What Do Liberals Believe?
A big thanks to KevinW for asking the inaugural question in this new Substack project — “Ask a Liberal.” Below you will find his question divided into two parts. His words are in italics and my responses are in bold.
Before I get to his question, however, let’s briefly orient ourselves to the American political landscape. The summaries I offer below are what sociologists call “ideal types” — simplified descriptions that capture the broad outlines of categories for the purpose of analytical comparison. Reality is often a messy combination of two or more of these categories. Personally, I identify as a hybrid between American liberalism and the American left.
Classical liberals emphasize the importance of preserving individual freedom and property rights in society. They favor the operation of free-market capitalism with minimal government regulations. They believe that a limited government enhances both individual freedom and the common good. Classical liberalism is similar to what we call libertarianism today, generally on the right of the American political spectrum.
The American left is generally critical of free-market capitalism. The left emphasizes the importance of pursuing equality in society and seeks fundamental transformations of the American economy along the lines of the mixed-market social democracies found in some Northern European nations. Rather than replacing capitalism, they support vigorous government interventions that provide more economic power to average people in order to directly reduce inequality. They advocate for higher taxes on the rich and corporations, more worker protections, a stronger labor movement, more consumer protections, more environmental protections, more public investments in infrastructure, and more generous government benefits (free college education, single-payer health care, a stronger safety net).
American liberals exist between classical liberals and the American left, roughly in the center-left of the political spectrum. They accept the basic economic framework of capitalism, but they believe that government has an important role to play in regulating capitalism to soften its sharp edges. They emphasize the importance of pursuing equality while protecting individual freedoms as much as possible. Their pursuit of equality, however, is generally more indirect than the American left. They are more likely to pursue equality of opportunity than equality of results. Liberals generally support government interventions that 1) save capitalism from its own self-destructive tendencies (the Great Depression, the Great Recession) 2) provide more opportunities for individuals to become upwardly mobile within the capitalist market (public schools, DEI initiatives) and 3) support programs that minimize the social and economic harms from capitalist competition (the minimum wage, SNAP benefits, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, environmental regulations).
Now to KevinW’s question:
If we can both fundamentally agree that society has obligations to help those in need and to promote the general welfare above and beyond providing a legal framework then at what point is that responsibility best placed on the government to enforce via penalties and all the other forces of power as opposed to left to the people to decide how much they are willing and able to contribute? Even if those contributions are highly personal or local. Obviously the answer lies in the middle, but my conservative friends would argue that the power of government coercion is best left as a last resort rather than in the first instance.
Let me begin by grounding my answer in the founding documents of the United States. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson revises classical liberal John Locke’s words to write that “all men (sic) are created equal” and that they have “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Jefferson replaces Locke’s right to “property” with the right to the “pursuit of happiness.”) In order to preserve these rights, the Declaration proclaims that our government should derive legitimacy democratically “from the consent of the governed.”
The Preamble to the Constitution is also inspirational to American liberals in that it aspires to:
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…
The Constitution imagines a government that establishes justice, peace, national defense, the common good, and freedom not just for those alive, but for future generations! The generativity of the document signals to American liberals the importance of a government that looks beyond the interests of individuals in the moment by seeking to protect our common interests and freedoms in the future.
Since your question about government “coercion” is rather general, I’m going to make some assumptions about specific examples. The sorts of things I think you are referring to include the enforcement of laws, the collection of taxes, compulsory education, the regulation of the economy, the protection of the environment, public health measures, and the defense of the nation (particularly if the draft is reinstated).
As a citizen of this country, I have entered a social contract and given my consent for the government to “coerce” me into obeying the law, paying taxes, getting an education, etc. Without going into each instance of government “coercion,” I would say there are a few principles from an American liberal perspective that guide us in balancing government interventions with individual freedom:
1) Questions about the balance between state power and individual freedom should be decided through free and open political debate in a democratic system that elects representatives to pass laws and policies and regularly assesses the effectiveness of those laws and policies. American liberals support mechanisms to protect the freedom of all citizens to influence these political decisions (mechanisms like the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, ranked-choice voting, and independent redistricting commissions).
2) The separation of powers in the American government is designed to ensure that citizens are represented in the creation of laws and policies, that the administrative apparatus exists to effectively enforce these laws and policies in good faith, and that the judicial system fairly reviews the Constitutionality of these laws and policies. American liberals believe that the system only protects our rights and freedoms when each branch respects the autonomy and legitimacy of the others.
