a revival of classically liberal economics.
Rawls, Critical Theory, and Woke Progressivism
Liberalism’s latest historical development is the creation of woke progressivism and its internal ideology, critical theory. While I have criticized Patrick Deneen throughout this article, I will give him credit for accurately assessing the origins of the woke movement in progressive social liberalism. Woke progressivism developed as an outgrowth of progressive social liberalism, whose belief in equal opportunity was taken to its extreme by believers in critical theory and John Rawls. Rawls believed the primary principle of justice is equality. The best way to achieve equality is to design a government and distribute goods as if we are parties acting behind a veil of ignorance as to who we will be in society. However, he assumes the goal of these parties is to establish a society where all individuals best follow their life plans. In other words, the goal is for individuals to self-actualize and determine everything about themselves. An individual's genetics and environment determine most aspects of his life. Their race, gender, social position, and even traits like laziness come from their genetics or environment. Rawls suggests that these groups are entitled to self-actualization and the ability to live a life of independence and equal status with others. Any form of social punishment of an individual's traits or actions is "unfair" because one cannot choose their traits (even behaviors), and attacking one's actions sacrifices their autonomy to live according to their life plan. Radical progressives apply this everywhere. Most criminals are considered victims of the system and not responsible for their behavior. Meanwhile, it is unfair to use force in self-defense and pass judgment on these individuals.
While Rawlsian liberalism supplies a normative moral framework for woke progressivism, critical theory and intersectionality provide a positive social and historical framework. The Frankfurt School developed critical theory, a neo-Marxist social philosophy. Critical theory believes that culturally and politically dominant groups (this initially meant the bourgeois) gain power over and oppress the lower groups. The dominant class controls the narrative and, therefore, the “truth.” While, initially, critical theory was neo-Marxist, believing above all in the oppression of the proletariat, modern progressives have combined it with intersectionality. Intersectionality extends the idea of group oppression from simply the bourgeois to many intersecting identity groups (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) that experience oppression differently. Each individual experiences oppression uniquely based on their intersecting identity groups, which usually synergize.
Woke progressivism combines this theory of history and society with a moral framework grounded in Rawlsian liberalism.
Conclusion
We can see that liberalism encompasses a wide range of thought.
Through this understanding, we can identify the subtle errors in the definitions (and broader claims) of Deneen, Hazony, and Fukuyama.
Deneen argues that liberalism seeks individual self-actualization by destroying social structures and freeing markets. He further argues that this is liberalism’s logical conclusion. His first mistake is explicit. His definition of liberalism combines two largely independent concepts: progressive social liberalism and neoliberal economics. One primary claim of progressive social liberalism is that the free market is a barrier to self-actualization. The modern woke philosophy Deneen criticizes is derived from neo-Marxism (critical theory), so it should not be confused with neoliberalism. Deneen then assumes that all liberal systems eventually become woke and neoliberal. However, the liberal camps have clear distinctions for their concepts of liberty and move in intellectually different directions. Even if Deneen is wrong in this regard, much of his book Why Liberalism Failed still holds weight as a critique of woke philosophy and neoliberalism. In this sense, it is not liberalism that has failed but these specific branches (though I would disagree that neoliberalism has failed).
Hazony argues that liberalism uses enlightenment rationalism to declare that individuals are free and equal. Reason, not tradition, will determine how the government will function. While Hazony is initially on the right track regarding appeals to freedom and equality, he still has some considerable problems. Instead of accepting that freedom and equality are subjective terms taken in different directions by different groups, he implies that there is only one way to interpret them. He believes in a strictly progressive social liberal interpretation of freedom and equality, eventually leading to woke progressivism. But as I have said, there are other ways of interpreting these terms. Hazony’s second mistake is stressing enlightenment rationalism. He makes a big fuss about the role of enlightenment rationalism in his book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery, and asserts the superiority of historical empiricism for deriving political truths. The only problem is that enlightenment rationalism does not play an immense role in liberalism's principles. In fact, John Locke did not derive natural rights from rationalism but empiricism. Locke was an anti-rationalist empiricist, much like Hazony himself. Thus, some of Hazony’s criticisms do not hold water.
Lastly, Fukuyama defines “classical liberalism” as constitutionalism and separation of powers, protections for autonomy, and the importance of moderation. Additionally, in his book, Liberalism and its Discontents, he argues against neoliberalism and in favor of welfare programs. Fukuyama is right that constitutionalism, separation of powers, and protections for autonomy are core aspects of classical liberalism. However, neoliberalism is classically liberal well. Fukuyama combines classical liberalism in government structure and the social field with an embedded liberal economy. Lastly, he argues that liberal ideas were taken to the extremes by the right and left to the point of not becoming liberal anymore, cueing his argument that moderation is a critical component of classical liberalism. However, classical liberalism taken to its extreme is libertarianism, not woke progressivism.
All three thinkers share one mistake: they assume that vague liberal concepts (freedom, equality, autonomy) are taken to radical extremes by the left and right. This error stems from a flawed understanding of liberalism. Yes, liberalism makes use of vague terms. But that is just why one cannot take it to its “extreme.” To be taken to an extreme, these terms must be defined, understood, and imparted with meaning. As I have explained throughout this article, different intellectual branches impart a different definition to each concept and take this redefined concept to its own extreme. All liberals (classical, progressive, and conservative) cannot agree on what constitutes “real liberty.”
This dilemma begs the question: What is the future of liberalism? This question is perhaps a matter for another article, but one thing is clear: liberalism has not failed. It has fractured into many competing ideologies. What is important now is to identify the distinct intellectual branches (as I have just done) and attempt to assess the strengths and weaknesses of these branches. We could adopt one doctrine outright (say, classical liberalism), or combine the benefits of each philosophy and avoid their weaknesses, fusing these ideas together. The most important task is to examine philosophies within liberalism and understand them deeply. Only then can liberals move forward in developing a sound political philosophy.