I know I’ve done it before, but can we discuss the meaning of traditional American “liberalism” again this week? It's just I suspect a concerted conservative rhetorical effort to muddy the water or even remove the word from our political vocabulary entirely.
For many decades, the traditional juxtaposition in economic and social policy in the USA has been between “conservatives” and what we’ve always called “liberals.” However, these days it’s not uncommon to find people who profess to not know the difference or misstate or ignore it. Part of this seems just typical conservative wordplay designed to confuse and mislead, so equivocating on different definitions of liberalism as, for example, “classical liberalism,” or “neoliberalism,” or “liberalism” as it’s understood in the UK and elsewhere, and so on. For historical reasons, any reference to society or anything perceived as “leftist” was unacceptable in the USA, so “liberalism” was used to denote positions that might be called differently in other countries who kept older definitions like “classical liberalism” (US conservatism). Additional confusion then attends the word “neoliberal," which in the US means a departure from or rejection of “liberal” (US) economic thinking, while in other countries like the UK seems to mean a return to or resurgence of “liberal” (UK) / conservative (US) economic thinking. However, part of it seems to involve a genuine confusion relating to what traditional American “liberalism” was and is actually about, what ideas and values it represents, how it differs from what we call “conservatism,” and so on. So let’s just review, shall we?
With the rise of anti-democracy sentiment on the conservative side, be it of the fascist, theocratist, or anarchist variety, the first thing that must be noted is traditional US liberalism (hereafter just liberalism) is pro-democracy, supports the US Constitution. So that’s currently the top level distinction between conservatism and liberalism in the USA. Liberalism is invariably pro-democracy while conservatism can be, and sometimes is, pro-democracy, but is increasingly anti-democracy, authoritarian.
Formerly, when both US liberals and conservatives reliably agreed the ethos of democracy, the US Constitution, the distinction didn’t involve views on democracy, per se, but on economic policy. So at the next level one can discuss the economics of liberalism and conservatism. Economic conservatism is about distinctive normative, ethical views relating to the ethics of the definition, distribution, use of economic power, including markets. It’s closely associated with the normative program of bad economics in the conservative style and its offspring. In practice, economic conservatism is about opposing voters wanting to express via “activist” democratic government ethical views on economic power inconsistent with conservative views, which may “interfere with” or “distort” economic policies or outcomes conservatives endorse. When conservatives suppose voters are unreliable in that area, may make the “wrong” normative, ethical decision, feel it’s too important to be left to the “mob rule” of democracy, that’s when pro-democracy conservatism gives way to anti-democracy conservatism, fascism. There’s an interesting progression in conservatism involving first trying to convince voters of conservative ethics on economic power, then falsely claiming such issues are expressed in the US Constitution and cannot be revised, to finally just terminating the US Constitution.
Economic liberalism may be defined in opposition to economic conservatism. It rejects simplistic market utopianism, not only recognizing “free” markets may feature so-called “market failures” requiring regulation, but disputing conservative ethics on economic power, markets. Policies designed to augment, revise, improve market results by attending to ethical concerns like fairness, justness, equity, (real) utilitarian, welfare concerns are products of liberal economic thinking, although some conservatives accept attending to “market failure” only. Some examples: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, help for the economically weak, public education, worker and consumer protection regulations, minimum wage laws, environmental protection regulations are products of economic liberalism. A timely one I always find illustrative is that distributing a scarce vaccine by medical need rather than economic power expressed in markets is based on liberal economic reasoning. That mechanism is inconsistent with standard conservative economic thinking.
In the social realm, liberalism promotes both a realm of personal liberty and a realm of law, when the liberty of different people conflict in a significant enough way, beyond merely offending someone’s sensibilities, religious views, what have you, to make law necessary. Social conservatism is typically about reducing the realm of personal liberty beyond what liberals would support in order to enforce certain views relating to religious views, primarily. Conservative “libertarianism” is typically false, rhetorical, with unsystematic takes on law. Insincere, rhetorical, tricksy, conservative “libertarianism” can be made consistent with any proposed conservative infringement on personal liberty by artful wordplay involving whose liberty to do what and why and how others affected are meant to be considered or not. Just as liberalism goes with democracy, economic liberalism tends to go with social liberalism. However, economic conservatism has a less consistent relationship to social conservatism, sometimes linked through the proposed ethical basis of economic power, sometimes less related.
If you think democracy, the US Constitution, good ideas, think markets are sometimes, maybe even often pretty good but support policies to augment or improve them, make them more fair, just, equitable, welfare enhancing, or consider alternatives as appropriate, you’re a liberal. Liberalism was for some time, say from the 1930s to the 1960s, the dominant political view in the USA. Starting in the 1980s to present, its intellectual opponent, conservatism / “neoliberalism” has reigned. Is it time for a resurgence of traditional American liberalism? Why do conservatives in the USA try so hard to obfuscate, mislead, confuse people about liberalism? Perhaps they want voters to think there’s no real alternative to conservatism, or the only alternatives are undemocratic, authoritarian. Don’t buy it. Consider liberalism.
