The opinion journalism of now (in The New York Times and The Atlantic, at any rate), is dedicated to one question above all: how can we save liberalism? The publications' writers bemoan the death of the "liberal world order" as well as the fate of liberal politics on the US and Europe. Coincidentally, attempts to save liberalism from illiberalism will help the Democratic Party, the task to which the Times is, as you can see every day, ultimately dedicated.
Saving the Democratic Party, or even British Labour: that's a tough but definite task, reasonably content and specific. It's probably not going to work out, but still I see what you're trying to accomplish, even if I can't see that it's really journalists' job. But I don't grasp what you're trying to do when you talk about saving the liberal world order, or even liberalism itself. For what or where is that thing?
“Liberalism” is one of the most capacious words in the discourse of politics and political theory. And then there are various prefixes and compounds, such as “neoliberalism,” “post-liberalism” and “classical liberalism.” But what are all the prefixes modifying? I have the notion that neo-liberalism is incompatible with classical liberalism, but I'm not entirely sure.
In the 1980s, “liberal” was the name of the whole left side of the political spectrum. It was what Rush Limbaugh railed against, and it seemingly encompassed everything from Bill Clinton to Chairman Mao. Limbaugh, or American Spectator's "Editor-in-Chief for Life," R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., used “liberal” the way right-wing influencers today use “woke.” Now, however, it often or sometimes indicates the right side of the left, the "reasonable" or "moderate" side. These days, liberalism is Joe Biden moderation as opposed to AOC progressivism. When Nigel Biggar asserts in his recent book The New Dark Age that "liberals must win the culture wars," he means liberalism in distinction to wokeness or progressivism. If someone had said in 1991 that liberals must win the culture wars (and they definitely did), they meant that the left had to defeat the right. The word, we see, is used very differently in different moments, places, mouths.
If you don't clearly signal which of the many notions you have in mind, I’ve no idea what you mean. The word by itself no longer helps, unless the goal is to obscure the meaning of your positions. Perhaps that’s the goal.
Many other basic political theory terms are vague or ambiguous or both. “Fascism,” for example, is a notoriously difficult word to define plausibly, or in a way that counts the undoubted historical examples (Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Spain under Franco) without counting a lot of other stuff that doesn’t seem so obviously fascist, for example the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (especially the Cheney element), and Donald Trump. “Socialism” can be obscure, ranging from any sort of scheme for societal improvement to much more specific styles of state control of the economy. Even “liberalism’s” sometimes-opposite “conservatism” is often thrown around strategically rather than meaningfully.
What’s the opposite of liberalism, really? Maybe it’s fascism. Maybe it's conservatism. For example, ideological diversity on campus is often immediately equated with increasing the representation of conservativism, as if lib and con exhausted the ideological possibilities. These days, again, “liberalism” is often contrasted with ‘progressivism” to designate the two wings of the left or of the Democratic Party. Maybe it's the opposite of socialism. Or maybe it’s socialism. The answer depends on who's trying to manipulate whom into nodding along with what.
“Liberalism” is a particularly extreme meaning mess. We might start with something like this: liberalism endorses individual rights, free markets, the rule of law (an elusive concept), and democratic procedures. Liberalism is the political philosophy of John Locke, the founders of the American republic, and John Stuart Mill, as well as of 20th-century philosophers Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls. But we might just run a quick contrast between Mill and Rawls, for example. Mill’s an advocate of a minimal state and has arguments to the effect that the defense of individual rights is the primary, almost the only, legitimate function of government. Mill is what we might call a libertarian.
That appears to be what’s meant by “classical liberalism,” or what’s sometimes or occasionally meant. Let me ask you this: is or was the "liberal world order" a libertarian world order? Was it a world order at all, and if so, was it a world order according to which states or multi-state bodies could only intervene to protect individuals from violations of their rights? It sure didn’t eyeball like either of those. When Anne Applebaum and co. mourn the alleged liberal world order, they mean something like "yay IMF!" but that doesn’t appear to have much to do with the political philosophy of John Locke.
If Mill’s a libertarian and strict about it, Rawls is a "welfare-state liberal." One thing that happened between Mill and Rawls is the welfare state, or fairly aggressive techniques for redistributing wealth and a widespread commitment to "social justice." More widely, one thing that happened between Mill and Rawls was a vast increase in state power, largely endorsed by people calling themselves liberals. But are vast state power and resources liberal? Or socialist? Or fascist? Or perhaps we’re dealing with "welfare-state liberalism" or maybe "liberal socialism". What is that, in relation to the philosophy of James Madison?
Let me ask you this: are neo-conservatives liberals? Why not? Or: definitely. Or: definitely not. Or: who knows? Are they classical liberals? I think so! Maybe? Are neo-conservatives neo-liberals? Sure! Seems likely? I think Paul Wolfowitz was the most neo-conservative and the most neo-liberal World Bank chief. So liberalism and conservatism are opposites (or would be, if “liberalism’ had a meaning), but neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism are complements or are perhaps identical, both trying to make the world safe for capitalism.
Without resorting to the now-relatively-obscure Wolfowitz, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are the very avatars of neo-liberalism, pursuing austerity in government spending and aggressive free trade over the whole world as long as it was dominated by their own economies (however, the governments of the United States and of the United Kingdon grew substantially in the 1980s, so I'm not sure what's even meant by “austerity”). Reagan and Thatcher were the very avatars of conservativism, the very opposite of liberalism (maybe?), returning us apparently to traditional moral and religious values. And they set the militaristic tone for neo-conservatism in actions such as Grenada and the Falklands. Also, they constantly deployed the libertarian rhetoric of individual rights: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Are they the essence of liberalism or the opposite of it? I think it's a bad sign for the concept that either answer is fine and either is ridiculous.
Libertarians seem to be the people who most consistently advocate the ideals of "classical liberalism," who easily sound most like Locke, Madison, and Mill. But libertarians are often thought of as right-wing anti-liberals. Or maybe anti-progressive anti-wokesters. Well, they definitely disagree with Rawls and Habermas, who might be "democratic socialists." But are democratic socialists liberals? Absolutely! And absolutely not!
Meanwhile, is liberalism on the left or on the right? Yes and yes and absolutely not and absolutely not. Admittedly, this problem also derives from the fact that left and right are not sensible concepts either, or aren't concepts at all. But even if they were, I don't think we could say clearly which side liberals are on.
I think when you answer questions like these with "yes and no," or can't decisively answer or even plausibly address them at all, something has gone wrong with the terms you are using. It's not like we could figure out what liberalism is, define it clearly, and use the definition to decide whether Ronald Reagan was the arch liberal or the arch anti-liberal. There’s no fact of the matter about whether Reagan was a liberal, because “liberal” doesn’t have a sufficiently clear, consistent, singular, or sensible meaning to pick out a definite class of people or positions, while leaving a distinct definite class on the other side. He was and he wasn't. The category’s incapable of shedding any insight on the political struggles of now, or even playing a role in any clear assertion.
I think the reason for the persistence of the term “liberalism” to refer to a host of incompatible positions is that, for whatever reason, “liberal” sounds nice; it sounds sweet; it sounds generous. It's the opposite of miserliness. It must still be focus-grouping well or people would just ditch it. So everyone wants to tack the sound onto whatever position they want people nodding along with.
You might think “liberalism” just needs clarification, but after all these centuries we're well beyond that. All you'll be doing as you clarify is pouring more layers of sludge on the pile of vagueness and contradiction.
—Follow Crispin Sartwell on Twitter: @CrispinSartwell