A political dissidence to celebrate: the defense of the word "liberal"

The proposal by renowned American political philosopher Michael Walzer in The Struggle for Decent Politics (Katz Editores), subtitled On “Liberal” as an Adjective , is as modest in its purpose as it is relevant in this context. As the author clarifies in the preface, this is not an academic book or a program, but rather a reflective exercise undertaken during the pandemic's solitude. The defense of the term “liberal” as an adjective that accompanies and redefines the preceding noun is a critical declaration of principles against all forms of radical identitarianism of liberalism , which in the present times is a perspective as novel as it is refreshing.

In Walzer's own words: "The adjective, as I will attempt to demonstrate, constrains the use of force and fosters pluralism, skepticism, and irony." Thus, the vindication of the term "liberal," so overused, debased, and perverted in recent years, operates for Walzer as a form of defense of a vital attitude and a morality grounded in a pluralist, anti-dogmatic conception of ironic dialogue that can be embraced by very diverse and even opposing nouns. Thus, there can be liberal progressives, liberal socialists, liberal feminists, liberal communitarians, liberal Jews, liberal intellectuals, liberal internationalists, and even liberal nationalists. Each noun defines a distinct core that, however, realized from a shared liberal ethos, can prove to be a viable roadmap in times of extreme ideological fractures.

Walzer explores each of these positions, revealing precisely the specificity of the noun that serves as the basis of political identity, but inflected through the particularity of the adjective liberal, which opportunely grants it a shared sensibility. Thus, a liberal democrat (a progressive in the United States) will defend a state in which power is limited, where communal life is plural and inclusive, and where the right to oppose the government is protected. Similarly, a liberal socialist will maintain an egalitarian position in which workers are protected through unionization and affirmative action is an effective tool for the inclusion of minorities, but with the same emphasis will criticize the totalitarianism, oppression, and lack of civil liberties of communist regimes.

For their part, liberal nationalists, while based on a defining patriotic sentiment and the defense of certain local traditions, do not fall into authoritarian populism or the national exceptionalism that leads to racism or xenophobia. Similarly, liberal communitarians, within which Walzer himself categorizes himself, while valuing the development of social ties and the reciprocity of communal life, do not tyrannically force the surrender of legitimate personal and individual interests for the sake of the "common good." Belonging to a community, in this regard, does not imply that there is a single way to engage with the community identity; that is, there are different ways of being American or Jewish. In the case of liberal feminism , Walzer notes the importance of denouncing sexist violence during the #MeToo movement, but liberal feminists will know how to differentiate between multiple forms of punishment without overlooking the presumption of innocence and the right to defense of every accused citizen. “Informal” punitivism is something that must be evaluated very delicately.

There are "liberals" of different political persuasions, but there are limits: there can be no racists or liberal fascists. For Walzer, we should not confuse capitalism with liberalism, which, despite often being associated, must be clearly differentiated, since the inequalities and coercion toward workers that occur under a capitalist system certainly damage the liberal aspiration for equal freedom and dignity . However, Walzer emphasizes that it is possible for there to be liberal libertarians, and cites the case of Robert Nozick , who genuinely believes in a market economy that must diverge from capitalism ; the latter will be a system resulting from land confiscations, subsidies, and state perks, while the market does not necessarily entail these violent processes. This would be a worthy and truly liberal libertarianism as an antidote to the rise of the radical right, which perceives itself as "libertarian."

Ultimately, emphasizing the adjective "liberal" is an interesting solution amidst so many identitarian "nouns." The adjectives will add their nuance, which in this case is everything: the limits of political power, the defense of individual rights, the pluralism of parties, religions, and nations, the right to oppose and disagree from a skeptical, generous, and ironic perspective. Perhaps Walzer's book seems naive and too contrary in these incandescent and intense times, which is why this dissent should be celebrated.