Calling All First-Order Liberals

Liberalism's unique asymmetry and two-level structure make it unique among political doctrines. We must become more conscious of this pluralism/monomania divide to combat rising authoritarianism

In my responses (1 and 2) to Jonathan Rauch’s defense of liberalism I argued we need to upgrade liberalism, too. I suggested that liberalism needs to be both more radical and more traditional. I resolved this paradox by inviting liberals to be more radical by refusing to settle for majoritarian representation and bureaucratic administration as central governance modes. I also suggested liberalism become more culturally rooted so true liberals become more inured to the doctrine, capable of sharing stickier culture and values. In this reflection, I want to set out an important feature of liberalism.

Liberalism's compelling nature stems from its asymmetry with other doctrines. One can be liberal and conservative or progressive simultaneously, but not vice versa. This sets liberalism apart.

Note on terms: Progressive here just means generally supports social reform or policy changes focusing on wealth equality and environmental protection. Conservative means valuing tradition and stability while prioritizing community and cultural continuity. Liberal means seeks to maximize individual freedom and community self-organization while minimizing coercive authority.

Liberalism has a two-level structure: first-order and second-order.

First-order liberalism is a political framework allowing free self-organization into distinct communities based on individual conceptions of the good. Relationships are consensual under this view. Second-order beliefs can be conservative or progressive, but one remains a first-order liberal if committed to peaceful pluralism and a right of exit from a community.

Another way of looking at first- and second-order, respectively, is:

• How society ought to be organized, according to what rules and institutions;

• The community, cultural niche, or mode of living in which I would like to live.

The basic combination set is:

• First Order: liberal, progressive, conservative

• Second Order: liberal, progressive, conservative

You can be both a first-order liberal and a second-order liberal, progressive, or conservative. But you cannot be a first-order progressive or conservative and also a second-order liberal.

Indeed, another category lurks in the background: authoritarian. A first-order progressive or conservative is also a first-order authoritarian by degree.

First- and second-order liberals should seek common cause with first-order liberals who may be second-order progressives or conservatives. This approach fosters a political consciousness that acknowledges the contrast between liberals and authoritarians, transcending left-right distractions to focus on the critical liberal/authoritarian distinction.

Notable figures exemplify this dynamic:

• Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, and Thomas Sowell are liberal conservatives,

• Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Schellenberger are liberal progressives.

It’s no wonder that these figures are simpatico. They demonstrate the diversity within liberalism's two-level structure and point the way to a bigger tent.

I want to acknowledge briefly that there is such an animal as an authoritarian liberal. Such an animal is one willing to use illiberal means—such as autocratic government—to instantiate a relatively more liberal order for everyone. Lee Kuan Yew and Hans Adam II come to mind. These category challengers are worthy of our consideration.

To upgrade liberalism, though, we must cultivate more consciousness around this two-level framework, recognizing its potential to bridge apparent ideological divides in the face of rapidly advancing authoritarianism.