briti economics economy history ideology keskerakond liberal liberalism philosophy poliitika politics social socialliberalism systemicpower tele3410 usa whiteman

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (February 2009)

This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (February 2009)

Part of the Politics series on

Liberalism

Development History of liberal thought Contributions to liberal theory

Ideas Political liberalism Political freedom Individualism · Laissez-faire Liberal democracy Liberal neutrality Negative / positive liberty Market economy Mixed economy · Open society Popular sovereignty Rights (individual)

Schools American · Anarchist · Classical Conservative · Cultural Economic · Liberal Libertarianism · Market National · Neoliberalism Ordoliberalism · Paleoliberalism Social · Ultraliberalism

Key figures John Locke · Adam Smith Thomas Malthus Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Thomas Hill Green Alfred Marshall John Maynard Keynes Ludwig von Mises Friedrich von Hayek Milton Friedman · Robert Nozick John Rawls Bertrand Russell

Regional variants Worldwide Europe · United States By country

Organizations Liberal parties Liberal International International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) European Liberal Youth (LYMEC) Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) Africa Liberal Network (ALN) Liberal Network for Latin America (Relial)

Politics portal

v • d • e

Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.^[1][2]

Social liberalism replaced classical liberalism as the dominant ideology in much of the world, from the late nineteenth century onwards, although there was a resurgence of classical liberal ideology in the late 20th century.^[3] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist^[4][5] or centre-left^[6][7][8].

Social liberalism is also called new liberalism^{[nb 1][9]} (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism,^[10] welfare liberalism,^[11] high liberalism,^[12] radical liberalism,^[13] modern liberalism,^[14] revisionist liberalism,^[15] left-liberalism,^[16] or simply liberalism.

Contents 1 Origins 2 Social liberalism versus classical liberalism 3 Social liberalism versus conservative liberalism 4 Social liberalism versus neoliberalism 5 Social liberalism versus social democracy 6 Europe 7 United States 8 Social liberal parties and think-thanks[nb 2] 9 Notable social liberal thinkers[nb 3] 10 Views of social liberals today 11 Further reading 12 Notes 13 References 14 See also

[edit] Origins

In Britain, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and in favor of state intervention in social, economic, and cultural life. The New Liberals, who included John Stuart Mill (who combined elements of the old liberalism and the new), T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.^[4]

In their view, the poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed that these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong welfare-oriented interventionist state^[17].

It was the Liberal governments of Henry Campbell-Bannerman and then H.H. Asquith in the 1900s that laid the foundations of the welfare state in the UK before the First World War (see Liberal reforms). The comprehensive welfare state built in the UK after the Second World War, although work of the Labour Party, was largely designed by two liberals, John Maynard Keynes, who laid the economic foundations, and William Beveridge, who designed the welfare system.^[4]

[edit] Social liberalism versus classical liberalism

Classical liberalism believes that the provision of negative freedom constitutes liberty and is therefore a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism, however, sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.^[2] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.^[9]

Classical liberals such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and others reject social liberalism as a true liberalism. For these authors, government has no duty to intervene in society to aid the disadvantaged as this means taking wealth from others (as taxes). They also consider that interfering in the market is destroying freedom and doing this to make people free is self-contradictory.^[4]

[edit] Social liberalism versus conservative liberalism

Both share the concern with the freedom of the individual, but while social liberalism is appropriate for describing some liberal parties that are left-of-center on economic issues and support a broad interpretation of democratic rights, conservative liberalism emphasizes economic freedom and tends to be right of center. For example, conservative liberal parties, such as the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy and the German Free Democratic Party adopt an economically conservative agenda, advocating a minimal role for the state in the economy.^[13] Some authors, like Merquior, also claim that conservative liberalism is based on the concept of negative liberty - ("where there is no law there is no transgression"), moral pluralism, progress, individualism, and accountable government, while social liberalism focuses both on the illegitimacy of a tyrannical government that uses prerogative power and on the social conditions that make such tyrannical government possible.^[18]

[edit] Social liberalism versus neoliberalism

Social liberalism is very different from the ambiguous term neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free markets and also to some conservative opponents of free markets, such as mercantilistic conservatives, in the late 20th century's global economy. Neoliberalism has been used to describe the liberal economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher^[4]. As a body of thought, neoliberalism advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by social liberals, especially with regard to the former's commitments to free trade and dismantling of government social programs.^[19]

