On 'First Principles' Liberalism vs 'Thick' Liberalism

Why we need both, and need to reconcile them too

Photo by khampha phimmachak on Unsplash

Today, we're going to examine and discuss the article Landmarks in the Evolution of Liberal Thought: Freedom, Plurality, Knowledge by Gal Gerson, published in the journal The European Legacy earlier this year (April 2024). The article basically argues that liberalism can actually be divided into 'individualist' and 'pluralist' variants, and the shift towards the dominance of the pluralist variant is a major reason for the rise of the populist right, and its antagonistic attitude towards knowledge produced by experts. While I ultimately disagree with this argument, I think there are a few valid and important points raised in the article, which could shed light on the crisis in liberalism right now. I will focus on examining Gerson's argument that there are 'individualist' and 'pluralist' variants of liberal philosophy.

The article opens by illustrating that liberalism has many variants, and this is a result of liberal philosophy's historical development 'in response to pressures in many different settings'. I think acknowledging this is important. It is important to respectfully acknowledge that, while we all start from a commitment to freedom, the specifics of how to secure that freedom could vary in different contexts, and different liberal thinkers might also make different value and risk judgements when faced with the same situation. There is no 'perfect' version of liberalism yet, or else most liberals would have gravitated to it already. In libertarian circles, where commitment to individual liberty is held to an even higher standard, there is even less agreement and consensus. It is commonly said that, if you have ten libertarians in a room, you have ten versions of libertarianism. The variation in how liberalism is practiced in different contexts and by different people is basically inevitable.

Gerson first goes into the main, conventionally understood variants of liberalism, i.e. capitalist vs social democratic, and deontological (e.g. Kant) vs utilitarian or consequentialist (e.g. Mill). This is not controversial. He then proposes that there is actually yet another split in the historical development of liberal philosophy: that of individualist vs pluralist. Gerson places most early or classical liberal thinkers, including Locke, Kant, and Mill, on the individualist side of this divide. He then suggests that there exists a different, 'pluralist' version of liberalism, represented early on by Edmund Burke, and later further developed and advanced by 20th century thinkers like Karl Popper, John Rawls, and Michael Sandel. Ultimately, Gerson concludes that the pluralist version of liberalism became dominant in the 20th century, and eventually excluded the individualist version from the liberal discourse effectively.

Let's assume that Gerson is correct here, and that there are 'individualist' and 'pluralist' versions of liberalism. That there is an 'individualist' version of liberalism is logically expected, since liberalism basically upholds individual freedom above all. On the other hand, the existence of a 'pluralist' version is more unexpected, given that a philosophy dedicated to individual freedom doesn't seem as likely to endorse a worldview based around the co-existence of groups and the emphasis of the common good. Therefore, we need to delve deeper into why this 'pluralist' version exists, and how it is indeed justifiable upon the basic idea of individual freedom. Given that, in Gerson's description, Burke is the earliest identified pluralist liberal thinker, that would essentially make him the de-facto founder of this tradition. Firstly, I have to congratulate Gerson for at least recognizing that Burke's philosophy was indeed liberal in nature, and that his thoughts have been a major contributor to the development of liberalism. Ever since people began to consider Burke as the 'father of conservatism', and since 'liberal' and 'conservative' became seen as opposites due to the Anglo-American political landscape, Burke has been effectively kicked out of the liberal cannon by some.

I think the major difference between Burke and more 'individualist' liberal philosophers like Locke and Mill is that Burke was simply more aware of how the real world actually operates. Thinkers like Locke and Mill seemed more concerned with how abstract notions of individual liberty should be derived, defined and applied, while Burke was clearly more interested in the real world consequences of policies, particularly policies with noble intentions but horribly authoritarian unintended consequences. Thus, rather than dividing them into 'individualist' and 'pluralist' camps, I think it would make more sense to argue that Locke and Mill represent a 'first principles' version of liberalism, while Burke and many 20th century thinkers represent a 'real world' version of liberalism or, borrowing from the thin vs thick debate within libertarianism, we might call this a 'thick' version of liberalism. I think it is unsurprising that, in its earlier development stages, liberalism was dominated by thinkers whose line of thought was closer to first principles, but later on, having encountered reality in all its complexity, thick liberalism, which takes into account this complexity, would gradually gain ground. Moreover, as society and the world have gotten more complex over time, liberalism basically became thicker and thicker, to account for this complexity. Thick liberalism clearly has its merits: for example, I have long argued that freedom does not exist in a vacuum, and to promote and maintain freedom, we must make sure that the 'conditions for freedom' are met. Such conditions include obvious ones like commitment to the objective truth, open-mindedness, rejection of tribalism, respect for free speech and freedom of conscience, as well as less obvious ones like universal compassion, a commitment to practical improvement over philosophical obsession, and a culture of active skepticism towards echo chambers and manufactured narratives. From observing real life examples, I have concluded that we cannot expect to sustain a liberal society without actively promoting and upholding the aforementioned conditions.

Don't get me wrong. I am not actually arguing for completely embracing the thick version of liberalism, and relegating the first principles version to history. I have actually long argued that liberalism must stay true to its first principles, and that modern liberalism is lost and astray because it has lost touch with its first principles. Indeed, only in a time when liberalism has forgotten its first principles can there be a phenomenon of self-identified liberals being sympathetic to 'woke' culture rooted in postmodern critical theory, even when such theory is clearly against multiple fundamental pillars of classical liberal thinking, including individual agency and responsibility, colorblindness and neutrality to individuals' immutable characteristics in general, respect for free speech and freedom of conscience, and commitment to the objective truth. I have long argued that the proper liberal response to wokeism is to firmly oppose it, because it clearly violates the first principles of liberalism in a very fundamental way. The case of liberal confusion about what to do with wokeism demonstrates the ongoing need for first principles liberalism, perhaps in conjunction with, and complementary to, the thick version of liberalism that has become much more influential.

