> When *The Argument* launched back in August, founder and Editor-in-Chief Jerusalem Demsas lamented that “Liberals used to stand for things. But now it seems like all we do is stand against them.” Even when we are not speaking of “resistance liberals” defined by their opposition to the Trump administration, discussions of liberalism do often take on a negative quality. In describing two “origin stories” of liberalism, for example, Eric Schliesser singled out mutual toleration and taming state power as the rationales for each. Our own Paul Crider went even further, arguing that the history of liberalism can be framed around the history of its great enemies, with “MAGA, white supremacists, antifeminists, and oligarchs” being our chief enemies today.
> In arguing for liberal democracy and against dictatorship, my own tendency is to emphasize a set of common problems all types of societies face in the modern world and to explain why liberalism offers the most practical tools for addressing them. While one might argue that advocating for liberal rights and representative institutions counts as standing “for things” rather than against them, it is possible to advocate in an entirely “ameliorative, mitigating spirit” as Schliesser put it.
> …
> Nevertheless, liberals have no need to settle for this negative vision. And indeed, even in the early days, when they were overthrowing monarchs and taking the first tentative steps towards the modern conception of human rights, liberals conceived of their success in terms of achieving a specific kind of society. As Jacob Levy put it:
> > A free, democratic, commercial society was thought of as more than simply a state that respected rights of various kinds. It was a society of a particular kind, one characterized by mobility, the rise and fall of elites based on achievement, and a certain fluidity.[1]
> The liberal ideal must never be reduced only to the enshrining of specific rights into law, or merely accomplishing the establishment of rule of law, competitive elections, and universal enfranchisement.
> To put it simply, the liberal ideal must be the achievement and defense of an open society.
1 Comment
> When *The Argument* launched back in August, founder and Editor-in-Chief Jerusalem Demsas lamented that “Liberals used to stand for things. But now it seems like all we do is stand against them.” Even when we are not speaking of “resistance liberals” defined by their opposition to the Trump administration, discussions of liberalism do often take on a negative quality. In describing two “origin stories” of liberalism, for example, Eric Schliesser singled out mutual toleration and taming state power as the rationales for each. Our own Paul Crider went even further, arguing that the history of liberalism can be framed around the history of its great enemies, with “MAGA, white supremacists, antifeminists, and oligarchs” being our chief enemies today.
> In arguing for liberal democracy and against dictatorship, my own tendency is to emphasize a set of common problems all types of societies face in the modern world and to explain why liberalism offers the most practical tools for addressing them. While one might argue that advocating for liberal rights and representative institutions counts as standing “for things” rather than against them, it is possible to advocate in an entirely “ameliorative, mitigating spirit” as Schliesser put it.
> …
> Nevertheless, liberals have no need to settle for this negative vision. And indeed, even in the early days, when they were overthrowing monarchs and taking the first tentative steps towards the modern conception of human rights, liberals conceived of their success in terms of achieving a specific kind of society. As Jacob Levy put it:
> > A free, democratic, commercial society was thought of as more than simply a state that respected rights of various kinds. It was a society of a particular kind, one characterized by mobility, the rise and fall of elites based on achievement, and a certain fluidity.[1]
> The liberal ideal must never be reduced only to the enshrining of specific rights into law, or merely accomplishing the establishment of rule of law, competitive elections, and universal enfranchisement.
> To put it simply, the liberal ideal must be the achievement and defense of an open society.