[edit] Social liberalism versus social democracy

The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual. Social liberals value liberty, rights, freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the state does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism (especially in democratic socialism), and typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the state itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated or managed for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

In practice, however, the differences between the two may be harder to perceive. This is especially the case nowadays, as many social democratic parties have shifted towards the center and adopted Third Way politics.^[20]

[edit] Europe

While liberalism spread through Britain and America through the nineteenth century, this didn’t happen in mainland Europe for the most part of the century, where ideas, from left and right, dominated most countries and eliminated liberal forms of government in continental Europe.^[4] Liberalism, however, eventually triumphed later in Western Europe, with the rest of the continent following later. Most post-war governments of Western Europe pursued social liberal economic policies. However, the governments implementing these social liberal policies were not constituted by Liberal parties, despite liberal thinkers playing a major role devising them.^[4]

Through most of the nineteenth century in European democracies like Britain, the main political divide was between two big groups: the Conservative parties represented the aristocracy and landed interest and Liberal parties represented the commercial middle classes. However, towards the end of the century, working classes gained greater representation and there was a realignment. Politics started to be polarized on those with property and those without property. Liberals tried to appeal to both groups, while Conservatives and Socialists concentrated on a specific group, absorbing liberal ideas and adopting them from time to time. In countries like Britain and Sweden it was social democratic governments that were responsible for implementing social liberal policies, while in West Germany and Italy it was center-right parties (generally Christian Democrats).^[4]

Today in Europe, social liberal parties tend to be small to medium size centre parties.^[4][5] Examples of relatively successful European social liberal parties, which have been through the years part of government coalitions at the national or regional level are the Liberal Democrats in the U.K., the Democratic Party in Luxemburg, the D66 in the Netherlands and the Danish Social Liberal Party. At the European level, social liberal parties generally are integrated in the ELDR Party, which is the 3rd biggest group at the European Parliament, and aggregates liberal parties (both social liberal parties and conservative liberal parties) from all over Europe.^[21]

"Social Liberal" has been used as a label by parties in order to differentiate themselves from conservative liberal and classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country.

[edit] United States

In the United States, the party system wasn't developed based on strong ideological differences, for example, the Democrats of the South have traditionally been right wing, while northern Democrats are traditionally left wing, although particularly since the 1970s the Democrats in general have tended more to the left and Republicans to the right. Ideologically, all major US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they follow classic liberalism, merging constitutionalism with free markets and centering the differences on the influences of social liberalism.^[4]

Social liberalism may also refer, as it usually does in North American media, simply to support for educational reform, civil rights, human rights, and civil liberties. In this sense, one could be socially liberal and economically conservative (often referred to as economic liberalism), as is the case with those called variously classical liberals, neoliberals, libertarians, and conservative liberals/liberal conservatives.

Presently, the agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be very similar, with both taking a distinctly left-of-center stance on social issues, whilst taking a more centrist stance on economic issues.^[23] Since the ideological center of the United States lies further to the right than that of Western Europe, policies considered centrist, or even right-wing, in Europe may be considered left-of-center in the U.S. Universal single-payer health care, for example, is considered a largely centrist policy in Europe but distinctly center-left in the U.S. Social democrats and socialists may also be labeled as "liberal" in the U.S. but constitute only a small minority of the American left. Liberals in the U.S. constitute roughly 19% to 26% of the population and form circa 46% of the Democratic base.^[24]

Like European social liberals, most modern American liberals advocate cultural pluralism, diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, environmental protection laws and access to abortion.

However, there are also some relevant differences. For example, American liberals tend to be rather divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)^[24]. Also, while most liberals oppose increased military standing and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the Democratic party still has references to religion and God on its party documents,^[25][26] something that goes against the clearly anti-clerical stance of social liberal parties worldwide. Differences can also be found regarding immigration and cultural diversity, which while deemed positive by social liberals worldwide, is handled in a different way by the American liberals with the so called positive discrimination, which would be considered anti-liberal by social-liberal parties, as they would consider it to be an effective form of discrimination.

