Has Liberalism Failed or Are We Failing to be Liberal?

(Liberalism is Not the Belief that Society is Liberal)

Photo by Freddy Kearney on Unsplash

In Western societies, nobody seems to think conservatism is the belief that society is already conservative or that Marxism is the belief that one lives in a Marxist state. Certainly nobody mistakes the movement that presumptuously calls itself ‘Social Justice” for holding the belief that we live in a just society. In these cases, it is easily understood that conservatives are people who stand for conservative values while Marxists are those who seek the implementation of Marxism. Meanwhile the “Social Justice” movement (or “wokeism”) is defined by its belief that society is highly unjust and desire to remedy this in certain very specific ways. In all of these cases, these positions are understood to represent goals in a society which its proponents believe to fall short of them.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is very often understood (by non-liberals) as a belief in liberalism, not as a goal but as a social reality - a goal achieved. This understanding of liberalism is often expressed differently by those on the left and those on the right but still expressed.

When this misconception is expressed by non-liberals on the left, it often takes the form of an accusation that liberals want to maintain the “status quo.” This clearly implies a belief that the status quo is liberal and, further, that liberals know it and are invested in keeping it that way. This generally stems from a feeling that left-liberalism is not radical enough. When it comes from the Marxist left, it might look like this:

When it comes from the identity-based Critical Social Justice left, it looks more like this,

When the right claim that liberals believe society to already be satisfactorily liberal, this is more often expressed by the right-winger telling anybody arguing for a liberal society either that we don’t have one or that liberalism isn’t working. This clearly implies a belief that the speaker believes we do have one and that it is working. These exchanges might look more like this:

It is from people on the right I have been hearing a lot recently, and specifically with the claim that liberalism has failed because authoritarian Critical Social Justice still exists. They usually go on to argue that we need to try some form of social conservatism. I have always found this quite bewildering because, at the same time as I, and other liberals, have been arguing against authoritarian CSJ and for liberalism, social conservatives have been arguing against it and for social conservatism and they have not succeeded either.

In what sense, then, is it reasonable to argue that liberalism has failed and social conservatism is needed when social conservatism (and all other critics of CSJ) have failed too? It is not as though social conservatives said “Go on, liberals. You have a go first and if that’s no good, we’ll give it a try.” They have been trying at the same time to persuade more people to their way of thinking.

There are social conservatives who would be quite happy in a properly liberal society where they get to believe, speak and live according to their own values, and have no wish to impose them on anyone else. For them, it may well seem that the ‘live and let live’ ethos of a liberal society is a reasonable Plan A, but if that does not work, then they would be justified in pushing for a socially conservative moral code. This would make sense, but asking liberals to support it does not. We don’t want, in a UK context, for people to be cancelled for insulting the monarch any more than we do for misgendering a trans person.

When people single out liberalism as the ethical framework that has failed, they seem to be indicating that they think liberalism was the one that had the power to succeed. That is, that they think we live in a society run on liberal principles. Yet, very often, when describing what has failed to me, they indicate the same highly illiberal things that I have been addressing as a liberal for many years. I think some of this comes from the fact that we call the kind of society we live in a ‘liberal democracy,’ which does seem to suggest that it is governed on the principles of liberalism, To some extent, this is true, in that a liberal democracy is defined as “a democratic system of government in which individual rights and freedoms are officially recognised and protected, and the exercise of political power is limited by the rule of law.” There’s a lot of wriggle room there, though. Which rights and freedoms do people have? Which people? And what limitations on political power are in place?

This definition certainly does not indicate that a society is really what could reasonably be considered liberal. Countries defined as liberal democracies have had institutional slavery and colonialism, denied women the vote and criminalised homosexuality among other very clearly illiberal things. If ever a country were fully liberal, it would likely not have liberals in it as we’d then be conservatives trying to conserve the liberal society. (This is a little facetious, but it is true that if people in a country are having to argue for liberal principles like freedom of speech and belief or the equal treatment under the law, then it is lacking in its liberalism).

