Two Liberalisms
(Part 3 of the essay)
Classical Liberalism
I must pause here to address, as I’ve not yet, the words ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ themselves. Like the smell associated with a food that once made you sick, the mere mention of them causes nausea in most on the Right. (39) With respect to religion, ‘liberal’ implies an emphasis on the human to the exclusion of the divine. With respect to morals, laxness or even decadence. With respect to society, division and disorder. And with respect to government, an unaccountable bureaucracy, ruinous finances, “the nanny state,” and “a culture of dependency.” (40)
The origin of ‘liberal’ is instructive. It comes from the Latin ‘liber’ which has meanings like “free, independent, unconstrained, void of.” It can mean “a free man” (as opposed to a slave). Related Latin words signify ideas like liberty, freedom, independence, generosity, and liberation. True, there are some negative connotations as well -- “libertine, licentious, idle.” But the main thrust is a good one.
Etymology is not semantic destiny of course; words change their meaning over time. But it’s worth remembering that when thinkers like Locke and Jefferson defended the rights of individuals over against the state, they did so using words like ‘liberal’ and its cognates.
It’s also worth remembering, against a gauzy nostalgia, that the not-so-distant past was a decidedly illiberal place. Kings, parliaments, and governments held nearly untrammeled power over regular people. Political agency was granted only to white men of property. Society gave males broad rights over females and children. And religious authority was often oppressive, obtuse, and corrupt.
This helps explain why the political philosophy / system known as liberalism got that name in the first place and why it has nothing to be embarrassed about now. (41) Locke is typically taken as the founder of liberalism, though any philosopher or theologian who emphasized the natural rights of the individual (see above) belongs to this tradition.
Liberalism begins from the assumption -- what some have called the Fundamental Liberal Principle -- that “freedom is normatively basic” and that the burden of proof “is on those who would use coercion to limit freedom.” (42) Given such, liberalism “... is the view that coercive institutions are justified when they promote liberty.” This is an understanding of the role of government to which both Conservatives and Liberals could, at the very least, give lip-service. The rub, however, is that “the ideal of liberty became subject to at least two interpretations.” (43)
Classical liberalism is the view closest to Locke’s. This is now usually called libertarianism.
I must pause here to address, as I’ve not yet, the words ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ themselves. Like the smell associated with a food that once made you sick, the mere mention of them causes nausea in most on the Right. (39) With respect to religion, ‘liberal’ implies an emphasis on the human to the exclusion of the divine. With respect to morals, laxness or even decadence. With respect to society, division and disorder. And with respect to government, an unaccountable bureaucracy, ruinous finances, “the nanny state,” and “a culture of dependency.” (40)
The origin of ‘liberal’ is instructive. It comes from the Latin ‘liber’ which has meanings like “free, independent, unconstrained, void of.” It can mean “a free man” (as opposed to a slave). Related Latin words signify ideas like liberty, freedom, independence, generosity, and liberation. True, there are some negative connotations as well -- “libertine, licentious, idle.” But the main thrust is a good one.
Etymology is not semantic destiny of course; words change their meaning over time. But it’s worth remembering that when thinkers like Locke and Jefferson defended the rights of individuals over against the state, they did so using words like ‘liberal’ and its cognates.
It’s also worth remembering, against a gauzy nostalgia, that the not-so-distant past was a decidedly illiberal place. Kings, parliaments, and governments held nearly untrammeled power over regular people. Political agency was granted only to white men of property. Society gave males broad rights over females and children. And religious authority was often oppressive, obtuse, and corrupt.
This helps explain why the political philosophy / system known as liberalism got that name in the first place and why it has nothing to be embarrassed about now. (41) Locke is typically taken as the founder of liberalism, though any philosopher or theologian who emphasized the natural rights of the individual (see above) belongs to this tradition.