3) Where we draw the line between individual rights and government coercion is a moving target. American liberals strive to protect the rights and dignity of individuals without losing sight of the common good (the “general welfare”). While classical liberals believe that leaving individuals to themselves in a market will ultimately serve the common good, American liberals are skeptical that such hands-off individualism will benefit all of society. When we enter the social contract, we surrender some rights in order to preserve other rights and to benefit the “general welfare.” I may not like to pay taxes, go to school, obey the law, get immunized, or get drafted, but I consent to these measures as a citizen who values the common good. But I also reserve the right to democratically oppose, protest, and lobby to change such measures.
Government objectively has a terrible track record when it comes to meeting real needs on the ground without massive administrative waste. And its involvement with fundamental human issues like promoting healthy families, raising children, and promoting perpetually beneficial relationships is historically so fraught with unintended consequences as to be wholly counterproductive by any honest comparison to other mediatory measures.
I will not deny that there is waste in government. And government programs often fall short of promises, run over budget, and have unintended consequences (So too, by the way, do private sector initiatives). But I think, on balance, the American government actually has done a better job than you give it credit for.
American liberals believe that the government can and should intervene in social life to the extent to which it serves the general welfare while protecting, as much as possible, individual rights and freedom. While classical liberals prefer to address social problems through individual behavior in private markets, American liberals prefer public policies that affect social conditions.
It’s not that American liberals don’t believe in the importance of individual freedom. It’s that they believe individuals exist within social contexts that either enable or obstruct their ability to fully exercise their freedom. Rather than assuming government interventions necessarily limit individual freedom, American liberals believe interventions can create social conditions that enable freedom for those whose rights were previously constrained. Therefore, American liberals believe that government should represent not just the aggregated interests of individual citizens but should also advocate for the health of the social environment that transcends parochial individual interests.
Here are some examples of when I think American liberals got it right - when government interventions, albeit imperfect, improved the “general welfare” and enhanced the lives of individual Americans:
Universal compulsory education
We tend to take it for granted, but the creation of the public school system and the requirement that students attend school for 12 years is a remarkable state policy that serves several important functions favored by American liberals - it offers a basic education for students from all socio-economic backgrounds, provides opportunities for students to become upwardly mobile, builds citizenship and community, and offers skills needed in the capitalist economy. Are there problems with public education? Of course. But these problems are not as serious as the problems we’d experience if we did not have a public education system.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal
The Great Depression posed an existential risk to the American economy. While many criticized President Roosevelt as a leftist radical, he was actually the prototype of the modern American liberal - developing programs that not only eased the suffering of individual Americans but, arguably, saved capitalism from itself. The list of liberal accomplishments of the New Deal is long, but include ending child labor, creating the 40-hour work week, establishing a minimum wage, protecting the right of labor to organize, establishing the FDIC and SEC to preserve the safety and stability of the financial system, and, most notably, establishing the Social Security system (unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and retirement funds for workers). Social Security alone keeps 22 million Americans out of poverty today.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
President Johnson’s “war on poverty” may not have vanquished the enemy, but it certainly won a few important battles. The Medicare and Medicaid programs provide health insurance to millions of elderly and low-income Americans, saving lives and keeping millions out of poverty. Believe it or not, Medicare is far more cost efficient than private insurance. President Johnson also oversaw the creation of the Food Stamp Act (easing the hunger of 40 million Americans today), the Head Start program (which has provided a pre-school education to millions of low-income students that has long-term health and education benefits), the Civil Rights Act (outlawing discrimination and ending segregation), and the Voting Rights Act (giving the federal government teeth to enforce the 15th amendment to protect the voting rights of racial minorities).
Was Nixon a liberal?!
Richard Nixon’s presidential administration was responsible for several programs celebrated by American liberals because they prioritize the general welfare of the American people and the health of the natural environment over private economic interests - the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Endangered Species Act.
Obamacare
President Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is a good example of a liberal response to a serious social problem. Millions of Americans could not afford health insurance in the richest country on Earth. The lack of health insurance is bad for individuals, of course, who are more likely to suffer devastating illness and/or go deep into medical debt. But American liberals recognized that a high rate of uninsured Americans is also bad for the “general welfare.”
The ACA reformed the health insurance system in order to provide coverage to as many Americans as possible. While American leftists would have preferred a single-payer government insurance program, the ACA borrowed from previous Republican health care proposals to use the existing private health insurance market as the foundation for several important reforms - providing government subsidies that lowered the cost of health insurance for the uninsured, requiring companies with over 50 employees to offer health insurance coverage, prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage of pre-existing conditions, expanding Medicaid access in many states, requiring coverage of preventative care, and allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26.
In each of these examples, we see how government programs enhance the “general welfare” so that individual Americans can exercise their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without education, health care, democracy, protections against discrimination, an economic safety net, and clean air and water, we all would be much less free and much less happy.
I look forward to comments and future questions. Don’t be shy to Ask a liberal! You can leave a question in the comments or message me directly.