The Liberal Paradox in America

Picture this: Two Americans are locked in a heated political debate. One proudly declares themselves a defender of individual freedom and free markets. The other champions government programs to help the disadvantaged. They’re at each other’s throats, yet both are, technically speaking, liberals.

The Great Liberal Identity Crisis

In modern American politics, calling someone a “liberal” has become shorthand for everything from socialist to progressive to Democrat and speaks of a linguistic laziness that obscures centuries of nuanced political philosophy. As historian John Lukacs noted in 2004, then President George W. Bush, confident that many Americans regarded liberal as a pejorative term, used it to label his political opponents during campaign speeches while his opponents subsequently avoided identifying themselves as liberal.

But here’s the plot twist: If you believe in individual freedom, equality before the law, and civil rights, you’re basically a liberal. Whether you vote red or blue, whether you want more government or less, you’re operating within the liberal tradition that has defined American politics since its founding.

The Freedom Paradox: When Less Becomes More

The heart of liberalism has always been individual freedom. But freedom from what? And freedom to do what? This is where classical and modern liberalism part ways in a fascinating philosophical dance.

Classical liberalism, born in the Enlightenment era, was all about freedom from tyrannical governments, freedom from religious persecution, freedom from economic constraints. The intellectual founders of liberalism were the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), who developed a theory of political authority based on natural individual rights and the consent of the governed, and the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790). They championed laissez-faire capitalism, minimal government intervention, and the radical idea that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests.

But here’s where it gets interesting and uncomfortable. Many classical liberals were also elitists who believed voting should be restricted to educated property owners. They preached individual freedom while supporting imperialism. The contradiction? They believed in freedom for some individuals, not all.

The Industrial Revolution

Then came the Industrial Revolution, and with it, a new problem: What good is freedom if you’re starving? What use is the right to pursue happiness if you’re chained to a factory floor 16 hours a day?

Enter modern liberalism. The whole tendency of his programme,” he explained, “is to employ Hamiltonian mechanisms in order to achieve a Jeffersonian vision of political equality. This new breed of liberals argued that true freedom required more than just the absence of government interference, it required the positive ability to achieve one’s potential.

As early as 1932 FDR had proclaimed, “Every man has a right to life, and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living.” This radical reworking of liberalism shifted the focus from negative freedom (freedom from interference) to positive freedom (freedom to achieve).

The American Twist: Where Everyone’s a Liberal

Here’s the mind-bending truth: According to American philosopher Ian Adams, “all US parties are liberal and always have been”, they generally promote classical liberalism, which is “a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market”. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives are all swimming in the same liberal pool, just at different depths.

The real division in American politics isn’t between liberals and non-liberals; it’s between different interpretations of liberalism itself:

• The Liberal Right: Favors classical liberal principles i.e. minimal government, free markets, individual responsibility
• The Liberal Left: Embraces modern liberal ideas i.e. active government, regulated markets, collective responsibility for individual welfare

Both sides believe in individual freedom, democracy, and civil rights. They just disagree vehemently on how to achieve them.

The 21st Century Challenge: Reclaiming Clarity

So where does this leave us? In a world where climate change, artificial intelligence, and global pandemics pose unprecedented challenges, we need clear thinking more than ever. The first step? Stop using “liberal” as a catch-all insult or identity marker.

Instead, let’s be precise:

• Are we talking about economic policy? Specify whether you mean free-market or regulated capitalism
• Discussing the role of government? Clarify if you want active intervention or minimal interference
• Debating social issues? Distinguish between individual liberty and collective responsibility

The beauty of the liberal tradition is its adaptability. By adapting to changing socio-economic landscapes, liberalism has remained a vital force in shaping democracies and ensuring individual freedoms. But that adaptability becomes a weakness when people can’t agree on what we’re talking about.

The Bottom Line: Most of the US are liberals

Whether you’re a MAGA Republican or a Bernie Sanders progressive, you’re operating within the liberal framework that values individual dignity, democratic governance, and human rights. The real question isn’t whether you’re a liberal, it’s what kind of liberal you are and what that means for addressing 21st-century challenges.

Dive Deeper

For a comprehensive exploration of how the term “liberal” evolved in American politics and why this matters for contemporary political discourse, I highly recommend Ryan Chapman’s video on The Evolution of “Liberal” in American Politics which also serves as the basis of this blog post. Chapman breaks down the classical vs. modern divide with clarity and nuance, offering practical steps for having more productive political conversations.