Some fellow was wondering the meaning of “liberalism,” which he explained he formerly associated with “woke-ness” and “The Left” but had started to think through again. In the interests of everyone trying to get along, I thought I might take another whack.
Traditional American (“leftist") “liberalism” is about giving people space to live, be free, exercise their liberty, until their preferences conflict at a certain level of significance with those of other people, in which case law, government, democracy must get involved. Liberalism’s distinctive take on gender issues, sexual orientation, freedom of and from religion, embrace of diversity, abhorrence of forced and unnecessary social conformity, is based on the perception those interpersonal conflicts of preferences do not rise to that level. It’s not based on the belief everyone shares the beliefs, values, ethics, tastes, culture, preferences, behavior, etc., involved, merely that someone being offended by someone else’s ideas or actions in those areas is insufficient justification to use law to suppress them.
Where traditional American liberalism tends to part ways with authoritarian or fascistic forms of conservatism is that the latter tends to have various non-democratic elements typically relating to ostensibly “natural” rights and laws, religious precepts, etc. A typical example of where the difference becomes apparent involves economic power. For liberals, government must be, and indeed always is, involved in establishing the legal definition, distribution, use of economic power. Liberals propose laws in that area are necessary for any society, and interpersonal conflicts of preferences in that area are very significant because they involve the allocation of scare resources, welfare, fairness, justice, etc. Because they see law as necessary, they propose that law be based in the always changing, always evolving ethical beliefs of the governed, the voters, and established using democratic government.
Conservatives are no less interested in the realms of personal freedom, liberty, law but because their ethics are so different, they start from entirely different places and, of course, end up in entirely different places. For authoritarian or fascistic conservatives, there is one correct set of ethical beliefs relating to economic power, those ethics must be expressed in law, and voters, democracy, must be prevented from changing those laws, regardless of the level of interpersonal conflict. Similarly, they may propose law is necessary to enforce social uniformity on, say, religion, because in their ethical world there is again, one correct religion, and voters, democracy should have no role to play in that important area of law.
So the difference between traditional American (leftist) liberalism and conservatism / “classical liberalism,” is not about seeing a role for both law and personal choice, but how to strike the balance, the ethical rationale involved. One big difference is that liberalism sees interpersonal conflicts of preferences even about the role of the state and individual as a significant ethical issue that must be resolved by the governed, democratically, while conservatives of the authoritarian or fascistic sort also suppose it significant but propose for that reason it must not be subject to the views of the voters, the will of the governed, democracy. This is why any discussion of the difference between liberals and conservatives that does not feature prominently the proposed role of democratic government, the governed and their ethical beliefs, is liable to be misleading, rhetorical, unhelpful.
Once that issue is addressed, one may move on to a second level discussion, internal to democracy, about one’s personal views about the ethics of economic power, markets, resource use, etc., which one may express to other voters in a democratic context. There is also a form of “conservatism” operating at this level, democratic conservatism as opposed to authoritarian / fascist conservatism, that makes an ethical case for certain arrangements including about economic power, but leaves it to voters, democracy, to decide socially. “Liberalism” is sometimes also associated with the expression of particular personal views on the ethics of economic power and other matters, which is what gives it its perceived “leftist” or “progressive” quality, but support for democracy is implicit. Liberals and democratic conservatives can happily co-exist in a democratic society. It’s not at all clear liberals and democratic conservatives can happily co-exist with anti-democracy authoritarian or fascistic conservatives.
