It seems odd that the term "liberal" has been employed by both left and right as a weak-wristed insult, given the legacy which that strain of politics has given Western democracies - parliamentary supremacy, political reform, universal suffrage, equal rights to women, minorities and religious, social reform and more equitable living standards. On the whole, voters are centrists, veering left or right depending on social influences, and politicians who could regarded as liberal are present across the political spectrum, rather than merely in declared Liberal parties. One could argue that the influence of economic liberalism played no small part in the current recession, but to a large extent those parties were too conservative in their social policies, but parties with a social liberal element, such as the Democrats and various Labour groupings can demonstrate that the term deserves more respect than abuse.

I agree; liberalism isn't always given credit for what it's contributed to progressive thinking.

But on the other hand, there have always been deep problems with political liberalism, especially around the issues of workers' rights and organised labour. This has been the case ever since the term was coined as a political label, in Spain in the mid-19th century: the Spanish working class had in many ways less to fear from the God-and-Country Carlists than from the Liberales, who were, above all, friends to the entrepreneur. These problems are real, and they've never really gone away.

Solihull Liberals exodus to Green continues...

In common U.S. parlance, liberal just means you want to unmake America.

What MOE said. I'm happy to ally myself with liberals on most social issues, but wish they would pay more attention to matters of economic injustice. But as a socialist, I would say that.

But even so, yes, in the U.S. "liberal" really is unfairly maligned, to the extent that up until very recently even actual liberals were afraid to use the term about themselves. (Usually substituting "progressive.")

I guess I'm more of a liberal than a socialist, but I like progressive or perhaps just "decent human being" rather than liberal because I like to think big picture and I know that liberal in Britain and especially Australia actually means not-very-liberal-at-all.

Progressive has a strong history in the U.S. (and a non-partisan one until fairly recently) and doesn't cause as much international confusion, so maybe it's a better word for U.S.-style liberals. It was pathetic, however, the way so many Democrats have panicked at being labeled liberals as conservatives redefined it.

And yet conservatives are ok calling themselves conservative even though the very word gives away that their whole philosophy is "we never did it like that before, so we can't do it that way now."

Is the word "liberal" unfairly maligned?

It depends on what liberalism is on paper and what it has proved historically in practice.

The birth and spread of political liberalism, supposedly wedded to the idea of the diffusion of personal liberty and freedom was accompanied by imperial expansion and the intensification of colonial slavery. If we take the Dutch Republic, Britain from 1688, the USA from 1776 and France from 1789 as our core liberal political orders, slavery and colonial exploitation reached its peak- the form of slavery under the liberal order in the USA post 1776 became more brutal than pre-independence. Slavery had previously not been hereditary and children of slaves could reasonably expect to live a free life.

With the rise of the liberal order permanent chattel slavery became the norm in all of the colonies of the liberal states. It also took on a more racial character based upon white supremacy notions. Colonialism was also a liberal paradox. Liberal Governments committed to ideals of Lockean freedom and self- government rampaged across the globe exploiting and enslaving peoples on an unprecedented scale. Domestically, exploitation of the poor and workers also intensified. In England between 1688 and 1820 the number of offences which carried the death penalty rose from 50 to 250, almost all for offences against private property. The workhouse, the selling of orphans, the brutality of the Industrial Revolution- all creations of the new liberal political order.

So why the paradox? The great Liberal writers, John Locke, J.S Mill and adherents such as Thomas Jefferson hold the key- liberalism is underpinned by a logic of exclusion.

Liberalism historically was predicated upon ‘us’ and ‘them’. Only those morally, economically, racially and intellectually worthy could enjoy the range of freedoms bestowed by the new liberal order. It was vitally important that justifications for the logic of exclusion was widely accepted. Hence John Locke in his second treatise justifies the forcible exploitation and subjugation of the Indian sub-continent on racial grounds as did Jefferson when called for the extermination of native Americans. Mill justified European despotism over barbarians in his key text On Liberty. D

Domestically, you were poor because you were morally deficit. Poverty was not born of circumstance but of lax attitude and morals, therefore you were not deserving of liberty. Oh yes and it is of no coincidence whatsoever that bourgeois liberals were the rich land and factory owners and those not deserving of liberty were the workers of the Industrial Revolution who created Britain's wealth through their exploitation as Marx so keenly observed.

Liberalism defined itself as both the antithesis to absolute monarchy and the proletarian masses. It is interesting to note that the French Revolutionaries of 1789-91 addressed one another in the manner of the elites of the classical Roman Republic and not the Democrats of Athens, the true plebian Democracy.

It is also no coincidence that slavery was abolished by the French Republic only with the rise of the radical plebeian Jacobins in 1793 under Robespierre.

Liberty, liberalism and the freedoms and riches enjoyed from this political philosophy is predicated upon the exclusion and oppression of the unfree, hence the intensification of slavery in the past to the West’s reliance today on cheap goods and commodities from the sweatshops and exploitation of billions across the globe. Today’s liberal capitalist order is still based upon the historical logic of exclusion given to it by its 17th and 18th Century forebears

If Liberalism actually did seek universal liberal values for all, it would completely undermine and destroy the political and economic order upon which it is based. That is the great paradox.

Liberalism is a noble concept on paper, the world actually needs more of this noble conception. The practice of liberalism however predicated upon the logic of exclusion has a dark, ruthless and vicious history based upon capitalist exploitation which even today brutalizes millions.

When did Jefferson call for the "extermination" of the American Indians?

That's oversimplifying his rather complex and contradictory attitude. He wanted to assimilate the Natives into American-European culture, but he thought the ones that didn't conform would ally with France or England and become a problem for the US, so his plan was to either wipe them out or push them further west. Earlier in life, he did a lot of research on Indian languages and had a very romantic (romanticized) view of them.

