Explaining What Classical Liberalism Is to Me
Responding to a Good Friend and Reader Months After He Asked Me a Question
Several months ago, a good friend and subscriber to Exiled Policy texted me with this: “I was wondering if sometime in the near future, you could write about what ‘Classical Liberalism’ actually is, and how it’s been a net positive throughout history? I’ve read other articles on this, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it.” I agreed that it was a good idea. I began writing something in March, and nearly finished it, but hit pause because of work and life. When I’ve been able to post recently, I’ve focused on specific policy issues and not thought pieces.
Recently, though, I signed the
statement of principles. That reminded me that I needed to finish these thoughts. Some may wonder why I signed this because I don’t espouse conservative beliefs on social issues. Well, I signed it for two reasons a) the statement of principles is fundamentally classically liberal and b) with the rise of authoritarianism on the right (Trumpism and national conservatism), I wanted to make it clear where I stand.Since signing that statement of principles, I wanted to finish this post. So, here we are. I don’t get into the benefits to humanity that have come from classical liberalism, although I have worked on something recently that gets into that. The problem is that I have no idea when that will be released, and it’s not something I can share here.
I think it’s best I start with a couple of quick points. I considered myself a libertarian since roughly my late high school years. I still consider myself a libertarian, but the term has become tainted by clowns like the so-called Libertarian Party-affiliated “Mises Caucus” and others who claim to be libertarians. These are people who want to play in the culture wars, peddle conspiracy theories, and be useful idiots for dictators like Vladimir Putin. They claim they’re antiwar while they speak on platforms as Russian flags are waving behind them.
Of course, there are differences between the flexibility of libertarianism and the rigidity of the Libertarian Party. By that, I mean that there are a number of prolife libertarians while the Libertarian Party platform has traditionally opposed government intervention when it comes to abortion. Immigration is another example. While the Libertarian Party platform has traditionally promoted open borders, if you talk to ten libertarians, you may get ten different views, and they’re not all ones with which I agree.
There are plenty of libertarians who believe the Libertarian Party has hurt libertarianism. Like other third parties, the Libertarian Party operates on the fringes, which is why it hasn’t grown substantially. Actually, under the current leadership, I’ve heard the Libertarian Party is hemorrhaging members, donors, and money. Fun times. People who are serious about politics tend to find the Libertarian Party, or any other third party, to be a waste of time and effort even if they don’t regularly agree with Democrats or Republicans. It’s hard to blame them. There’s just not a viable alternative out there right now.
Back to the clowns. I know this is very much inside baseball, but from my perspective, the term “libertarian” has become almost toxic because of the Libertarian Party and unsavory individuals who’ve labeled themselves libertarians. So, in recent years, I’ve taken to describing my politics as “classically liberal.” I know, I know. “Jason, liberalism has a negative connotation in American politics.” I’m aware. I also don’t care. As divided as we are, everything has a negative connotation in different corners of American politics.
Conservatism also has its own problems with the rise of national conservatism, which, I’d argue, is the dominant strain of conservatism that we see today. It’s not just the so-called “MAGA” crowd. National conservatives aren’t as easy to dismiss as a cult. National conservatives tend to have a view of government as a net good when it’s controlled by the “right people,” seem to not have a problem with a robust welfare state and significant government intervention in the economy, promote isolationism, oppose immigration and embrace nativism, and have a heavy, heavy emphasis on Christian dominance. There are loads of problems with this from a sheer policy perspective. The reliance on religion means that national conservatives, as well as the Republican Party, will struggle with the broader public (read: voters) as Christianity declines as people move away from religious faith.
So, what do I mean by classical liberalism? It’s the views that became popularized during the Enlightenment. The great philosophers of this era—David Hume, John Locke, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Cesare Beccaria, and many others—created the foundation of the liberal ideas that free nations across the world have adopted. Liberalism moved us away from monarchies to the rule of law, religious dogma to the separation of church and state, and from serfdom to progress and liberty.
Of course, other thinkers since the Enlightenment have built on the ideas popularized between the 17th and 19th centuries. Those include John Stuart Mill, Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, Karl Popper, and Deirdre McCloskey.
What I mean by classical liberalism is human liberty and sovereignty. People should be free to engage in commerce, with minimal regulation from the government; the free market should be allowed to flourish and trade with other nations should be encouraged to the maximum extent (yes, I guess that makes me a “globalist”); and that people should be allowed to do what they want so long as they don’t harm others.
That said, I also believe that we need a safety net for people who can’t work, that some people will need assistance as they get back on their feet, and government benefits for those who can work should come with work requirements. Further, we, as a society, have an obligation to protect people under the age of majority. I literally don’t care who marries who or what gender someone identifies as. If you’re offended by same-sex marriage or transgender individuals, that’s kind of your problem. No one has the right to dictate who adults can marry. A family nucleus is important, but the family today can look very different than the picture we often have in our heads. I also believe punishments should fit crimes, although no government should have the power to put its citizens to death.
This is what classical liberalism is to me. If you consider yourself a classical liberal and don’t share all of my views but still believe in the gist, I welcome you and hope you welcome me. Classical liberalism is a big tent with many diverse views under it. I know plenty of people who are classical liberals who are Christians or hold more socially conservative views. There are some tough issues that require nuanced approaches, and it doesn’t make me think less of them or question their commitment to a free society if those views don’t align with mine. The general rule, though, is to respect markets and freedom.
Am I absolving the left of its authoritarianism and illiberalism? No. It’s also not my problem. I’m not a progressive. I know progressives who are concerned about the problems on their side. They’re good people who are doing what they can. I come from the political right. (I’m referring to my background.) I feel that I have an obligation to talk about the beam sticking out of my eye rather than the speck in someone else’s.