Liberalism

Liberalism has gone through many incarnations. The different faces of the philosophy are so dissimilar that it is difficult see how they are related. The classical liberalism of John Locke looks like modern day libertarianism. The early days of liberalism included laissez faire, a sort of capitalism that is closer to the conservative ideal than anything we would call “liberal.” To understand liberalism, it is necessary to get at the heart of the philosophy, and look at the core principles, not just the peripheral policies that are derived from those principles.

Locke believed in natural law. I have argued before that it is impossible to confirm the existence of natural law in the real world, and using it as the basis for a legal or political philosophy amounts to a leap of faith. Though natural law makes the justification of human law easier, that does not mean that natural law exists. Natural law, then, can’t be a core liberal value.

John Stuart Mill gave a hint at the core of liberalism when he rejected laissez faire and described a liberalism that permitted government involvement in the economy. Laissez faire was without a doubt preferable to the monarchal monopolies of the preceding economic regime. At first, no doubt, people were generally better off when the king’s hands were removed from the economy and market forces took over. Though the market was free from the whims of the government, the markets proved not to be impervious to manipulation. Instead of wealth being distributed via favors from the ruler, they began to be distributed based on the business acumen of private citizens. When a few influential people accumulate most of the economic resources, it is only natural that they should try to keep it, and change the rules in their favor. Unfortunately, businessmen are not infallible even in protecting their own interests. It is difficult to imagine a model of laissez faire that does not end in a Great Depression.

In essence, liberalism changed because the old form, though it was a good innovation in the beginning, was found to be harmful to people in the long run. There you find the heart of liberalism: the consequences on real people. When looking at the results of our political decisions, it is important to ask one basic question: “are we serving people, or are we serving a principle?” Human beings feel joy and pain; they have dreams, aspirations, and fears. Ideologies don’t. Our philosophies should be made to serve the wellbeing of people, not the other way around. This clearly is the aim of liberalism. It is not a simple list of precepts; it is an outcomes-based philosophy that aims at human betterment.

By why does it change? Classical liberalism has found new life is libertarianism, so you could say that libertarianism as a pretty stable philosophy. Conservatism, though it has many flavors, has a core system of ideals that has remained unchanged for decades. Liberalism not only changes, but changes drastically over the decades and centuries. L.T. Hobhouse, when writing about Mill’s view of liberty described it like this:

“The Liberal does not meet opinions which he conceives to be false with toleration, as though they did not matter. He meets them with justice, and exacts for them a fair hearing as though they mattered just as much as his own.. He is always ready to put his own convictions to the proof, not because he doubts them, but because he believes in them."(1)

Though there seems to be one core value in liberalism: the wellbeing of humans, there are some values that, though they are not as central, are so important that they appear to be integral to modern liberalism. Through the prism of history, we see the effects of the various experiments in government that societies have engaged in over the millennia. We have lived without democracy, and we have lived with it, and we have determined that living with it is better. When people are able to determine their own laws and rulers, they tend to make laws and elect rulers that suit their needs. If democracy is good, then we should be willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain a democratic form of government. To do so, certain non-democratic rights must be protected, such as the right to free speech and the free press. Personal liberties, democracy, and a system of rights, then, become folded into liberal philosophy. Modern democracies are frequently called “liberal democracies”, which is a lasting legacy that liberalism has left on the world.

Liberalism uses democracy to resolve political questions regarding the public sector. Conservatives often criticize liberalism for putting too much regulation on industry. Regulation is not an essential liberal value, but liberalism allows it if 1.) it improves the wellbeing of human beings, and 2.) if people democratically elect to do so. A liberal government gives—requires, even—conservatives the opportunity to advocate against a particular regulation if they don’t like it. And if they win the public debate, they get their way. Consider the reverse: with a conservative government that believes that the government has no right to regulate industry, the people cannot democratically elect to enact a regulation, even if 99% of the people agree that it would be good.

It would be impossible to have a purely libertarian or conservative government without imposing it through authoritarianism. Economic philosophies that produce mass inequality and misery for a large number of people produces a democratic crisis. People will only tolerate misery so long until they fight back. They will fight back through their democratic systems, if they exist, as they did when they elected Franklin Roosevelt and welcomed the New Deal. If those democratic institutions do not exist, they will fight back violently, as they did during the French Revolution. Conservatives may be comfortable with permitting mass inequality as a result of market forces, but those at the low end of the inequality will act in their own interests, and their interests do not lie in laissez faire. If there is a natural equilibrium, then, between economic liberty and equality, democracy tends to find that equilibrium in the form of liberalism.

In his book about twentieth-century dictatorships, Paul Brooker examined the various ideologies that have been imposed by authoritarian governments. “Liberalism seems to be the only significant ideological or philosophical doctrine not included”(2) among those ideological one-party states. Since liberalism requires democracy to determine the course of government, and requires freedom for the effective operation of democracy, a liberal dictatorship is a contradiction in terms.

I am a liberal because I believe it provides the best method for improving the wellbeing of people. I believe it maximizes freedom and finds a balance between order and liberty. It is not extremist, it is not draconian, it is not radical. It listens to the will of those who must endure the consequences of laws. It is also unafraid of other ideas, and continually tests its own conclusions and changes over time to fit modern needs. It provides a way to answer the challenges of global warming and poverty. It does not guarantee that we will find the right answers, but it allows us to search, experiment, and change.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: