US politics are very polarized. Left and Democrat are nearly synonymous. Right and Republican are nearly synonymous. Professor Fukuyama sees an even greater threat from the challenges of the “New Left” and the “Hard Right” to the core principles of the “classical liberal” political system of the United States.
The book is a defense of “classical liberalism”. Limited government power. Legal institutions protect individual rights.
Not US center-left political liberals or EU center-right political liberals.
Classical liberalism is under attack from right – nationalist, cultural, authoritarian and from the left – postmodern theory, inequality, identity politics, group rights.
Classical liberalism born of history, 1700-1800, rationalism, science of enlightenment, anti-conservative aristocracy, church, tradition, favored groups. Partial solution to the post-Reformation religious wars. Dominant world view 1945-1990 as communism and fascism lost war of ideas. But, also opposed by romantic movement 1800’s, nationalism late 1800’s, communism 1900, fundamentalist religion, etc.
Inherently a practical solution to a world with unavoidable diversity of opinion and interests: religious, ethnic, state, culture, race, gender, class, etc. Privileges individual over community. Privileges institutions (law, military) over individual political actors. Privileges pragmatism over theoretical cleanliness. Privileges conflict avoidance above utopian justice. Privileges incremental change to revolution. Privileges all individuals’ rights versus just the most valuable individuals’ rights.
In a more diverse, global world, “classical liberalism” remains a solid choice for organizing society. The burden for promoting change lies with the critics.
1. What Is Classical Liberalism?
A. Individualist. Claims and rights of individual get priority over claims of any group.
B. Egalitarian. All individuals have an equal legal and moral standing in society. This contrasts with systems and philosophies where groups are more important. Nations, monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, autocracies, religion, class, race, etc.
C. Universalist. Humanity as a species is first. Specific historical forms, institutions, groups, leaders, cultures, etc. are secondary.
D. Meliorist. Social and political institutions and arrangements are imperfect, subject to improvement or decay. Liberalism is inherently pragmatic, accepting that no system or policy will meet the needs or reflect the values of all citizens. Compromise and tolerance are required to govern a state with unreconcilable differences. Liberalism sought to end the “wars of religion” where opposing sides were certain they were right and willing to fight. Liberalism accepts the need for a “strong state” to militarily offset the powers of “strong men” or “strong groups”, echoing Thomas Hobbes.
Individuals have rights because they are human. These rights are more important than social, political, economic and cultural institutions. Freedom of speech, association, belief and politics. Right to own private property and transact by choice. The right to vote and influence political decisions were added through time. Starting with these principles, governments are freely formed by individuals (contract theory) in order to protect individuals and preserve these rights.
Critically, “liberalism” is based on ideas, rational philosophical ideas, rather than history, tradition or power, per se. It is not only based on ideas, but also on history and experience. The “rational” dimension of “liberalism” can cause proponents and defenders to take positions that are considered “extreme” by others.
Contrast “liberalism” with “democracy” which is “rule by the people”. Democracies provide voting rights to most citizens and limit the power of strong groups to restrict the vote of the people. Not all liberal states are democracies. Democracy has expanded greatly during the 20th century. “Liberalism” provides an infrastructure that supports democracies and buffers attacks on them.
The emphasis on individual rights in “liberalism” causes an emphasis on laws and the rule of law, independent of the exercise of direct political power. The history of powerful rulers disregarding any inconvenient “rights” made the early proponents and adopters of “liberalism” champions of this “checks and balances” approach to governance. Again, critics of “liberalism” point out that highlighting just legal rights can lead to unbalanced political systems and societies that downplay other values and interests.
“Liberalism” claims to be a moral system. It honors human dignity, autonomy and choice. Individual choice is supported in most areas of life, constrained only by legal and regulatory limits agreed upon by political representatives. This right to choose applies to all people.
Economic benefits stem from property rights, freedom to transaction, legal institutions and the “rule of law”. Individuals invest in potentially profitable opportunities because they are confident that they will be able to capture and maintain most of the benefits from successful ventures. Historically, this has delivered strong economic growth with positive spillover benefits. Some critics question the use of economic measures such as GDP and growth as proxies for society, but the “order of magnitude” growth levels under “liberal” economic systems clearly provide enough benefits to allow society to prosper and redistribute as desired. Liberals also tend to support “free trade” policies for the movement of goods, services, finances and people because these voluntary trades result in net added benefits to both sides.
