Liberalism as a way of life? A critique.

As a basis for a life or a society, liberalism alone, however you define it, provides some answers but not all.

With the stern way my friend ordered her maid around, the hierarchy could not have been clearer. The young woman hustled around the house at my friend’s command. Both women seemed uncomfortable with my profuse use of “shukriyah,” thank you in Urdu, when the maid stopped to refill my teacup. It was 2017 and I was staying with a friend in Lahore, Pakistan but it felt like I had time traveled to a 1950s American upper-class neighborhood.

When I had cleaned houses back in college the relationship between my clients and I was equal and transactional, as are many relationships in the U.S. In Pakistan, by contrast, many relationships are hierarchical based on age, wealth, status, education, and sex. Watching my older, educated, wealthy friend boss around a poor, younger woman piqued my American sensibilities. However, the longer I stayed and the more I learned, I came to see my impression was too simplistic, too full of western bias. Indeed, there was more to the story.

While my friend ordered about her maid in a way that made me, but not the maid, uncomfortable, that was but one aspect of their relationship. At Christmas, my friend gave her maid extra money so her children would have presents. My friend also founded a philanthropy to educate women who lacked basic literacy and numeracy after hearing story after story of such women being taken advantage of by unethical employers. In other words, my friend believed that a person in a position of wealth and power should act with generosity towards those of lower social status.

In my egalitarian, transactional experience as a housecleaner, the idea of noblesse oblige never crossed my mind or my clients’. Back then, if I had been in financial trouble, I would have been expected to find a better job or seek relief from an institution such as the government, a bank or a charity. These options, however, are rarely available to a poor maid in Lahore. She could, however, turn to her mistress for help.

Both individualism/transactional cooperation and interdependence/hierarchical cooperation are forms of reciprocity. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. I was wrong to believe one (mine) was naturally superior to the other.

Until, that moment, despite being well traveled, it was the first time I really thought about the distinction between liberal and conservative cultures. This month, as I read Liberalism as a Way of Life, a new book by Australian Alexandre Lefebvre, a professor of politics at the University of Sydney, that nine-year-old memory of Pakistan surfaced.

Lefebvre is right that westerners are so thoroughly steeped in liberalism that on a day-to-day basis we don’t notice it. It is the water in which we swim daily. Only when I was a fish out of water in Pakistan did I reflect on my own cultural assumptions. That, however, is where my agreement with Lefevre ends.

Drawing from political philosopher John Rawls, historian of philosophy Pierre Hadot, and several television shows and movies, Lefebvre makes four assertions in his book:

1) Liberalism, for those of us in the west, acts as “the source of [our] values: not just of [our] political opinions, but of who [we] are through and through…liberalism may be at the root of all things us.”[1]

2) Liberalism is unifying. Because citizens cannot agree on what constitutes “the good life,” “[P]olitical liberals…solve the problem of pluralism by drawing a bright line between two things they insist should never be confused…various moral, philosophical, and religious doctrines that citizens hold,..and a fair framework of social and political institutions that must be justified to all citizens using values and ideals that are independent of…comprehensive doctrines” such as “tolerance, fairness, and equal freedom for all citizens.” These universal values, he contends, give rise to “the political constitution; the legal system of trials, property, and contracts; the system of markets and economic relations; and the family.”[2]

3) Liberalism “can be the basis for a personal worldview, way of living, and spiritual orientation.” We can build a meaningful life and build a better world through liberalism without recourse to other systems of thought or faith traditions. By working to align one’s liberal philosophy with one’s thoughts and actions, individuals can create “a liberal way of life [that] is uniquely unified. We alone combine, in our lived experience, the right and good, the reasonable and rational, the just and desirable.”[3]

4) Liberalism, like secular Buddhist and Stoic philosophies, can help people achieve virtue and tranquility through practical exercises. “The general idea,” he writes, “is that a genuinely liberal way of life, along with its felicities, does not come automatically from living or even having been raised in liberal democracy. It takes work and must be cultivated by the individual themselves.” Through quasi-spiritual self-help exercises inspired by Rawls’ work, Lefebvre believes committed liberals can cultivate qualities such as generosity, freedom, humility, impartiality, playfulness, tolerance, liberality, internal consistency, and satisfaction and slay the “gremlins of soul” such as envy, pride, rancor, and entitlement for their own betterment and for a better society.