This is a good distinction between liberal democracies and liberalism.

Liberal democracies are countries in which citizens have the right to actively participate in political processes, such as voting and expressing their opinions through speech and peaceful protest. These countries typically also grant a wide range of civil liberties, such as freedom of religion, speech, and press. However, in practice some countries may be more liberal than others – for example, those with a strong constitutional protection of individual rights may afford their citizens a higher degree of liberty than those without. Additionally, depending on the country’s culture or demographics, certain liberties may be more widely accepted than others. In general, liberal democracies share commonalities when it comes to protecting civil rights and liberties but can vary greatly in terms of how liberal they actually allow their citizens to be.

Liberalism is an ideology which promotes individual freedom, civil rights, and the importance of the rule of law. It emphasizes the protection of individual liberty through government guarantees of civil rights, freedoms, and responsibilities in societies. It also stresses that governments should limit its intervention in economic activities except for enforcing contracts, property rights and other market regulations that promote competition. Liberalism also stands for equal rights for individuals regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation; it supports the idea of personal responsibility and encourages a merit-based society where individuals can rise up based on hard work. The core values in Liberalism include respect for human dignity and individual autonomy, the free exchange of ideas and goods, equality under the law, justice tempered by mercy and compassion, social inclusion, environmental stewardship, international cooperation and a strong commitment to democracy.

Individual liberals will then vary on the weighting of these principles according to their politics and personal ethics. I, for example, as a liberal leftie, am more concerned with freedom of belief and speech than freedom of markets and, while I do support a meritocracy on principle, also think we cannot have one unless the equal rights for individuals regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and class includes thorough attention to ensuring access to opportunities. A right-voting libertarian might well be most concerned with the freedom of markets and minimisation of state control while also supporting equal rights under the law.

It seems clear to me that some who say that liberalism has failed really mean that society has failed to be liberal. This is not wordplay. It is the difference between antibiotics failing to work and an individual failing to take their antibiotics; a diet not working and an individual not sticking to their diet. If you are someone who would like to live in a genuinely liberal society but recognise that you are not, I urge you not to give up on liberalism, but help the push to create that society.

Other people, of course, genuinely do not want to live in a liberal society. Even if it fulfilled all its promises perfectly, they would not. Marxists do not. Social Justice activists do not. Social conservatives often do not. Postliberals do not. It is postliberals whom I have been reading most lately (and becoming very depressed by). They would be likely to reject the key tenets of liberalism with some variation of this:

• Individual rights and freedoms.

We are suffering from an excess of individualism and freedom at the cost of meaningful connections. We should think less of individual fulfilment, rights and freedoms and more of family, community, responsibilities and commitment.

• Pluralism - a positive view of having many different kinds of people, customs, cultures and ideas. Celebration of difference. Robust, reasoned debate.

Cultural integrity is being lost. We should encourage cohesion and shared values, traditions and customs.

• Universalism - Being united in our common humanity, experiences and goals.

We should focus more on our own communities, families, nation.

• Progress - We should keep seeking to advance our scientific knowledge and improve our society.

The relentless pursuit of progress is destabilising & alienating. In human rights it pushes humans away from their natural inclinations and relationships and, in science, is potentially dangerous, particularly in the realms of technology.

• The freedom of markets, enterprise and innovation. (Liberals vary on the extent of regulation needed, if any)

There is too much focus on free markets and innovation. This leads to a shallow and artificial consumer culture, the commodification of people and the disruption of families.

If you think this way, you are clearly not a liberal, although you are not necessarily illiberal either. ( I am not Ibram X. Kendi about liberalism). The growth of postliberalism, particularly in the UK, is gaining significant momentum as an attitude if not as a movement. Although proponents of it are usually very aware of what liberalism is (which makes a refreshing change from many of its critics), I think they too misattribute too many of society’s ills to it, often seem to conflate individuality with narcissism and freedom with irresponsibility, are too narrow in their outlook and can be unwarrantedly alarmist about technology. I intend to address these issues in forthcoming essays.