“Liberalism” is strongly associated with the “enlightenment” and the “scientific revolution”, relying upon logic and evidence to make objective decisions. It is also linked with the “scientific method”, noting that the free marketplace of ideas is effective in evaluating competing claims and drawing conclusions, even if those conclusions are only formally probablistic, rather than certain.
Liberalism emphasizes tolerance and compromise as virtues in order to defuse strongly held differences of opinion. Hence, it is inherently in conflict with any religious or political view or system that believes that it holds the only “truth” and that this “truth” must be consistently reflected in political, regulatory, judicial and social decisions. This tolerance for differences aligns liberalism with ecumenical religious groups and “relativist” ethical philosophies. It also aligns liberalism with a more dovish foreign policy approach recognizing the “rights” of all states and the global community as valid. Because of its tolerance for diverse religious views, liberal secular states are sometimes seen as opposing religion or supporting atheist or agnostic religious positions.
Historically, liberal states have resorted to war to protect what they saw as essential national interests.
Liberal states focus on the philosophical principles that shape nation-states (freedoms, rights, liberties) rather than religious, ethnic or cultural dimensions (blood and soil).
Equal rights for all people was slow to develop in liberal states, even when the principles were enshrined in declarations, constitutions and bills of rights. On the other hand, the ideals of equality played a role in expanding equality through time.
Historically, the new “liberal” systems were supported by groups opposed to the existing, “conservative” powers: monarchy, state churches, aristicracy, landed gentry. Capitalists, property holders, traders, urbanites and professionals supported “liberal” systems which provided them with greater economic, political and social rights than the received systems. Through time, the more ancient powers lost influence and the new “middle class” accumulated power and influence in the “liberal” system.
“Liberals” celebrated the defeat of fascism and Nazism after WWII and the defeat of Soviet communism in 1990. Fukuyama’s 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man” documented this achievement. The widespread adoption of basic liberal principles and “mixed capitalist” states was a clear economic success and no clear competitor remained in 1992.
Left- and right-wing political groups emphasize different parts of autonomy or free choice in the “liberal” state. Conservatives and neoliberals (Reagan, Thatcher, free marketers) emphasize free economic choices and a corresponding limit to government economic roles. Democrats, leftists and progressives emphasize personal social autonomy. Libertarians emphasize all freedoms and oppose large government roles of any kind.
2. From Liberalism to Neoliberalism
The post-WWII “good times” rolled for 3 decades, but the growth of government activities, slower economic growth, stagflation, international crises and growing political opposition to the “status quo” lead to a reaction against the general economic and political consensus that a “mixed economy” was “good enough”. Reagan and Thatcher won solid election victories with clear messages of “less government”.
This pro-business, anti-government philosophy became known as neoliberalism and was broadly adopted in many western countries, with left-leaning parties adapting with more pro-business policies and less government activism (Clinton).
Fukuyama points to inefficient, ineffective and overreaching government as drivers of this major change in political views. He notes that reduced regulations, outsourcing, divestiture and lower taxes did lead to more competitive industries and economies leading to increased growth and employment.
He also paints neoliberalism as an extreme view, discounting any role for government and unduly emphasizing just the economic dimension of public policy. He doesn’t see a close tie between “classical liberal” political states and neoliberal political philosophy and tactics. Like most “liberals” and economists, he sees various roles for the government in a modern state due to inherent “market failures”. Basic consumer and environmental regulations, military and public safety, anti-trust, financial market regulation, public goods (education, infrastructure), regulated natural monopolies, limits to inequality. He suggests that public policy should focus on the effectiveness of government services first and the share of government services second, without and demonization of government or lionizing of “free enterprise”. He notes that the share of government services provided is a political choice made within a “liberal” system that could be very low (20%) or very high (80%).
Fukuyama outlines the basic economic argument for “free trade” (opportunity to make both parties and societies better off) and notes that this is of little succor to those who lose from free trade (workers, businesses, localities), especially when policies and programs to help them recover are non-existent, underfunded or ineffective.
He observes that the political failures to ensure efficient governments, effective politics (vetocracy), limits to inequality, proper financial regulation and balanced trade have driven opposition to government, politicians and political parties on the left and the right from critics on the left and the right!
3. The Selfish Individual
The author sees neoliberalism and its libertarian cousin as distortions of “liberalism”, focusing solely on an extreme view of individual economic results alone.