Is Lefebvre right? Can the definition of liberalism be reduced to “a fair system of cooperation” or is the definition much broader and less simplistic than the one he offers? What are the trade-offs? Is liberalism the source of all our values? Does it offer a complete philosophy by which one can live a full and good life?

Let’s start with definitions. Liberalism has several political, historical, psychological and sociological definitions. The Rawlsian “fair system of cooperation” seems too simplistic. Humans are a cooperative species. We were cooperating before we developed the ability to speak (50,000 years ago), before we were officially homo sapiens (300,000 years ago), and before we had the ability to control fire (400,000 years ago). The earliest humans, homo habilis, were cooperating 2.4 million years. Enlightenment thinkers presumed humans were solitary creatures in a state of nature who came together because it was instrumental to their wellbeing. They were mistaken. Archeological evidence has since shown that humans have always been a social, cooperative animal.

As for fairness, prior to the domestication of plants and animals beginning10,000 years ago, hunter gather societies tended to be egalitarian with goods shared equally throughout the group. Thus before “liberal” was a word, humans were cooperating fairly.

So how should we define liberal? Let’s consider some alternative definitions. At the individual level, people can be temperamentally liberal or conservative. Liberals tend to seek new experiences and tolerate ambiguity while conservatives prefer predictability and certainty.[4] Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business author of The Righteous Mind says, “Psychologically, what we find empirically is that people who identify as conservative tend to like order and predictability, whereas people who identify as liberal, they like variety and diversity.”[5]

In his research, Haidt identified six innate moral foundations that all humans share.[6] These moral systems aren’t simply private moral feelings but systems that evolved to enable unrelated individuals to cooperate in ways unprecedented in other cooperative animal species.

They are: The Care/Harm foundation encourages compassion particularly for the vulnerable and underpins sanctions again harm. The Fairness/Cheating foundation fosters reciprocity. Humans are primed to appreciate fair treatment and judge those who deceive, break promises, or freeload as immoral. The Loyalty/Betrayal foundation inspires unity, group pride and self-sacrifice as well as anger at betrayal. Subsequent research by Haidt and colleagues “show[s] that liberals, relative to conservatives, express greater moral concern toward friends relative to family, and the world relative to the nation.” The Authority/Subversion foundation encourages respect for traditions and deference to legitimate authority. The foundation evolved as humans derived benefit from hierarchical relationships. The Sanctity/Degradation foundation grew out of a need to avoid contaminants such as disease and waste. The foundation triggers disgust and reverence and undergirds religious and secular notions of purity. Finally, the Liberty/Oppression foundation produces resentment when people feel oppressed, bullied, and arbitrarily restricted.

Haidt polled liberal and conservative members of multiple countries to see how they diverged on questions regarding the six foundations. He found that both groups scored similarly on the Liberty/Oppression foundation but diverged on the other five. Liberals rely mainly on Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating foundations while conservatives depend on all of the remaining five.

Although moral intuition is innate, it is not completely deterministic. Individual disposition, culture, and experience impact how intuitions are expressed. The question isn’t whether we have these moral intuitions but to what degree. You can take the survey at

https://www.yourmorals.org/

On the survey, I score like an uber-liberal with a sanctity streak. My scores exceed the average liberal score on care and fairness, dip quite low on loyalty and authority and fall in between liberal and conservative on sanctity. The shoe fits; I’m an artsy, independent, tree-hugging, globe-trotting, church-going neophile.

From a human evolutionary perspective, it is easy to see how early tribes of homo sapiens (and perhaps even earlier hominid species) must have benefited from having a variety of dispositions. For every member urging the tribe to travel over the next hill or try eating a new plant, it would be helpful to have a member urging caution. Societies still benefit from that diversity even though it causes friction.

Liberalism in culture is more complex. It’s important to set aside popular usage of liberal and conservative as synonyms for Democrats and Republicans. Here we consider the sociological definition that can be applied to all cultures throughout time.

