WikiPortallus: Social liberalism.html

Social liberalism, also called new liberalism¹² (as it was originally termed), high liberalism,³ radical liberalism,⁴ modern liberalism,⁵ left-liberalism^{citation needed}, or what North Americans often call "liberalism", are terms that some use to identify their political positions.

Social liberals support heavier regulation of the economy, more state enterprises, and more welfare statism than other liberals, particularly classical liberals. Moreover, social liberals see the accumulation of wealth by a small group as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and perforce a threat to liberty.⁶⁷ Social liberal parties in Europe tend to be centre parties⁸⁹, although there are social liberal parties across the political spectrum.

Origins

In Britain, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and in favor of state intervention in social, economic, and cultural life. The New Liberals, who included John Stuart Mill (who combined elements of the old liberalism and the new), T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.⁸

In their view, the poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong welfare-oriented interventionist state¹⁰.

It was the Liberal governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and then H.H. Asquith in the 1900s that laid the foundations of the welfare state in the UK before the First World War (see Liberal reforms). The comprehensive welfare state built in UK after the Second World War, although work of the Labour Party, was largely designed by two liberals, John Maynard Keynes, who laid the economic foundations, and William Beveridge, who designed the welfare system.⁸

Social liberalism versus classical liberalism

Classical liberalism believes that the provision of negative freedom constitutes liberty and is therefore a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism, however, sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.⁷ They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.²

Classical liberals such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and others reject social liberalism as a true liberalism. For these authors, government has no duty to intervene in society to aid the disadvantaged as this means taking wealth from others (as taxes). They also consider that interfering in the market is destroying freedom and doing this to make people free is self-contradictory.⁸

Social liberalism versus conservative liberalism

Both share the concern with the freedom of the individual, but while social liberalism is appropriate for describing some liberal parties that are left-of-center on economic issues and support a broad interpretation of democratic rights, conservative liberalism emphasizes economic freedom and tends to be right of center. For example, conservative liberal parties, such as the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy and the German Free Democratic Party adopt an economically conservative agenda, advocating a minimal role for the state in the economy.⁴ Some authors, like Merquior, also claim that conservative liberalism is based on the concept of negative liberty - ("where there is no law there is no transgression"), moral pluralism, progress, individualism, and accountable government, while social liberalism focuses both on the illegitimacy of a tyrannical government that uses prerogative power and on the social conditions that make such tyrannical government possible.¹¹

Social liberalism versus neoliberalism

Social liberalism is very different from the ambiguous term neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free markets and also to some conservative opponents of free markets, such as mercantilistic conservatives, in the late 20th century's global economy. Neoliberalism has been used to describe the liberal economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher⁸. As a body of thought, neoliberalism advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by social liberals, especially with regard to the former's commitments to free trade and dismantling of government "social" program¹².

Social liberalism versus social democracy

The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual. Social liberals value liberty, rights, freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the state does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism (especially in democratic socialism), and typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the state itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated or managed for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

In practice, however, the differences between the two may be harder to perceive. This is especially the case nowadays, as many social democratic parties have shifted towards the center and adopted Third Way politics.¹³

Europe

While liberalism spread through Britain and America through the nineteenth century, this didn’t happen in mainland Europe for the most part of the century, where ideas, from left and right, dominated most countries and eliminated liberal forms of government in continental Europe.⁸ Liberalism, however, eventually triumphed later in Western Europe, with the rest of the continent following later. Most post-war governments of Western Europe pursued social liberal economic policies. However, the governments implementing these social liberal policies were not constituted by Liberal parties, despite liberal thinkers playing a major role devising them.⁸

Through most of the nineteenth century in European democracies like Britain, the main political divide was between two big groups: the Conservative parties represented the aristocracy and landed interest and Liberal parties represented the commercial middle classes. However, towards the end of the century, working classes gained greater representation and there was a realignment. Politics started to be polarized on those with property and those without property. Liberals tried to appeal to both groups, while Conservatives and Socialists concentrated on a specific group, absorbing liberal ideas and adopting them from time to time. In countries like Britain and Sweden it was social democratic governments that were responsible for implementing social liberal policies, while in West Germany and Italy it was center-right parties (generally Christian Democrats).⁸

Today in Europe, social liberal parties tend to be small to medium size centre parties.⁸⁹ Examples of relatively successful european social liberal parties, which have been through the years part of government coalitions at the national or regional level are the Liberal Democrats in the U.K., the Democratic Party in Luxemburg, the D66 in the Netherlands and the Danish Social Liberal Party. At the European level, social liberal parties generally are integrated in the ELDR Party, which is the 3rd biggest group at the European Parliament, and aggregates liberal parties (both social liberal parties and conservative liberal parties) from all over Europe.¹⁴

"Social Liberal" has been used as a label by parties in order to differentiate themselves from conservative liberal and classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country.

United States

In the United States, the party system wasn't developed based on strong ideological differences, for example, the Democrats of the South have traditionally been right wing, while northern Democrats are traditionally left wing, although particularly since the 1970s the Democrats in general have tended more to the left and Republicans to the right. Ideologically, all major US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they follow classic liberalism, merging constitutionalism with free markets and centering the differences on the influences of social liberalism.⁸

Presently, the agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be very similar, with both taking a distinctly left-of-center stance on social issues, whilst taking a more centrist stance on economic issues.¹⁶ Since the ideological center of the United States lies further to the right than that of Western Europe, policies considered centrist, or even right-wing, in Europe may be considered left-of-center in the U.S. Universal single-payer health care, for example, is considered a largely centrist policy in Europe but distinctly center-left in the U.S. Social democrats and socialists may also be labeled as "liberal" in the U.S. but constitute only a small minority of the American left. Liberals in the U.S. constitute roughly 19% to 26% of the population and form circa 46% of the Democratic base.¹⁷

Like European social liberals, most modern American liberals advocate cultural pluralism, diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, environmental protection laws and access to abortion.

However, there are also some relevant differences. For example, American liberals tend to be rather divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)¹⁷. Also, while most liberals oppose increased military standing and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the Democratic party still has references to religion and God on its party documents,¹⁸¹⁹ something that goes against the clearly anti-clerical stance of social liberal parties worldwide. Differences can also be found regarding immigration and cultural diversity, which while deemed positive by social liberals worldwide, is handled in a different way by the American liberals with the so called positive discrimination, which would be considered anti-liberal by social-liberal parties, as they would consider it to be an effective form of discrimination.

Modern liberalism in the United States is most commonly embraced by college-educated professionals who have shifted the focus of the Democratic Party.²⁰. American liberals are the most highly educated and among the most affluent ideological demographics. They differ greatly from the traditional working class wing of party¹⁷ In the United States, European-style social liberalism is simply referred to as liberalism. The term social liberalism is also used in the US as a synonym for social progressivism.

Social liberal parties

Notable social liberal thinkers

Social liberalism.html

Contents