Property rights matter, but no more than other rights of choice. Property rights are supported by government institutions, so the quality of government matters. The original distribution of property is an important factor which cannot be “assumed away”. There is no reason to prioritize financial rights or physical property rights over intangible property rights or other things which humans value. Economic efficiency and growth are valuable, but tradeoffs exist with other socially valuable goals: peace, security, opportunity, expression, speech, association, equality, fairness, solidarity, growth, etc.
Consumption is not the highest priority. Production matters, not supply-side economics, but human connection to producing. Pride of authorship.
Anti-trust regulation is required to offset monopoly power. Political action is needed to offset regulatory capture.
Libertarian approved theory of “spontaneous order” has little historical or theoretical support. Markets, common law and social Darwinism are not simply “facts”.
The state also has a role in international trade policy, industrial policy, R&D, defense, public goods airports, etc. Not either/or.
The economics discipline’s reliance on selfish utility maximizing agents is not supported by casual observation or behavioral economics. People use crutches to make decisions. They work from habit. They are OK with “good enough”. Individuals value social goods like friends, status, respect, pride, safety and power. They consider “fairness” and other principles. Choices are influenced by social norms.
People play various roles in groups. The simple rational model of principal-agent is inadequate to explain behavior. People follow leaders, norms and procedures. They discriminate based upon prejudices even when it is economically irrational. People belong to many groups which influence their behavior: nation, class, religion, family, neighborhood, profession, gender, gender preference, age, marital status, civic, artistic, political, social, athletics, etc. The materialist, determinist, rationalist, objective, calculating model of human behavior is clearly inadequate.
4. The Sovereign Self
The individual, good inner self evolves to become a self-worshipping god.
When the “liberal” model first evolved, a Christian (or at least deist) religious framework existed in most societies which provided a moral basis for politics and society. Freedom of choice was made within a largely fixed moral framework for most citizens. Through time, the individual grew relative to the community and individuals were then positioned to choose their own moral framework. This positioned individual autonomy to be the supreme virtue, above all others.
Autonomy evolved from individual choice to group choice and rights. This resulted in questions about the underlying basis of “liberalism”: individual versus group, universal human rights or differences, and the requirement of tolerance.
Martin Luther’s focus on “salvation by grace alone” focused on the individual, especially the internal individual’s thoughts in contrast with the mediation of salvation through the authority of the church and priests and the works of man. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision of uncivilized man as inherently good further focused attention on the individual, since it was possible to shape this blank slate which could be perfected, in contrast with the doctrine of “original sin”. Immanuel Kant used reason to define the limits of reason and to develop a rational basis for morality, essentially the golden rule, optionally expressed in the maxim that man should always be an “end”, but never just a “means”. Again, the individual was highlighted and separated from religion. In this context, the ability of each man to reason and make choices was elevated as a supreme virtue, potentially above morality itself.
Fukuyama indicates that the basis for extreme individualism was available from the start, but only in the 20th century, after two world wars, Darwin, Freud, Marx and Hitler, was this variety able to blossom. He stresses the growth of the self-help movement as a key accompaniment to the philosophical, political and academic evolution. Therapists replaced priests and ministers as the guides for personal growth.
The author focuses on the philosophy of John Rawls in his 1971 “Theory of Justice”. Rawls provides a theoretical framework of choosing society’s rules in a “veil of ignorance”, where each individual does not know what his or her abilities, talents, wealth and opportunities will be. Rawls argues that a “rational man” in this situation would set rules that would protect him from the worst-case circumstances, even if that required transfers of resources and limits to opportunity and overall output. This matches the rational “mini-max” principle developed in post-WWII game theory. This provided American political liberals with a justification for their preference to reduce inequalities of income and wealth through government redistribution.
Fukuyama argues that Rawls goes “too far” in removing any moral basis from society. This “moral” choice is made almost mechanically on the basis of thought alone. The political influence of real individuals is ignored. “Justice” is defined without reference to “the good”. Rawls says that the human subject is separate from his attributes (wealth, status, character, genes) which are assigned arbitrarily. Hence, all property belongs to the state and can be redistributed as required.
Robert Nozick’s 1975 book “Anarchy, State and Utopia” challenges this view, arguing that individual rights cannot so easily be acquired by the state based upon a philosopher’s story. Resurgent libertarians argue that the individual owns all property before the state has any rights. Philosophers since that time have been busy contrasting the “individualist” and “communitarian” views of ethics ever since. Even left-leaning philosophers like Michael Sandel criticize this “thin moral world” of choices without communities, traditions or other moral values. Fukuyama says that this most modern view of ethics compared with historical ethics is parallel to the evolution of liberalism to neoliberalism. A valid principle has been elevated to an absolute standing and lost its rationale and practical effectiveness.