So yeah, not OK. At all. But not "The Final Solution" either. In a way, Jefferson and his ilk were not exclusive, but inclusive. They wanted to bring in these "others" into the fold of what they saw as proper "civilization."

He referred to his slaves as "his family," meaning that he thought of blacks as intellectually inferior, but he thought that meant that he ought to care for them like children (or dogs, perhaps). That he fathered kids with them just makes that all very complicated, I suppose. But he was a complicated guy. Not easy to pin down on anything.

There's probably something to the argument that becoming more free domestically "liberates" (or even impels) a country to pursue the opposite abroad. Switching to a free polity was enormously empowering. When a people unleashes its collective pent-up virtue, which had hitherto been confined to a small privileged minority, you could look at it as suddenly creating an aristocratic majority. No longer having its own countrymen to feel superior to, but feeling justifiably virtuous, the polity would naturally look down on the rest of the world.

But I don't think that outcome was what liberalism was "predicated on" as you put it. People didn't need Locke or Mill to tell them how to feel about brown people. They were already being exploited, and the economic expansion that accompanied liberalism likely ensured that the exploitation would accelerate.

And I reckon the core values of liberalism are the only thing that could have made the eventual acceptance and inclusion of The Other a realistic possibility, whatever Locke thought about them.

That is correct.

Reed John wrote:


Well of course, I’m restricted by space and time to write an in depth analysis of Jefferson’s contradictory attitudes to Native Americans as part of a potted polemic on the history of Liberalism. Any perceived over simplification on my part regarding Jefferson’s attitude to Native Americans is a result of this for which I apologise. Indeed the subject of Jefferson could take up any number of threads.

Looking in more depth then on what I alluded to in my first post vis a vis Jefferson. In a private letter to Alexander Humboldt dated December 6th 1813, Jefferson pins the blame on the revolt of the Native Americans on the British before stating:



So yes indeed- extermination. Or to be driven out of the USA’s reach. How liberal. And of course there is no degree of meaning in “extermination”. It either is or is not. Indeed you say in your original post that Jefferson believed they had to be wiped out- that’s the same as extermination.

Jefferson’s romantic view of the Native American is of the classic liberal of his time. Almost with an audible heavy sigh of pity Jefferson believes the rude unpolished savage, noble in so many ways, is incapable of integrating or at least resigning himself to accommodation with the forces of progress, which the infant United States represents. Jefferson views this refusal to accommodate as noble and admirable and typical of the Native American but unfortunately nothing can come in the way of progress and with great sorrow, extermination or the driving out of one group is the only logical end in the struggle between two incompatible social systems- the native American will not surrender.

Jefferson’s conception of the Native Americans (which you correctly identify) as noble, unbending and loyal to his tribe, family and way of life is exactly the reason why he believes they should be exterminated or driven outside of the United State’s reach.

On the other hand.

Liberalism's "rights" discourse, though I think quite ontologically shaky really, has shown a remarkable tenacity, and a capacity to spread and metastasize like cancer if, you know, cancer was good. And it's responsible for quite a lot of actually existing progress. More, I suspect, than socialism (though the reasons for that are of course complex).

Brunislaw wrote:


Yes, you are right and I was not arguing otherwise. Liberalism in the abstract sense of the word is an emancipatory creed which has personal freedom and liberty from exploitation at its very core. Indeed in my original post I pointedly said:



My argument is, is that historically the men who styled themselves as the men of liberty and freedom used the creed of liberalism to conduct a myriad of hideous acts upon their fellow man both domestically and abroad. Their conception of Liberalism was a conception of exclusion. Only certain exclusive members of society could enjoy the freedoms of liberty, freedoms and riches which were earned upon the surplus value created and extracted from slavery and exploited workers.

It's similar to those who say that "Marxism and socialism has failed- look at the USSR and the Eastern Bloc". Even the most basic understanding and reading of Marx would show that what was practiced in these countries in the name of Marx was the absolute antithesis of what he believed or argued for.

I think that's very possibly reductive. Jefferson's view of Native Americans may well have been that "of the classic liberal of his time" but that doesn't make it ipso facto a liberal view of Native Americans. It makes him non-universalist in the application of liberal principles, for starters.

I believe the "they" referred to in Jefferson's letter to Humboldt refers to the British and maybe the French. So any Indian tribes that stayed onside with his program of assimilation, if there were any, wouldn't be included in that.

He's good this Geoffrey St de Croix dude innit? Some excellent stuff here.

I guess my main issue with liberalism is that it always tended towards top-down view of politics; of the Great and the Good implementing safeguards and guarantees and Decent, Fair things. At its best, it's been very good, and, as Wyatt says, remarkably robust, but it struggles with 'bottom-up' politics - organised labour being the most obvious example. So when push comes to shove, liberals have often tended to side with the powerful against the powerless. And looking through the parochial prism of British politics, there's a reason why the Liberals were supplanted by Labour as the main anti-Conservative force a century ago; and we've been reminded, forcefully, of the pertinence of those reasons in the past two years.

I guess what I'd say is that the Left puts its aims in peril when it loses sight of principals that you might call Liberal, dislike of overweening authority and in particular of the overweening State being the main one. Liberalism without Leftism, though, is always more or less on the side of the Man.

Aye (though you might want to correct the spelling of "principles" there - an academe-induced slip of the tongue?).

I suppose because the left has been more overtly concerned with the possession, dynamics and brutal realities of power, there has been the risk of abusing said realities when it comes to possess them.