Few political terms have strayed as far from their original meaning as ‘liberal’. Once synonymous with individual liberty, limited government and antagonism towards concentrated power, this ideological label is now associated with a politics of regulation, redistribution and big government. This misleading semantic inversion did not occur overnight, nor by accident. Rather, it is the byproduct of significant ideological and semantic processes.
Classical Liberalism
The term ‘liberal’ traces its roots back to the Latin word ‘liber’, meaning ‘free’. In its traditional form, liberalism is a political ideology hailing from the Age of Enlightenment with a fundamental focus on freedom. Staunch proponents of the ideology included philosophers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume and John Stuart Mill, who argued that human flourishing necessitated protection from arbitrary state power.
This school of ‘classical liberalism’ advocated for freedom of speech, religion and association, private property and free markets, equality before the law and constitutional limits to the actions of the executive. But perhaps most importantly, classical liberalism was non-utopian. It assumed human imperfection, and was accordingly sceptical of centralised power. Similarly, free markets were prized not because they were flawless, but because they necessitated the decentralisation of economic power. The ultimate purpose of the state was to protect these liberties, not to attain some arbitrary goal.
In many ways, classical liberalism is comparable to what is presently labelled as conservatism or libertarianism.
The Progressive Reinterpretation
The semantic shift began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in the United States. The transformative process of industrialisation and urbanisation, as well as mass migration, brought about social dislocations that classical liberalism did not foresee. Progressives held that liberty was meaningless if the people lacked economic security and social mobility.
This period marked the emergence of an entirely different definition of ‘liberal’. Rather than freedom from coercion, liberty was understood as the freedom to accomplish certain ends. Consequently, this resulted in a more active role of the state in regulating industries, redistributing wealth and managing social risks.
Under the New Deal in the 1930s, American liberals fully adopted the interventionist approach of the government. Instead of repudiating classical liberalism, Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that he had amended and ultimately fulfilled it, a significant rhetorical gesture. Economic planning and progressive welfare measures were subsequently introduced in the name of preserving freedom from the ‘abuses’ of capitalism.
Political Strategy
So why exactly did this new progressive ideology retain the same name? The answer is partly linguistic and partly strategic.
Simply put, words carry moral weight. The liberal label has historically been associated with positive connotations, such as tolerance, generosity, enlightenment and progress. By retaining this name, progressives retained the moral capital of its meaning while shifting what the ideology truly represented. As such, those who opposed them were automatically placed on the defensive, branded ‘illiberal’ despite supporting classical liberalism itself.
This is what lexicographers refer to as semantic drift fuelled by power. The tendency of educational institutions, media outlets and political organisations to employ a particular word in a different context invariably results in it becoming the accepted definition, irrespective of the facts.
As the decades passed, the original meaning of classical liberalism became increasingly lost to history. In the United States, support for free markets and limited government no longer constituted being a ‘liberal’, but a ‘conservative’, which itself conveyed an element of resisting change rather than an allegiance to freedom.
Divergence Within the Anglosphere
It is interesting to note that this semantic change was not uniform. Within Europe and the Commonwealth, ‘liberal’ often continues to carry its classical meaning. The liberal parties of Germany and Australia, for example, remain advocates of free markets and individual liberties rather than social democracy.
However, the American use of the term has become the dominant cultural variant and has been proliferated through the media, academia and the internet. Thus, young English speakers are increasingly socialised to simply associate ‘liberal’ with being left-wing.
Such a divergence reveals that this semantic shift was not deterministic but dependent on political events.
Can the Meaning be Reclaimed?
Many have sought to revive the term ‘classical liberalism’ in popular culture, but the need to preface the word with an adjective to retain its original meaning seems to suggest they’re fighting a losing battle.
However, linguistic loss is not necessarily an irretrievable one. The language of politics changes in cycles, and the language of the past may return when confusion becomes unsustainable. A growing distrust of administrative power and a renewed emphasis on free speech may yet cause it to do so.
In the meantime, understanding why the word ‘liberal’ lost its classical meaning is essential. It serves as a reminder that politics is not just about policy, but language itself. Those who control definitions set the scope of the debate.
Read more: The Insight Corner