Fukuyama claims that Rawls’ provides a philosophical basis for moral choice that is solely individual, independent of society. He notes that many commentators on “liberal” political systems see a requirement for some level of shared moral belief, including tolerance and public-spiritedness. The growth of the self-help movement, personal growth and self-actualization in the postwar era provided practical experience of the self, detached from religious and social norms. Rawls’ philosophy said that is “fine”. Existentialist philosophy evolved into postmodernism and complemented Rawls’ political and ethical philosophy. Fukuyama argues that these views undercut the social basis required for a liberal political system and that individuals lured into believing that total personal autonomy is possible will be dismayed when they learn this is not so and thereby reject historical individual based political views and pursue group-based views (next chapter).
5. Liberalism Turns on Itself
In the next two chapters the author outlines how modern “new left” thinkers have created a political theory that is quite opposed to “classical liberalism”, especially as outlined by John Rawls. “Critical theories” and postmodern philosophy reject any strong individualistic philosophy that does not give strong weight to groups, communities and society. Ironically, in this debate, classic conservatives and “new left” progressives are aligned, raising up the group as a critical basis for ethics, morality and a just political state.
Fukuyama focuses on the nature of the individual self in Rawls’ philosophy compared with that of others who propose “critical theories”. While most citizens don’t really want to dig this deep, Fukuyama and other philosophically minded academics, critics and political leaders consider this essential. In the Rawls model, and in other “classic liberal” models, the focus is on the rational individual facing a world of choices. From this existential situation, the need and desire for certain rights and freedoms to support these choices by the “choosing being” are developed and a consistent political and ethical model is developed. As with the ultra-skeptical Rene Descartes, the mathematical Newton and the medieval philosopher of science Occam, “less is presumed to be more” in “classical liberal” philosophies. If a few assumptions and observations about individuals are sufficient to create a robust and effective model, why make reference to groups or specific moral goods, especially after many philosophers wrestled with the distinction between facts and values, is and ought, descriptive and evaluative claims and concluded that these two groups of ideas simply don’t exist in ways that they can be combined and evaluated. In practical politics, liberals of all stripes are ready to insert and advocate for their “progressive” values, including the importance of groups and specific moral values. But this is missing from the philosophical model.
Philosophers have long seen individual identity as a crucial aspect of being a person, especially as a choice making agent. Without self-awareness and a personal identity, how can one make choices? For “liberals” the choosing agent makes choices which build that identity, preferences and moral framework to guide choices. Per Rousseau, the individual starts with a “blank slate” and constructs this identity. The individual is first; the environment, including family, groups and society is secondary.
For “critical theorists”, some group characteristics that are imposed upon the individual (race, ethnicity, gender, gender preference, culture) are much more fundamental. The individual may begin with a “blank slate”, but society forces its perceptions and values regarding these group characteristics upon the individual no matter how hard he or she may try to choose for him- or herself. The critical role of society, the group, the system, the power structure is unavoidable.
To the common man, even a very interested “John Q Public”, this seems to be “much ado about nothing”, senseless quarreling over “nature versus nurture” or “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”. But for philosophers, academics, theorists and advocates, getting to the “root cause” is precisely the most important topic.
“Identity politics” is aligned with the view that an individual’s identity based on these key groups is essential. Those with power in any society use that power to create ideologies, structures and norms that define these group identities in ways that benefit the elites of that society. Hence, individuals in the non-preferred categories are unwittingly deprived of their rightful power and marginalized. Individuals shaped and governed by society’s messages, institutions, laws, thoughts and actions must be re-educated to understand the “real” situation and combat their exploitation. This sounds very much like the Marxist view of western society before communism was discredited by the real-world actions and results of the Soviet Union. The marginalized groups replace the marginalized workers, both needing to be enlightened by the few who have “true insight”.
From the 1960’s “New Left” forward, proponents of “critical theories” and “identity politics” have rejected “classic liberalism” as being an ideology of the powerful classes designed to maintain power and exploit the “masses”. The progressive left rejects individualism alone as a valid basis for any meaningful political philosophy. It observes little progress on reducing inequality or helping individuals to develop their true identities free from socially imposed masks. Unconstrained capitalism is linked to “classical liberalism” and found guilty of supporting the elites and oppressing the marginalized groups. The divide between the center-left and far-left is very deep.
