The Battle for the soul of Liberalism: “Soft” liberalism vs. “Hard” Liberalism

 The battle for the soul of liberalism involves a battle between two competing conceptions of liberalism. These are a “soft”, “pluralistic”, “agnostic” liberalism and a “hard”, “secular”, “ideological” liberalism. To some extent, this battle for the soul of liberalism is as old as the idea of liberalism. The former (soft liberalism) has its origins in the Anglo-American tradition, with its notion that the role of the state was not to adjudicate between religious dominations, but to facilitate a pluralistic religious culture of Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, and a multiplicity of non-domination Protestants, such as Methodists, Quakers etc. The later (hard liberalism) has its origins in the French Revolution, premised around secular, rational, enlightened ideas. This historic divide is worth exploring, since it is the same basic divide that animates the two different conceptions of liberalism that exist today. The terms and subjects of debate are different from the 18^th century, but the interplays between the two ideologies of liberalism – soft liberalism and hard liberalism – is possibly even more fundamental to understanding politics today than they were even at the time of the American Revolution (War of Independence) and the French Revolution.

 

Let me sketch out these two liberalisms in their historic context. And then, I’ll sketch out their modern variants.

 

Various terms and adjectives could be used alongside “soft” liberalism, pluralist and agnostic are key central tenets, though, of soft liberalism. At its core, soft liberalism does not seek to improve (hu)man, and does not seek to see inside his soul. It does not adjudicate between different versions of the good life. It allows different conceptions of the right way to live and worship to exist alongside each other in a plurality, taking an agnostic view about which one is correct. Therefore, soft liberalism is small state and laissez faire. It is not the role of the state to guide people how to think and live. The state should keep out of peoples’ affairs and lives, where possible, to a maximal extent.

 

Various terms and adjectives could be used alongside the “hard” liberalism that has a distinct secular and ideological bent to it. This conception of liberalism has its origins in the French Revolution, where the Revolutionaries sought to instil their vision, their ideals on to the French people. This is an inverse of the Anglo-American liberalism that did not seek to instil a particular worldview onto its people, and took the notion that the state was not there to improve upon and educate man (humanity). The revolutionaries of France, however, had high ideals and sought to reconstruct both society and man (humanity) in line with the principles of the rational enlightenment. This could be comically absurd, such as the desire to decimalise everything, including replacing the 7 day week with a 10 day week. Crucially, this hard liberalism did not take an agnostic view about the good life, but had an ideological worldview based around rationality and the enlightenment. This is state-led liberalism, where the role of the state is supreme, with a secular ideology that firmly places state above religion. Religion was subordinate to the state, and the role of the state was where possible, to a maximal extent, to work toward the progression of (hu)mankind toward secular, rational, enlightenment ideals.

 

In the intervening 200-250 years since the American Revolution & French Revolution, the division between a “soft” liberalism and a “hard” liberalism has evolved, but remains critical to understanding politics in the 21^st Century. The 19^th Century saw the dividing line between Anglo-American liberalism and French liberalism widen. During this time, state and religion continued to separate in the Anglo-American sphere, as the multiplicity of Christian dominations existed with increasing recognition within their pluralities. At the same time, in France the term “laicite” came to be one of the most central ideas in French society and politics. Laicite translates as secularity, and is a distinct form of secularism that seeks to remove religious involvement from politics and society. In the Anglo-American world, secularism was the separation of state and religion; in France, secularism was the suppression of religion to the state. Laicite secularism is the removal of religious teaching and instruction and symbols from schools, and from wider society. Pluralist secularism is the treating of no particular religion as supreme, where no religion has a right to impose its own version of the good life. 

 

There is both an intranational and international dimension to hard, ideological liberalism. Intranationally, ideological liberalism pursues laicite secularism. This can be in the form of banning the burka, and such things. However, it can also take the form of intolerance to intolerance, and the view that the populous needs to embrace the correct ideas of secular, tolerant liberalism. The aim of hard, ideological liberalism is not to accept a multiplicity of views about a subject, but to work toward the improvement of the people, and educate them in the right views and values. Thus, there is an intolerance to those who do not have the right views, an intolerance of intolerance. Views that do not adhere to the dominant, secular liberal ideology are thus deemed to be suspect, downgraded in terms of legitimacy, and ideally they would not exist. A soft, laissez faire liberalism, however, does not seek to impose its own worldview and secularism on to its citizens. It does not, even, view itself as morally supreme, but merely one of various competing ideas about what the good life entails.

 

Internationally, hard liberalism takes an interventionist approach to international relations; soft liberalism takes a laissez faire approach to international relations. Hard liberalism is dogmatic and has the ideological assurance that others cultures are wrong and must be improved, and should be brought into line with Western ideas and values. At its most extreme, a neocon approach involves the removal of regimes deemed to have the wrong values. Hard liberalism rarely takes overt military force to impose its values on another state. However, the ideological dogmatism of hard liberalism means that it does not view other cultures as legitimate, and the role of liberal states is to guide, even cajole and pressurise, other states towards enlightenment. A soft, laissez faire liberalism does not seek to impose its values onto other states. Such an approach to international relations is still compatible with an end of history that culminates in liberalism, provided that it is tempered by a degree of agnosticism. In other words, it would be possible to conclude that is highly probable that all states would eventually come to resemble liberal states, with the proviso that there is a recognition that the dialectical process of history may not have culminated in liberalism, and that there may be a future beyond the present ideology. This is a slightly idiosyncratic take on soft liberalism. The critique normally levelled at soft liberalism is one of relativism, since soft liberalism does not seek to establish universal values across cultures, and recognises that what is deemed moral in one culture is not a universal moral value across cultures.