Liberalism is a doctrine that protects individual rights and limits the power of the state. It can be either left or right in economic terms. But what’s important is the rule of law as a foundation for a society. Societies need to have common social values.
As a belief in individual freedom as a method and policy in government, as an organizing principle in society and as a way of life for the individual and community, liberalism, however, can lead to the fragmentation of society and of individual energies, possibly culminating in social or even national disintegration and foreign intervention. An excessive degree of individualism is the point where people are actually making up their own values systems or living in close cultural communities where they can’t communicate or interact. The coherence of society and democracy is liable to break down.
For the liberal, the state, if needed at all, is at best a necessary evil, whose only function is to maximize freedoms and protect the individual from those who would deprive the individual from their liberty. This over-emphasis on freedom is at the expense of equality. This concern with the rights of human beings is at the expense of the common good of society.
Liberal economic policy, namely laissez-faire, is outmoded and insufficient in the modern context of interdependence and scarcity of resources; it opens up and could lead to foreign economic control. Because it accommodates many views, liberalism may lead to pacifism and international insecurity. Although liberalism combats conservatism and may foster social issues, it is often guilty of a half-hearted approach.
Liberalism was coined as a term from the Spanish 'Liberales' political party in the early 19th century. The principles of liberalism developed and spread in English language societies during the 19th century. As an idea and philosophy it can be traced back to the Judaeo-Christian-Greek intellectual world, together with the idea of liberty with which it is closely connected.
Before the Second World War, so-called neoliberalism was a fringe economic doctrine, premised on the economic decision-making of the individual to promote their own wellbeing. Pioneering economists Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and later Milton Friedman argued that any infringements of a citizen’s economic liberties were necessarily infringements upon their political liberties as well. As these doctrines moved into the mainstream, political liberties and economic freedoms have blurred together.
There was excess state regulation and state interference in economies that had developed by the 1970s. Neo-liberal politicians like Ronald Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in the UK tried to roll back some of that regulation. They were supported in this by very prominent economists, like Milton Friedman. The problem was that they went too far and attempted to undermine all forms of state activity, even necessary ones, for example, of regulating the financial system. The globalized market economy that resulted increased inequality and led to substantial instability in the global financial system. This, of course, provokes a populist backlash that if evident in the 2020s, both on the left and the right. The social and economic effects of the populist politics are worse in places with the most inequality because of the polarization between a populist left and ultra-conservative right. In other parts of the world, for example northern European countries where social democratic parties have been in power for a long time and have done a lot of redistribution, this kind of unhealthy polarized politics is replaced by a less extreme, more humane, alteration between the center-left and center-right.
Communism is not the enemy; liberalism is the enemy.
Liberalism was popular because it provided a way by which governments could use political power to achieve economic prosperity. Liberals used governmental expenditures to create jobs and promote economic growth. With complex international markets and flexible exchange rates, governmental intervention no longer guarantees these results. Liberalist policies no longer work.
In all its varieties, whether utilitarian, contractarian, or as a theory of rights, liberal political philosophy has failed to establish its fundamental thesis: that liberal democracy is the only form of human government that can be sanctioned by reason and morality. Liberalism has sanctioned the invasion of privacy, the curtailment of freedom of association, and the erosion of contractual liberty. Liberalism is ill-equipped to deal with the new dilemmas of a world in which ancient allegiances and enmities are reviving on a large scale.
There is no real fit between liberalism and democracy. Liberalism and capitalism go together in policies that emphasize freedom and constitutional restraints. By contrast, democracy has worked to increase individual equality at the expense of property rights and local liberties.
The Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity which he thinks of as service cannot without contradicting himself adhere to ideological systems which radically or substantially go against his faith and his concept of man. He cannot adhere to the liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by with drawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of the social organization. (Papal Writings, 14 May 1971).
It is unfortunate that on the new conditions of society a system has been constructed which considers profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius XI as producing "the international imperialism of money". One cannot condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the economy is at the service of man. But if it is true that a type of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the woeful system which accompanied it. On the contrary one must recognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the organization of labour and of industry to what development has accomplished. (Papal Encyclical, Populorum Progressio, 26 Mar 1967).
Liberalism: what naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. (Papal Writings, Libertas, 1888).
Globalization is also arousing fear in broad sectors of the developed countries, especially among their working classes. The uncontrolled expansion of neoliberalism is going to give rise to a new wave of controls. Everywhere the new refrain is to be heard: "the corporations have to be controlled". The apparent dissolution of nation states in the economic sphere, the apparent absence of barriers to capital and its uncontrolled international mobility are beginning to produce multiple reactions that can be observed with increasing frequency throughout the world. The globalization of trade union demonstrations is without doubt a new process that was unknown in the postwar period of national social movements. Pan-European mobilization of industrial workers in defence of levels of employment and standards of living constitute a globalized response to the globalization of the economy and of work. This is the first response to a growing globalization of standards of work, wages, workers, rights and, ultimately, the standardization of economic, social and cultural rights.
Liberalism is historically associated with the idea of individual and civil freedom. It promotes conscience and justice in politics, minorities' rights and civil liberties. Without the motivating force of liberalism, individuals would still be denied basic civil rights.
If liberal society is to be defended it must be better understood as a tough-minded belief in the self-discipline and social order without which freedom cannot prosper. Toleration of others, the acceptance of diversity and a belief in social progress survive best in a society with a framework of strong and widely supported rules. In this sense liberalism is distinct from licence, transient dogmas or intellectual follies. The alternative to liberalism is illiberalism.
It is a revival of that robust and clear-sighted liberalism, once so cognizant of extremist dangers in all their forms, which constitutes the essential condition for restoring a healthier intellectual climate.
Liberalism was presented as an antidote to communism but did not achieve dominance until socialism was mortally wounded. Now that it has an ideological monopoly, everything that deviates from the desired optimum conditions is being blamed on liberalism. It is becoming discredited by its incapacity to deal with intractable problems such as unemployment.
Liberalism is not, or should not be, a philosophy of weak-minded tolerance. It is about managing conflict and challenge in a way that keeps the motors of innovation running. In this century it has seen off fascism and communism. It should be able to cope with a handful of disgruntled skinheads and their misguided followers.