In 1964 Herbert Marcuse outlined the basics of this transition from Marxist to “new left” political thought in “One Dimensional Man”. So-called liberal democracies did not promote equality or autonomy. The elites captured the corporations and legislatures and controlled society to maintain political, economic and social control by the elites. Charles Reich’s 1971 The Greening of America provided a more digestible best-seller with a similar message. “Free speech” was deemed a tool of the powerful and questioned. The “working class” was determined to be coopted in a consumer society where Vance Packard’s “hidden persuaders” forced them to consume ever more, work ever more and envy others. Individuals didn’t really choose; they only had the illusion of choice.
The New Left questioned the individualistic “contract theory” underlying “classic liberalism’s” political model, highlighting examples of slavery, worker and marriage contracts that were clearly imposed rather than negotiated. They argued that the exploitation of society by capitalists, dominance of neoliberal ideology and capture of regulatory agencies were inevitable. They outlined the long history of colonialism, imperialism, destruction of natives and presumption of a superior “western civilization” as evidence that the powerful groups would always do whatever is required to maintain control. They documented the ways in which political “checks and balances” provided the ruling elites with additional levers of power. They concluded that “classical liberalism” was intellectually and historically bankrupt.
Fukuyama presents some counterevidence to oppose these claims. Liberalism does not exclude groups, morals, society or other values. Real-world liberal political systems incorporate these values. An extreme form of liberal philosophy (Rawls) is just a straw-man, not representative of how actual liberal political systems work. Liberal states have made social progress through time, voluntarily investing more individuals and groups with greater rights. Economic progress is obvious. Liberal states invest heavily in social welfare programs. Liberal political states make it possible for progressives, liberals, conservatives and hard right groups to all have voice and political influence. International trade and economic growth make possible individual choices, health, art, safety, security and self-actualization. The individual focus of the liberal state frees individuals from the constraints of traditional family, kin and religious bonds. Meritocracy is consistent with a wide range of human development and actualization ideals. Migration continues to flow from states with limited individual rights to those with liberal rights, the rule of law and economic advantages. Liberal states support multicultural societies. The worst “sins” of “western civilization” and liberal states, including colonialism, are receding into history. Eastern European, East Asian and other states have successfully adopted the liberal state model. “Checks and balances” result in sustainable political changes and prevent authoritarian rule.
6. The Critique of Rationality
“Classical liberalism” is also closely associated with a rational approach to determining truth. Historically, logically and currently it uses and supports the “scientific method”. An objective reality exists and can be discovered by observation. Theories begin with self-evident assumptions and are fleshed out using logic. Theories are evaluated by the testing of predictions. Theories build credence as they develop more testable hypotheses which are validated or not invalidated. Humans can understand this objective reality and use science and technology to control nature. Scientists keep facts and values separated. Scientific conclusions (theories) are inherently probabilistic, but relative confidence can be determined and agreed upon. Techniques to verify propositions are agreed upon by professional scientists. Evidence is more highly regarded than individual assertions. Testing is defined so that it can be repeated and verified. Progress accumulates, although changes in scientific theories do occur. Science, like the courts, journalism and the military, is led by professionals who are largely independent of political power.
“Critical theory” proponents treat science and rational discourse as another social institution subject to control by the powerful elite.
In 1882 Friedrich Nietzche proclaimed “God is dead”. The decline in religious belief and influence in western Europe, especially in elite circles, allowed this to be stated and analyzed. Nietzche was saying that society had substitutes for the concept of God as a way to explain the world and manage suffering, so God was no longer necessary. He saw that Christian morality underpinned western society and politics and that the loss of this framework was a radical and threatening change. In such a world without shared morality, the only virtue or value was power. Nietzche outlined the contrasting lives of those living by the Christian “slave morality” and those of a noble superman who sees himself as the measure of all things. He concluded that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. Nietzsche did not convince many of his views then or now, but he opened the door to considering such different viewpoints. No morality. Only power. No objectivity.
Nietzche was a precursor to the philosophical approaches that lead to postmodernism. Nietzsche’s professional training was in philology, the study of a language’s grammar, history and literary tradition. His contemporary, Ferdinand Saussure, was a pioneer in the development of linguistics as the science of language. He separated words from a direct link to reality. For him, the human process of speaking is dynamic and the meaning of words are shaped by the speaker, disrupting the naive view that words simply signify things. The act of speaking also shapes the worldview of the speaker, making language a subjective entity.