Liberalism begins from the assumption -- what some have called the Fundamental Liberal Principle -- that “freedom is normatively basic” and that the burden of proof “is on those who would use coercion to limit freedom.” (42) Given such, liberalism “... is the view that coercive institutions are justified when they promote liberty.” This is an understanding of the role of government to which both Conservatives and Liberals could, at the very least, give lip-service. The rub, however, is that “the ideal of liberty became subject to at least two interpretations.” (43)
Classical liberalism is the view closest to Locke’s. This is now usually called libertarianism.
|
This form of liberalism interprets constraints on liberty as positive acts (i.e., acts of commission) that prevent people from doing what they otherwise would do. [Thus] failing to help people in need does not restrict their liberty. Libertarians maintain that when liberty is so interpreted only a minimal or night-watchman state that protects against force, theft, and fraud can be justified. (44)
|
The conception of liberty at work here is a negative one:
|
[T]he heart of liberty is the absence of coercion by others; consequently, the liberal state’s commitment to protecting liberty is, essentially, the job of ensuring that citizens do not coerce each other without compelling justification. So understood, negative liberty is an opportunity-concept. Being free is a matter of what options are left open to us, regardless of whether we exercise such options. (45)
|
This clearly aligns with much of what Conservatives aspire to. It’s how, for instance, they justify, morally, shrinking the social safety net: The state is not justified in taxing the wealthy to help the poor because that would be to use the coercive power of the state against the wealthy, when all that the state is morally obligated to do relative to the poor is to not restrict their liberty. (45A)
Welfare Liberalism
The second understanding of what liberty demands finds expression in what’s known as welfare liberalism -- a word combination that really would make a Conservative ill. Again, ‘welfare’ is another word fallen from grace. Today, it’s often used to refer to public assistance for the poor. But the word derives from “to fare well.” The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of promoting “the general Welfare.” At its most generic, ‘welfare’ means flourishing, happiness, well-being. Public programs that involve “welfare checks” were originally designed to promote such things.
Welfare liberalism, as a political philosophy, matches up closely to what Liberals aspire to.
The second understanding of what liberty demands finds expression in what’s known as welfare liberalism -- a word combination that really would make a Conservative ill. Again, ‘welfare’ is another word fallen from grace. Today, it’s often used to refer to public assistance for the poor. But the word derives from “to fare well.” The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of promoting “the general Welfare.” At its most generic, ‘welfare’ means flourishing, happiness, well-being. Public programs that involve “welfare checks” were originally designed to promote such things.
Welfare liberalism, as a political philosophy, matches up closely to what Liberals aspire to.
|
[Here] constraints on liberty are interpreted to include, in addition [to positive acts], negative acts (i.e., actions of omission) that prevent people from doing what they otherwise could do. [Thus] failing to help people in need does restrict their liberty. Welfare liberals maintain that when liberty is interpreted in this fashion coercive institutions of a welfare state requiring a guaranteed social minimum and equal opportunity are justified. (46)
|
The understanding of liberty at work here is a positive one:
|
[A] person is free only if she is self-directed or autonomous. Running throughout liberal political theory is an ideal of a free person as one whose actions are in some sense her own. In this sense, positive liberty is an exercise-concept. One is free merely to the degree that one has effectively determined oneself and the shape of one’s life. Such a person is not subject to compulsions, critically reflects on her ideals and so does not unreflectively follow custom, and does not ignore her long-term interests for short-term pleasures. (47)
|
Moving beyond even this -- and thus animating welfare liberalism -- is a view of “positive freedom” where freedom is taken “as effective power to act or to pursue one’s ends.” (48) In other words, full autonomy implies the ability to act. But having the ability to act -- or at least having equal opportunity to do so relative to others -- requires a political system like welfare liberalism.
For my part, and in terms of these definitions, I was formerly a classical liberal and am now a welfare liberal (though with a fairly straitened understanding of what that entails). Welfare liberalism has gone under different names in different countries. (49) Though this is to tip my hand, I prefer ‘common good liberalism'.
To understand why welfare liberalism was a central plank of the broader social reform movements at the turn of the last century, you can do no better than to read the novels of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens. As those lay bare, the social conditions in places like London, Paris, or New York were horrific. This was for numerous reasons, not the least of which was the laissez-faire version of capitalism prevailing at the time.
