Social liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the Politics series on
Liberalism
Development
Ideas
Schools
Key figures
Regional variants
Organizations
Politics portal
v • d • e

Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), high liberalism[3] radical liberalism,[4] modern liberalism,[5] or in North America and the United Kingdom simply liberalism, is a branch of liberalism which emphasizes individual rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.[6] For social liberals, the lack of education, health, or employment, is seen as an equally large threat to individual freedom as state compulsion and coercion. Additionally, like other liberals, social liberals support (with qualifications) free markets, private entrepreneurship, and a limited state.

Social liberalism may also refer, as it usually does in North American media, simply to support for educational reform, civil rights, human rights, and civil liberties. In this sense, one could be socially liberal and economically conservative (often referred to as economic liberalism), as is the case with those called variously classical liberals, neoliberals, libertarians, and conservative liberals/liberal conservatives. This article deals with the first sense of Social Liberalism as a political ideology that is moderately to the left economically as well as socially, so that it has often been referred to, especially by those on the right, as left-liberalism.[citation needed]

Social liberals support a highly taxed mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided, guaranteed, or regulated public services. For example, some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state providing basic health insurance to the poorest of society, if not all citizens.

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept. They expect legitimate governments to provide a basic level of health, education, and welfare or workfare. These services are expected to be supported by taxation and intended to secure economic opportunities for all, enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good. Social liberals accept some restrictions in economic affairs, such as minimum-wage laws, regulatory bodies, and anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies. Moreover, the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and perforce a threat to liberty.[7][8]

"Social Liberal" has been used as a label by European progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from conservative or classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. However, like many party labels the label "Social Liberal" does not necessarily mean a party bearing it is progressive.

Cultural aspects of social liberalism is also considered cultural liberalism. Cultural liberalism is not concerned with society aspects of social liberalism, such as economy and government services.

Contents

[edit] The birth of social liberalism

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.[9]

The poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible in their view for freedom and individuality to flourish and the New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong welfare-oriented interventionist state[10].

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.[9]

[edit] 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.[8] 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 Nozick, Mises, 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.[9]

[edit] 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-centre 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]

[edit] Social liberalism versus neo-liberalism

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 Thatcher[9]. 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" program[12].

[edit] 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, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) 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 instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated (or at least "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 one version of Third Way politics or another.[13]

[edit] Social Liberalism in 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.[9] 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 where not constituted by Liberal parties, despite liberal thinkers playing a major role devising them.[9]

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).[9]

Today, in Europe, social liberal parties tend to be small to medium size centre parties.[9][14] 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.[15]

[edit] Social Liberalism in the United States

Opinions of liberals in a 2005 Pew Research Center study.
Opinions of liberals in a 2005 Pew Research Center study.[16]
Main articles: Modern American liberalism and Political ideologies in the United States#Liberalism

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.[9]

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.[17] 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.[18]

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 the preservation of abortion rights.

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)[18], while the international social liberals are very strong supporters of free trade.[19] 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,[20][21] something that goes against the clearly anti-clerical stance of social liberal parties worldwide. We can also find differences 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.[22]. American liberals are the most highly educated and among the most affluent ideological demographics. They differ greatly from the traditional working class wing of party[18]

In terms of semantics European social liberalism in the U.S. is simply referred to as liberalism. Social Democracy and Socialism, however, may also be referred to as liberalism since Americans commonly label all ideologies of the center-left and beyond as "liberal".[9] The term "social liberalism" is also used in the US as a synonym for social progressivism.

[edit] Social liberal parties

Some parties which are arguably social liberal may include:

[edit] Social liberal thinkers

Some notable social liberal thinkers are:

[edit] Views of social liberals today

In general, contemporary social liberals support:

[edit] Further reading on social liberalism

[edit] References

  1. ^ Not to be confused with neoliberalism, a very different concept which has a similar name[1]
  2. ^ a b Shaver, Sheila (July 1997). "Liberalism, Gender and Social Policy" (PDF). EconPapers. 
  3. ^ Freeman, S. (2001). Illiberal libertarians: Why libertarianism is not a liberal view. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30(2), 105-151.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h Marks, Gary and Wilson, Carole (July 2000). "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration" (PDF). British Journal of Political Science 30: 433–459. doi:10.1017/S0007123400000181. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 155587939X. 
  6. ^ Nordsieck, Wolfram. "Parties and Elections in Europe". Retrieved on 2008-08-16.
  7. ^ Hobhouse, L. T. (1994). Liberalism and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0521437261. 
  8. ^ a b McGowan, J. (2007). American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Adams, Ian (2001), Political Ideology Today (Politics Today), Manchester: Manchester University Press, ISBN 0719060206 
  10. ^ The Routledge encyclopaedia of philosophy, p.599
  11. ^ Merquior, J.G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers. 0805786279. 
  12. ^ a b c d e Verhofstadt, Dirk, Liberalism is the best Cure for Poverty, <http://www.liberales.be/cgi-bin/en/showframe.pl?essay&verhofstadtucos>. Retrieved on 17 August 2008 
  13. ^ See, for example, "The overlap between social democracy and social liberalism".[2]
  14. ^ Slom, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger. 0275968146. 
  15. ^ Who are the European Liberal Democrats?, ELDR Party, 2007, <http://www.eldr.org/images/upload2/en_all.pdf> 
  16. ^ "Pew Research Center, Spreadsheet, 2005 poll" (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-07-13.
  17. ^ "Judis, B. J. (11 July, 2003). The trouble with Howard Dean. Salon.com.". Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
  18. ^ a b c "Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.". Retrieved on 2007-07-12.
  19. ^ a b Liberal International. "The Liberal Agenda for the 21st Century".
  20. ^ Strong at Home, Respected in the World, Democratic Party, 2004, <http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf> 
  21. ^ The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, Democratic Party, 2005, <http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20060119_charter.pdf> 
  22. ^ "Judis, J. B. & Teixeira, R. (June 19, 2007). Back to the Future. The American Prospect.". Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
  23. ^ a b c d J. Kirchner, Emil (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Avon: Cambridge University Press. 0-521-32394-0. 
  24. ^ a b c d e Cardoso Rosas, João (2008). "Socialismo ou liberalismo social?". DiarioEconomico.com. Retrieved on 2008-05-21.
  25. ^ Seidman, S. (2004). Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  26. ^ a b c "James Hobson". Retrieved on 2008-05-19.
  27. ^ a b c d (1996) Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior. Budapest: Central European University Press. 185866053X. 
  28. ^ Fotopoulos, Takis (10 2004). "Why an Inclusive Democracy? The multidimensional crisis, globalisation and inclusive democracy". The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY 1 (1). Retrieved on 2008-05-21. 

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism"
Personal tools