Saussare’s subjective approach to language and meaning lead a series of French intellectuals including Jacques Derrida in the 1960’s and 1970’s to develop an extension of this view. The claimed that the external world is actually created by the words that we use to describe it. Other philosophers had considered what was “really real” previously and some had proposed that reality is really a subjective creation of the mind rather than an objective, material fact but this approach had limited impact outside of philosophy. As philosophers focused on language as a primary topic during the twentieth century, this idea became more attractive and, in some sense, “plausible”. The next step was to link language back to the power structures which determine language. Now, we have the power structure determining language which determines thought which creates reality. With this “structure”, a critic could “deconstruct” the underlying meaning of any important writings and show how the power structure guided the writer to reinforce the beliefs and interests of the power structure. Many doctoral dissertations could be written to show that all of “the western canon” was comprised of individuals unwittingly working for the power structure.
Michel Foucault expanded from this criticism of the true meaning of written language to a broader attack on all modes of thinking done within the framework of language guided by the “powers that be”. A subject like cross-cultural studies was inherently defective due to assumptions shared by the ruling western culture. The liberal idea that all individuals share an underlying moral core was rejected by Foucalt and the postmodernists. Instead, the shared lived experience of group identity is considered most important and differs from person to person. A privileged white American male simply cannot understand the experience of a marginalized non-white non-American female. The group experience is most important. The combination of various dimensions results in the concept of intersectionality which defines the most relevant group in even finer terms. By denying the ruling group member’s ability to understand the experience of the minority group member, this approach undercuts any authority of the ruling group member.
Fukuyama says that some of these insights about the role of language, subjectivity, tools of power, self-deception, alignment of interests, hidden biases, unconscious prejudices, etc. are valid in some historical situations. However, he does not agree with the philosophical or political conclusions that have been drawn. He notes that the deconstructionists and postmodernists have written in ways to make their theories difficult to describe or evaluate. He asserts that the extremely broad use of power as the driver of all activity is inherently flawed, asking if Foucalt’s analysis is also driven by the power structure. He notes that this framework can be used effectively for political purposes, to fence off criticism from others with differing views and to force others to consider societal or systematic components of social challenges instead of focusing on individual moral choices.
The author concludes the chapter by noting that modern identity politics can be a tactic used to help left-leaning partisans increase the sharing of equal rights, opportunities and outcomes for all members of less-privileged groups within the framework of the liberal state model. Or identity politics can be a threat to the liberal model, denying universal modes of comprehension and experiencing reality and promoting groups as the primary political actors. He notes that the hard right often takes this same point of view, denying the authority of science or elites, creating its own language, denying free speech, challenging facts and elevating racial and national groups above the rule of law and universal rights of individuals.
8. Are There Alternatives?
The author summarizes some of the major criticisms of liberal states from the right and the left. He acknowledges that liberal states are imperfect at delivering these desired outcomes, even when they might be broadly accepted by the citizenry. He does not really address the true strength of this criticism. He has three responses. Better results could be delivered within the existing system through more effective political strategies and improved rules. The far left and far right usually don’t offer structural solutions that are better conceptually or practically. The solutions that are offered are typically offensive to the liberal state’s individual protecting principles and a majority of the citizens’ political opinions.
Social conservatives say that the liberal state offers no moral core beyond a soft nationalism, universal human rights, rationality, tolerance, respect for the rule of law, deliberation and compromise. The state “allows” morality and allegiance to groups but does not promote them. Hence, society has weak communities, low trust, diluted morality, limited responsibility and the absence of any overarching purpose. The bureaucratic state tends to overreach, prioritizing secular over religious views and empowering judicial and administrative actors to intrude on individuals. Unchecked market capitalism undermines family, community and tradition. The emphasis on individual rights undermines the efforts of groups to maintain ethnic, religious or other group cohesiveness.
Progressives focus on the lack of progress on addressing equal rights, opportunities and results for the broad population, but especially marginalized groups.
10. Principles for a Liberal Society
A. The quality of government matters, as does trust and support.
B. Inequality of opportunity, rights and outcomes matters.
C. Federalism is an important tool for controversial, non-critical issues.
D. Freedom of speech is a core value that supports other freedoms.
E. Privacy is a core right requiring protection.
F. The scientific method and rational problem solving matter.
G. Individual rights are fundamental. Group rights are problematic.
H. Human autonomy/independent choice is not a trump card. Groups, ethics, morality, nation matter too.
I. The liberal state rests upon the commitment and participation of its citizens.
J. Moderation is a virtue.