In the article, Gerson talks as if nobody is upholding the 'individualist' or first principles version of liberalism anymore. He argues that 'the pluralist turn's outcomes in policies, institutions and public climate do not encounter a liberal or democratic pushback that strives to resurrect Locke or Mill'. He even says that there is a 'monopolization of the language of liberalism' by the 'pluralist' variant to the extent that 'its opponents can draw on no solid terminology with which to express themselves'. This flies in the face of the existence of a movement called libertarianism, and libertarians who certainly don't lack the language to explain their very first principles and very individualist views on liberty. Indeed, my personal commitment to first principles liberalism is why I have long identified as some sort of libertarian, even though I'm a libertarian gradualist, so your typical libertarian immediatist might want to kick me out of the libertarian club (as previously discussed, the boundaries of libertarianism are always heavily contested, because libertarianism is indeed a very individualist movement). As demonstrated by the recent need for an intellectual, philosophically considered case against wokeism, continued development of the theories of first principle liberalism, even if these theories might not be neatly and/or immediately applicable in the real world, is needed to 'keep liberalism liberal', for lack of a better way to phrase it, and to prevent it from being led astray by illiberal philosophical movements that claim to support 'social justice' or some other goal that looks appealing to liberals.

My main problem with libertarian immediatism is that, through the course of the past few decades, it has been heavily bound to the 'capitalist' extreme of the aforementioned economic policy spectrum of liberal philosophy, and also consequently to the political right, particularly the Republican Party in the American context (where most libertarian discourse happens). This has made the movement less attentive to the social side of individual liberty than it should be, and has made it unable to attract people who might be otherwise sympathetic to the cause of freedom. Add in the problem with the 'paleolibertarian' movement, which strives to form an unprincipled alliance with paleoconservatives on the basis of foreign anti-interventionism, and we now have self-identified libertarians who enthusiastically cheer for Trumpism and other forms of right-wing nationalist populism, notwithstanding that these movements tend to support neither social liberty (as in free speech for all, LGBT rights and the pro-choice position) nor economic freedom (tariffs, trade wars and protectionism are objectively a much bigger problem for economic freedom than marginally higher income and/or corporate tax rates). (Again, don't get me wrong, my involvement in politics began with opposing the 2003 Iraq War, and I have been anti-interventionist since then, but I just don't believe that libertarians should form an alliance with paleoconservatives or nationalist populists, because of our fundamental differences in core values.) Meanwhile, it is also clear that libertarian immediatism, as it exists, is much less popular than both the populist right, and also the 'woke' left, which is why the movement remains in such a dismal and vulnerable state at the present (i.e. excommunicated in circles where the woke left is influential, and internally divided and on the verge of being taken over by the populist right).

While the libertarian movement should be commended for trying to uphold first principles liberalism during a time where interest in this essential form of liberalism has been in decline, I believe the movement has been vulnerable to being hijacked by political and economic interests aligned with the political right because of the way it has defined its first principles. The non-aggression principle (NAP), and particularly the mainstream libertarian interpretation and application of it, effectively always leads to the conclusion that smaller government and lower taxation is the only thing that matters for freedom. (Meanwhile, the lack of attention on tariffs and other protectionist practices demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of such an approach, because they can also be shown to violate the NAP in the same way as taxation, but that's another matter.) This is why I have long argued that, perhaps, the NAP is too 'thin' to be the core value of even a first principle version of liberalism. Indeed, historical first principle liberal thinkers like Locke, Kant, Mill, Adam Smith and America's Founding Fathers would clearly not have been satisfied to build their whole politics upon the NAP alone, let alone the crude version of the NAP that has dominated mainstream libertarianism for decades. I suggest that alternative first principles, like the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal Moral Agency (EMA) for every individual that I first proposed several years ago, could be used instead. The choice of different first principles could lead to the development of a more holistic version of first principles liberalism, and make it more able to work in conjunction with, and as a complement to, the more mainstream 'thick' liberalism.

In conclusion, given the analysis I have presented, I believe it wouldn't be fair or holistic to arbitrarily divide liberalism into 'individualist' and 'pluralist' variants. Indeed, it would be unhelpful for upholding and advancing freedom, because it would essentially be labeling more practically orientated liberal philosophies as somehow less liberal, or somehow gone astray from the original intention of liberalism, when such practical adaptation is clearly justified and necessary in the real world. On the other hand, continuing to develop and uphold version(s) of liberalism based mainly on first principles is necessary, to prevent liberalism as a whole from going astray, to the extent of embracing ideas and philosophies which are clearly its opposite. The choice of which first principle(s) to build such liberalism(s) upon is important, because it can lead to different practical outcomes, some of which appear to be a dead end, as demonstrated by where the NAP has led mainstream libertarianism towards in the past few decades. Ideally, the choice of first principle(s) should take into account the many possible forces acting on the field of freedom in a holistic way. A first principle liberalism that fulfills this condition would not be in too much conflict with thick liberalism (at least minus the elements which have clearly gone astray under the influence of illiberal intellectual trends). This means it would be able to act as a complement to guide the direction of development of thick liberalism, as well as provide a constant check to prevent it from going astray and betraying core liberal principles.

---

TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.

She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).