Ciao!

What is liberalism?

02.17.2005

MABB posed an interesting question about liberalism. I weighed in w/ some comments (scroll down & read up, his comments are in reverse chronological order). But I’ve decided to put up a brief explanation of what liberalism has, historically, been:

Liberalism began w/ John Locke (some might say Hobbes, but I disagree emphatically; Hobbes’ premises are proto-liberal, his conclusions are anything but liberal). The tradition of liberals includes Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, James Madison. Rousseau, you should note, is generally not considered a liberal (principally because he attacked private property, while liberalism is principally a defense of private property).

It’s historically stood in contrast to conservatives, like Edmund Burke. Conservatism is premised on a belief in tradition over change, a lack of faith in the possibility of human progress, usually accompanied by some form of state-centric authority as necessary to maintain social stability & order. Similarly, liberalism stands opposed to socialism or communism.

What does liberalism stand for? Traditionally: belief in the rights of individuals over collectivities (be it society or the state), private property, a belief in capitalism and a free market (an extension of free association, press, speech, etc.), trust in the potential for human progress (especially true of the positivists), and generally a propensity for a minimal State intervention in individual’s lives. Liberalism, it must always be remembered, was founded as a theory against the State, aimed to limit the State’s power, not to increase it.

Liberalism also displays a propensity for internationalism that doesn’t exist in conservatism. Principally, because conservatism is weary of change, and is thus more reluctant to go to war. Conservatism, as the name implies, favors the status quo — keeping things as they are, often by appealing to tradition (don’t change law X because it’s been around for so long).

Now, New Liberals (like John Maynard Keynes) came to believe liberal governments should intervene in capitalist economies to help correct problems. FDR followed Keynesian economics during the 1930s-40s; it later become the foundation for the IMF & World Bank.

The question MABB points to, I believe, is: Where do “neocons” fit in? The major problem, of course, is that no neocons actually call themselves that — the term is primarily used by the opponents of a variety of people who don’t fit well w/ either the mainstream American Left or Right (now called “paleocons”). I qualify many neocons as “liberal hawks”, since they seem to promote classical liberal values, but w/ a stronger propensity to use force as an instrument of policy (which is actually a form of “paleoliberal”, since such neocons harken to the tradition of FDR & JFK). Many people currently called neocons were previously self-declared liberals, or even socialists. Paul Wolfowitz, the famous “neocon” who drafted the Iraq policy, was an active member of the leftist Social Democrats USA party in the 1970s (along w/ Jeanne Kirkpatrick & Richard Perle).

I certainly don’t think W's administration is socialist, even if many of its advisors were members of a socialist party. The point is liberalism in America is quite complex. In part, because both parties are “liberal” parties. The Democrats tend to still embrace Keynesian economics, but have since the 1970s shed their internationalist/interventionist orientation. The Republicans, founded as an anti-slavery party (in part), retain their individualist orientation, but have shifted to Chicago School economics (e.g. Milton Friedman) and shed their isolationism in favor of internationalism/interventionism since the 1980s. Examples? Compare Bush’s willingness to go to Somalia to Clinton’s feet-dragging in Bosnia. Prior to the 1970s, compare JFK’s willingness to “bear any burden, pay any price” to fight communism (e.g. start Vietnam War) w/ Nixon’s insistence on low-intensity engagements and détente (e.g. end Vietnam War).

So. W. is, indeed, a liberal. And so is John F. Kerry. They’re just liberals of a different kind.

Part of the confusion is that Americans tend to use “liberal” to mean “left” and “conservative” to mean “right”. But. One must ask. Left/right of what? And keep in mind that this distinction is borne of a simple, historical accident. During the early days of the French Revolution, at the National Assembly, the liberals sat on the left side of the room, the conservatives sat on the right side. That’s it, that’s where the term comes from. To this day, Democrats sit on the left side, Republicans sit on the right side. The terms “left” and “right” don’t actually have any objective ideological content.

You probably want references, but I got most of this from memory (and notes from when I taught PSCI 362, a course on comparative political ideologies). For a good wrap-up, read the Wikipedia entry on liberalism. And Google’s only a click away. Better yet, I recommend your local library. Start w/ J. S. Mill's On Liberty, a centerpiece of classic liberal thought.

Posted by Miguel at 10:41 PM

Comments

Posted by: tom at February 17, 2005 11:16 PM

Posted by: Miguel at February 17, 2005 11:35 PM

Posted by: MB at February 18, 2005 08:17 AM

Posted by: Miguel at February 18, 2005 02:03 PM