This was the world to which communist / socialist thinkers like Karl Marx sang their siren songs. More positively, reforms like compulsory education, the creation of a (quite thin) social safety net, basic protections for workers, basic regulation of business -- now all seen as granted in modern democratic societies -- came out of this milieu. (I am obviously skimming over and compressing a panoply of epochal events -- wars, technological breakthroughs, intellectual movements, political happenings -- running from, say, the 1830s to the 1930s. Still, the upshot vis-à-vis welfare liberalism is, I think, broadly accurate.)
There were many arguments made for welfare liberalism. Some arguments, such as those of British Idealist philosophers like T.H. Green, were quite esoteric to say the least. (50) But there were also practical, hardheaded ones. Since at least the Revolutions of 1848 European governments had been deeply anxious about social stability. (51) Welfare liberalism might counter the possibility of instability. At the same time, these governments were consumed by nationalist rivalries. What better way to prevail over an enemy than by having better-fed, better-educated citizens. Economically, it was clear that if a country invested in its people, the country as a whole would prosper.
Moreover, in terms of liberalism per se, thinkers came to see that you couldn’t guarantee a person’s freedom from harm (as classical liberalism requires as a minimum) without addressing at least some social needs. To be, for example, protected from various harms (e.g., at a railroad crossing) one needs a modicum of education. To be protected from communicable diseases there must be a basic public health regime. And so on.
To my mind, however, the best argument for welfare liberalism is the moral argument. To that I turn, in Part 4 of the essay.
For my part, and in terms of these definitions, I was formerly a classical liberal and am now a welfare liberal (though with a fairly straitened understanding of what that entails). Welfare liberalism has gone under different names in different countries. (49) Though this is to tip my hand, I prefer ‘common good liberalism'.
To understand why welfare liberalism was a central plank of the broader social reform movements at the turn of the last century, you can do no better than to read the novels of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens. As those lay bare, the social conditions in places like London, Paris, or New York were horrific. This was for numerous reasons, not the least of which was the laissez-faire version of capitalism prevailing at the time.
This was the world to which communist / socialist thinkers like Karl Marx sang their siren songs. More positively, reforms like compulsory education, the creation of a (quite thin) social safety net, basic protections for workers, basic regulation of business -- now all seen as granted in modern democratic societies -- came out of this milieu. (I am obviously skimming over and compressing a panoply of epochal events -- wars, technological breakthroughs, intellectual movements, political happenings -- running from, say, the 1830s to the 1930s. Still, the upshot vis-à-vis welfare liberalism is, I think, broadly accurate.)
There were many arguments made for welfare liberalism. Some arguments, such as those of British Idealist philosophers like T.H. Green, were quite esoteric to say the least. (50) But there were also practical, hardheaded ones. Since at least the Revolutions of 1848 European governments had been deeply anxious about social stability. (51) Welfare liberalism might counter the possibility of instability. At the same time, these governments were consumed by nationalist rivalries. What better way to prevail over an enemy than by having better-fed, better-educated citizens. Economically, it was clear that if a country invested in its people, the country as a whole would prosper.
Moreover, in terms of liberalism per se, thinkers came to see that you couldn’t guarantee a person’s freedom from harm (as classical liberalism requires as a minimum) without addressing at least some social needs. To be, for example, protected from various harms (e.g., at a railroad crossing) one needs a modicum of education. To be protected from communicable diseases there must be a basic public health regime. And so on.
To my mind, however, the best argument for welfare liberalism is the moral argument. To that I turn, in Part 4 of the essay.
Footnotes:
(39) A night or two of Fox News “news” (ditto, for conservative talk radio) is enough to persuade that ‘liberal’ must be a suitable descriptor for just about anything bad in American society and politics.
(40) On the other hand, to critics on the Left ‘neoliberalism’ is a catchall for terrible things like free-market capitalism and globalization, among others.
(41) Two other, related uses of ‘liberalism’ worth noting: Liberalism in economics is essentially free market capitalism. As to “the liberal international order,” that refers to the post-World War II consensus (especially among the Western democracies) that cooperation based on shared principles should govern relations among nations. These relations were to be mediated via multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, and the WTO. Security agreements (e.g., NATO) were to guarantee security. Commerce was to be conducted within broadly open markets. Democracy was to be promoted. And all of this was to be led by America. Such was the plan, in any event.