What is liberal culture? What is a conservative culture? Drawing from Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, a liberal culture is one that emphasizes individualism, egalitarianism, and notions of progress and a conservative culture is one that places greater value on interdependence, hierarchy, and tradition. These values exist on a spectrum. No country is 100% liberal or 100% conservative in its worldview or policies and some cultures defy easy categorization. For example, hunter gatherer cultures are highly egalitarian (liberal) and highly interdependent (conservative).

What about historical or philosophical definition of liberalism? Philosophical liberalism dates to the Enlightenment Era, although there are antecedents. In the 18^th Century, classical liberals like John Locke, Montesquieu, David Hume, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others developed ideas about natural rights, free trade, separation of powers, and the social contract and representation.

As I mentioned, these ideas had antecedents. Representative governments (democracies) existed in 5^th Century BC-1^st Century BC Greek city states, the Italian city states of the Medieval Era, and the 16^th Century Dutch Republic. Greek and Roman thinkers like the Stoics and Cicero wrote about natural law and Christian writers wrote about the dignity and equality of all individuals before God.[7] Rule of Law (defined as government authority is exercised in accordance with written law that at a minimum is publicly disclosed, applies to all including those in government, and is revised according to official accepted practices) also has a long history. Though first articulated by Samuel Rutherford in 1644, the idea of rule of law was developed in Babylon (Code of Hammurabi 1754 BC), Israel (Hebraic laws 450 BC), Byzantium (Code of Justinian 529 AD), England (Magna Carta 1215 AD), and other places.

Ideas about natural rights, separation of powers, and representation were embraced by the American Founders and explored at length in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. Classical liberalism had its critics, too, the most prominent of which was Edmund Burke. Burke criticized the French Revolution and Rousseau’s ideas about progress. Burke recommended countries follow a path of slow change, respect for tradition and traditional institutions like family and faith and maintaining social stability.

Ideas of classical liberalism were further developed in 19^th and 20^th Century by Frédéric Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises who pushed back against the collectivism and authoritarianism of Marxism/communism, Nazism, and Italian Fascism. Later, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer and others combined elements of classical liberalism and Burkean conservatism into a fusion that unified many conservatives, moderates, neoliberals, libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats until rise of populism in the 21^st Century.

As I mentioned, it’s important to consider the psychological and sociological definitions of liberal and conservative apart from today’s political parties. After all, U.S. political parties have evolved significantly since the Founding. First there were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, then Democrats and Whigs, and now Republicans and Democrats. Their coalitions have evolved and continue to evolve and the platforms they espouse are mix of conservative and liberal ideals.

At the national level, the Republican Party has become more uniformly traditional on some issues. When I was a staffer on Capitol Hill in the 1990s, there were still a lot of conservative Democrats in Congress, mainly from the Midwest, who were socially conservative, pro-union, and in favor of a generous safety net and higher taxes. Since then, conservative Democrats have become relatively rare as have liberal Republicans favoring lower taxes and progressive cultural change.

Other issues do not align, however. The Republican position on gun ownership emphasizes the individual right to own a gun (individualism) while the Democratic position emphasizes group safety through limits (interdependence). Support for a community historic preservation law may find more support among Democrats on a city council than among Republicans who worry it will impinge on individual property rights or city development plans for progress.

I find most issues do not map neatly onto the sociological definition of liberal and conservative or even Haidt’s moral issue framework. Should we make the third lane on the highway subject to a toll? Should we raise tariffs on a country that makes goods cheaper or issue an embargo against goods manufactured by a pariah nation? How best do we manage forests to prevent wildfire? What should a multi-state water compact comprise? What’s the liberal position? What’s the conservative? It’s not that simple.

To sum up so far: “Liberal” can be defined as

• a disposition favoring new experiences and tolerating ambiguity in contrast to a disposition favoring stability and tradition.

• cultural attributes emphasizing individualism, egalitarianism, and notions of progress in contrast to interdependence, hierarchy, and tradition.

• a political philosophy that emphasizes natural rights, free trade, separation of powers, and representative government. These contrast with illiberal policies authoritarian rule, preferential treatment, and mercantilism but can be fused with conservative policies that respect tradition and traditional institutions like family and faith and maintaining social stability.

With this more expansive definition of liberalism, let’s ask the next question: What are the trade-offs?

