America’s ‘non-crusaders’ personify the case for classical liberalism

It’s safe to assume that the recently announced presidential debates will, as usual, be largely performative. Even so, throughout the year, ideas will be contested and debated (ad nauseum), as they should be. 

How does one navigate it all when it seems as though every idea — including some that are fundamental to the American experience — is now contested? Ideas, after all, will always have consequences.

As famed economist John Maynard Keynes once insisted, “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else.” 

I suggest focusing on what has stood the test of time in securing freedom, prosperity and flourishing for the greatest number of people, whether those ideas come from the left, right, center or the undetermined.

Society’s aperture for freedom has widened since the Enlightenment, when ancient ideas about science, government and philosophy were challenged, paving the way for innovations in all three. As readers know, the American founders were influenced by and attentive to these changes. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (previously “property” in John Locke’s “Second Treatise”) was reflected in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution embraced the separation of powers explored by Montesquieu.

These ideas, broadly speaking, transcend partisan divisions and define classical liberalism. They also generated the policies and concepts that led to what Deidre McCloskey calls the “Great Enrichment,” reflected in the 3,000 percent increase in real income from the 18th century until today.

Liberalism works across areas of society beyond economic well-being. Economist Emily Chamlee-Wright defines the “four corners of liberalism” as economic, political, cultural and epistemic. 

Political liberalism ensures our freedom to participate in self-governance. Economic liberalism promotes the freedom to innovate, produce and exchange goods and services for our mutual benefit. Epistemic liberalism encourages freedom of thought and expression, as well as respectful exchange of conflicting ideas. And cultural liberalism encourages us to respect the choices of others so long as they don’t violate anyone else’s rights.

It’s a messy process, but this system moved the U.S. from a predominantly agrarian economy to a technologically advanced economy. It transformed a society where self-governance was only available to the privileged to one where all adults are frequently encouraged to participate in our democratic republic. We can practice different faiths and religions, and expressive freedom is not only a right but part of the cultural ethos.

Clearly, ideas do have consequences. To defend these corners of liberalism is to defend progress.

It’s not always easy. Certain challenges persist and new ones emerge. We have not eradicated childhood poverty, prejudice or discrimination (particularly in the criminal justice system). Environmental problems have proven difficult to solve. Unfortunately, we have not cured cancer and some innovations disrupt certain job markets. 

But the progress in our lifetimes has been staggering. Our great-grandparents couldn’t have imagined it.

Sadly, our desire to fix problems pushes our friends from the left and right to crusade to tear the pillars of the freedom project down. Some embrace nativism. Others embrace socialism. A 2019 Gallup survey showed that 43 percent of U.S. adults believed socialism would be a good thing for the country (although a 2022 Pew Research Center report showed modest declines in the appeal). Illiberalism is on the rise across the political spectrum.

Most Americans, though, are not crusaders seeking to undo the foundations of liberal society; they’re what Aurelian Craiutu calls “trimmers.” 

In “Why Not Moderation? Letters to Young Radicals,” Craiutu explains that trimmers — like someone seeking to put something in proper order or to cut it to its appropriate size — “distrust grand schemes and abstract theories and embrace a pragmatic approach that combines the disposition to preserve with the ability to improve.” 

“They are interested above all in maintaining common decency and saving human lives,” he added. 

In collaboration with the State Policy Network, I traveled the country to speak with ordinary citizens about difficult issues. I saw far less crusading than trimming, and they were less polarized than we might imagine.

In many ways, trimming should be the disposition of the liberal. We have the tools that preserve and improve. Rather than accepting the least authoritarian choice, we can question grand technocratic ideas, policy schemes or political utopias, reminding our friends to sustain a healthy skepticism.

The 2024 debates may not be framed around big ideas. Winners will not be judged by traditional debate standards. Each side will declare their team won, and most of it will soon be forgotten. But in this era, major ideas are at stake. Recalling our classical liberal roots can help Americans resist hyperbole and pronouncements about existential crises.

The liberal project is not guaranteed. We must consistently defend it from crusaders and maintain the stance of trimmers.

Benjamin Klutsey is the director of the Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.