(42) SEP, “liberalism.”
(43) CDP, “political philosophy.” According to the SEP (“liberalism”) there is a third conception -- republican liberty -- hailing from the days of Cicero. I however have trouble distinguishing it from the classical, libertarian conception and so shall ignore it here.
(44) CDP, “political philosophy.” I can only note again how mixed up our labels have become: If classical liberalism equals contemporary libertarianism, then that means that large swathes of contemporary conservatives are classical liberals.
(45) SEP, “liberalism.”
(45A) I initially used the word 'shredding' versus 'shrinking' the social safety net. I made that change after feedback from a Right-of-Center friend who said that conservatives don't *really* want to do such a thing. I'm not sure I agree with that. In any event, the social safety net as that exists in America is quite a ragged one.
I will also say this: The closest thing the GOP has to an intellectual is Paul Ryan. This piece from Vox describes Ryan's proposals for welfare reform and budget cuts: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13641654/paul-ryan-trump-poverty-safety-net.
Such proposals are pretty standard fare for the Right. Again, the moral / philosophical piece -- and I believe Ryan believes this because he's an Ayn Rand acolyte -- is the conviction that it's immoral for the state to take from the wealthy via taxation -- except for things like national security. That's the classical liberal / libertarian "night watchman" view of the state. And, to be fair, given these premises, it is immoral to take from the wealthy to give to the poor. It's just that these premises are wrong.
The bottom-line of "Ryanism" is an incredibly harsh approach to the least off amongst us. The flipside of the GOP's tax cut mania -- really, its only economic idea since Reagan, with all the trickling that's supposed to occur -- is that the poor are worse off or the deficit increases or both. Defense is protected as is Medicare (socialized medicine for Baby Boomers) and Social Security. But to heck with any so-called discretionary spending for investing in people and infrastructure.
(46) Ibid. Welfare liberalism owes much to the thought of the nineteenth-century British philosopher T.H. Green.
(47) SEP, “liberalism.”
(48) Ibid.
(49) ‘Social liberalism’ is often a synonym, though in America that connotes progressive views on cultural issues (e.g., same-sex marriage). In the UK, ‘new liberalism’ was used originally to distinguish it from classical liberalism. In the US it was first called ‘modern liberalism.’ (The policies of FDR in the 1930’s and the legislation of the War on Poverty in the 1960s are standard American examples.) Other names include ‘revisionist liberalism’’ and ‘social justice liberalism.’ (For these names, their histories and connotations, see: “social liberalism” in Wikipedia; “New liberalism” and “The modern liberal program” in The Encyclopedia Britannica (respectively, https://www.britannica.com/topic/new-liberalism and https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism/The-modern-liberal-program); and “liberalism” in the SEP (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)).
Below, I will remark upon social democracy, an ostensible form of socialism but which is indistinguishable (to my eye) from welfare liberalism.
(50) See the entry “Thomas Hill Green” in the SEP for more on the Idealist philosophy and (heterodox) Christian theology behind his welfare liberalism.
(51) See “Revolutions of 1848” in The Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848) The corresponding Wikipedia entry is also helpful.
Images:
"Audley End in England." From Morris's ''Country Seats'' (1880).
Public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audley_End_House#/media/File:Audley_End_Morris_edited.jpg
(I picked this image because Audley End's construction was roughly contemporaneous with John Locke.)
"Promote the General Welfare." Bas relief structure at the Greenbelt Community Building. Carved by Works Progress Administration (WPA) artist Lenore Thomas, 1937.
Public domain. https://picryl.com/media/greenbelt-community-building-15-crescent-road-greenbelt-prince-georges-county-15
(The WPA was of course a central program within the New Deal.)
Original 1/1/21.
(39) A night or two of Fox News “news” (ditto, for conservative talk radio) is enough to persuade that ‘liberal’ must be a suitable descriptor for just about anything bad in American society and politics.
(40) On the other hand, to critics on the Left ‘neoliberalism’ is a catchall for terrible things like free-market capitalism and globalization, among others.