Like everything, liberal cultural attributes have advantages and disadvantages depending on context. Tradition can be stultifying but it can be a source of stability and wisdom. Progress can loosen arbitrary shackles but it be destabilizing and debilitating to those left behind. Individualism is a source of great freedom but can bring loneliness and dissolution. Egalitarianism dissolves arbitrary hierarchies but can also erode deference for expertise, experience and legitimate positions of authority such as doctors, scientists, journalists, and the police.

The individualistic view that humans are atomized decisionmakers equally capable of making decisions ignores natural inequalities. Should a person with schizophrenia be able to “choose” to live on the street? Should a poor woman without prospects be able to “choose” to work at a Nevada brothel? Should a disabled person with depression be able to “choose” doctor-prescribed suicide pills? Should parents be able to forgo vaccinations for their children even if going without puts them and other children at greater risk of disease, disability, or premature death? Should a rich couple be able to buy a baby from a poor woman through surrogacy? Should people be able to make money on Pornhub even if it means young men will be less capable of family formation and will view women as objects? Should couples be able to divorce for any reason even if it has a deleterious effect on their children’s health, educational attainment, and wellbeing? Should a law-abiding person be able to buy a powerful firearm and leave it unsecured in his home even if it means a potential murderer may have easier access? Does purchasing a high-powered rifle from a company that glorifies firearm ownership as powerful and masculine contribute at all to the embittered outcast’s violent actions?

(If these questions make you uncomfortable know that they make me uncomfortable. We consider the right of individuals to do what we want with our property including our bodies as sacrosanct. Any attempt to deter self-harm is paternalistic and any concern for indirect harm to others is an acceptable tradeoff for freedom. What if we’re wrong? What will the diminishment of individual dignity do to society over time? And, if such freedoms create instability, real or perceived, could we open the door to illiberalism, that is, authoritarianism?)

Now that we have a definition and have explored the tradeoffs, let’s ask the final question. Does liberalism offer a complete philosophy by which one can live a full and good life?

Whether we employ Lefebvre’s definition of liberalism (a fair system of cooperation and the values he feels are inspired by reciprocity) or my more expansive definitions of personal, cultural, historical/philosophical liberalism, it would seem that liberalism cannot prevent all harm. It also may not be able to generate the kind of conduct and habits of mind necessary for enlightened self-interest and a thriving society.

Also how does one cultivate virtues not associated with reciprocity? Lefebvre admits, “Bravery, solidarity, loyalty, filial duty, compassion, oneness with nature, noninstrumental concern for nature, enthusiasm, and forgiveness are not well nourished by a culture centered on reciprocity. Piety, deference, self-sacrifice fare even worse.”[8] Where can we find a source for these virtues? What about reciprocal vices? Is not revenge a form of reciprocity? Indeed, porn, prostitution, and other vices are based on reciprocity.

Lefebvre writes, “When morality sheds (or just plain forgets) its vertical dimension, being a good person comes to mean not harming others.”[9] But does it? A popular T-shirt reads, “Be a good person.” What does that mean? Who decides what constitutes goodness? Can we borrow Christian morality and dismiss the theology or was Friedrich Nietzsche right that without God, morality becomes a subjective human invention? Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics, for all its elegance, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative, for all its cerebral satisfaction, are at best utilitarian inventions. Are they any better than Lenin’s “you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs,” that is, you cannot achieve the good life and progress without shedding (someone else’s) blood? In a world without absolutes, who’s to say who’s right?

As a basis for a life or a society, liberalism alone, however you define it, provides some answers but not all. It comes up short.

---

[1] Lefebvre, Alexandre. Liberalism as a Way of Life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2024, 5-6.

[2] Ibid, 74-75.

[3] Ibid, 212.

[4] For more information check out these interesting studies:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X and https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-common-ground/202502/liberal-vs-conservative-how-can-we-understand-each-other-0

[5] Podcast On Being June 12, 2014 interview with Jonathan Haidt. https://onbeing.org/programs/jonathan-haidt-the-psychology-of-self-righteousness-oct2017/

[6]Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Vintage Books, 2013).

[7] See Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019).

[8] Ibid, 169.

[9] Ibid, 95.