(41) Two other, related uses of ‘liberalism’ worth noting: Liberalism in economics is essentially free market capitalism. As to “the liberal international order,” that refers to the post-World War II consensus (especially among the Western democracies) that cooperation based on shared principles should govern relations among nations. These relations were to be mediated via multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, and the WTO. Security agreements (e.g., NATO) were to guarantee security. Commerce was to be conducted within broadly open markets. Democracy was to be promoted. And all of this was to be led by America. Such was the plan, in any event.
(42) SEP, “liberalism.”
(43) CDP, “political philosophy.” According to the SEP (“liberalism”) there is a third conception -- republican liberty -- hailing from the days of Cicero. I however have trouble distinguishing it from the classical, libertarian conception and so shall ignore it here.
(44) CDP, “political philosophy.” I can only note again how mixed up our labels have become: If classical liberalism equals contemporary libertarianism, then that means that large swathes of contemporary conservatives are classical liberals.
(45) SEP, “liberalism.”
(45A) I initially used the word 'shredding' versus 'shrinking' the social safety net. I made that change after feedback from a Right-of-Center friend who said that conservatives don't *really* want to do such a thing. I'm not sure I agree with that. In any event, the social safety net as that exists in America is quite a ragged one.
I will also say this: The closest thing the GOP has to an intellectual is Paul Ryan. This piece from Vox describes Ryan's proposals for welfare reform and budget cuts: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13641654/paul-ryan-trump-poverty-safety-net.
Such proposals are pretty standard fare for the Right. Again, the moral / philosophical piece -- and I believe Ryan believes this because he's an Ayn Rand acolyte -- is the conviction that it's immoral for the state to take from the wealthy via taxation -- except for things like national security. That's the classical liberal / libertarian "night watchman" view of the state. And, to be fair, given these premises, it is immoral to take from the wealthy to give to the poor. It's just that these premises are wrong.
The bottom-line of "Ryanism" is an incredibly harsh approach to the least off amongst us. The flipside of the GOP's tax cut mania -- really, its only economic idea since Reagan, with all the trickling that's supposed to occur -- is that the poor are worse off or the deficit increases or both. Defense is protected as is Medicare (socialized medicine for Baby Boomers) and Social Security. But to heck with any so-called discretionary spending for investing in people and infrastructure.
(46) Ibid. Welfare liberalism owes much to the thought of the nineteenth-century British philosopher T.H. Green.
(47) SEP, “liberalism.”
(48) Ibid.
(49) ‘Social liberalism’ is often a synonym, though in America that connotes progressive views on cultural issues (e.g., same-sex marriage). In the UK, ‘new liberalism’ was used originally to distinguish it from classical liberalism. In the US it was first called ‘modern liberalism.’ (The policies of FDR in the 1930’s and the legislation of the War on Poverty in the 1960s are standard American examples.) Other names include ‘revisionist liberalism’’ and ‘social justice liberalism.’ (For these names, their histories and connotations, see: “social liberalism” in Wikipedia; “New liberalism” and “The modern liberal program” in The Encyclopedia Britannica (respectively, https://www.britannica.com/topic/new-liberalism and https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism/The-modern-liberal-program); and “liberalism” in the SEP (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)).
Below, I will remark upon social democracy, an ostensible form of socialism but which is indistinguishable (to my eye) from welfare liberalism.
(50) See the entry “Thomas Hill Green” in the SEP for more on the Idealist philosophy and (heterodox) Christian theology behind his welfare liberalism.
(51) See “Revolutions of 1848” in The Encyclopedia Britannica. (https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848) The corresponding Wikipedia entry is also helpful.
Images:
"Audley End in England." From Morris's ''Country Seats'' (1880).
Public domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audley_End_House#/media/File:Audley_End_Morris_edited.jpg
(I picked this image because Audley End's construction was roughly contemporaneous with John Locke.)
"Promote the General Welfare." Bas relief structure at the Greenbelt Community Building. Carved by Works Progress Administration (WPA) artist Lenore Thomas, 1937.
Public domain. https://picryl.com/media/greenbelt-community-building-15-crescent-road-greenbelt-prince-georges-county-15
(The WPA was of course a central program within the New Deal.)
Original 1/1/21.