[edit] Social liberal parties and think-thanks^{[nb 2]}

• Australia: Australian Democrats^[27]
• Austria: Liberal Forum
• Bulgaria: National Movement for Upsurge and Stability^[28]
• Croatia: Croatian Social Liberal Party^[29]
• Denmark: Danish Social Liberal Party^[13][30][31]
• Estonia: Estonian Centre Party
• Finland: Swedish People's Party^[32]
• France: Left Radical Party
• Lithuania: New Union^[33]
• Luxembourg: Democratic Party^[30]
• Moldova: Moldova Noastră^[29]
• Netherlands: Democrats 66^[13][30]
• Norway: Liberal Party of Norway^[34][35]
• Philippines: Liberal Party^[36]
• Poland: Democratic Party
• Portugal: Movimento Liberal Social
• Russia: Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko"
• Senegal: Senegalese Democratic Party^[37]
• Slovenia: Liberal Democracy of Slovenia^[8]
• Sweden: Centre Party,^[38][39] Liberal People's Party^[39][40]
• Tunisia: Social Liberal Party
• United Kingdom: Liberal Democrats^[13][30][41]

[edit] Notable social liberal thinkers^{[nb 3]}

• Jeremy Bentham^[4] (1748–1832)
• William Beveridge^[4][42] (1879–1963)
• Lujo Brentano^[14] (1844–1931)
• Bernard Bosanquet^[43] (1848–1923)
• Woodrow Wilson^[6] (1856-1924)
• John Dewey^[4][6] (1859–1952)
• Emile Durkheim^[18][44][45] (1858–1917)
• Thomas Hill Green^{[4][14][46][42][43]} (1836–1882)
• John Atkinson Hobson^{[4][46][42][43]} (1858–1940)
• John Stuart Mill^{[4][14][47][48]} (1806–1873)
• Friedrich Naumann^[16][49][50] (1860–1919)
• Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse^{[4][14][46][42][43]} (1864–1929)
• Gerhart von Schulze-Gavernitz^[14] (1864–1943)
• Hans Kelsen^[6] (1881–1973)
• John Maynard Keynes^[4][6][42] (1883–1946)
• Carlo Rosselli^[48] (1899-1937)
• Bertil Ohlin^[51] (1899–1979)
• Piero Gobetti^[48] (1901-1926)
• George Orwell^[6] (1903-1950)
• Guido Calogero^[48] (1904-1986)
• Isaiah Berlin^[6] (1909–1997)
• Norberto Bobbio^[6][48] (1909–2004)
• Miguel Reale^[52][53] (1910–2005)
• John Rawls^{[4][47][54][55]} (1921–2002)
• Don Chipp^[27] (1925–2006)
• Karl-Hermann Flach^[56] (1929–1973)
• Richard Rorty ^[57] (1931–2007)
• Ronald Dworkin^[47][48][55] (* 1931)
• Amartya Sen^[19][58][47] (* 1933)
• José G. Merquior^[6][59] (1941–1991)
• Bruce Ackerman^[47][55] (* 1943)
• Martha Nussbaum^[19] (* 1947)
• Fernando Savater^[19] (* 1947)
• Dirk Verhofstadt^[19] (* 1955)

[edit] Views of social liberals today

• Centrist^[4][5] or centre-left^[6][7][8] views.
• The middle way, rejecting the left's dislike of free enterprise and the right's dislike of social provision.^[4]
• Decentralized decision-making.^[13]
• Internationalism.^[13]
• (In Europe) A federal European Union.^[13]
• Support more rights in areas like abortion, capital punishment, drugs, homosexuality, censorship and euthanasia.^[60][61]

[edit] Further reading

• Green, Thomas Hill (2006), Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, ISBN 1584776145 
• Rawls, John (2005), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0231130899 
• Rawls, John (2005), A Theory of Justice, Harvard: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674017722 
• Simhony, Avital; Weinstein, David (2001), The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521794048 
• Hobson, John Atkinson (2000), The Crisis of Liberalism: New Issues of Democracy, Delaware: Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 1421227819 
• Hobhouse, L. T. (1994), Liberalism and Other Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521437261 
• Merquior, J.G. (1991), Liberalism Old and New, Cambridge: Twayne Publishers, ISBN 0805786279 
• Mill, John Stuart (1989), 'On Liberty' and Other Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521379172 

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Not to be confused with neoliberalism, a very different concept which has a similar name[1]
2. ^ Only liberal social organizations that have an affiliation to a international liberal organization (Liberal International, ELDR, CALD, Africa Liberal Network, RELIAL or European Liberal Forum), are on this list. To be considered social-liberal the organization should consider or present himself a follower of that ideology on some official document (through express declaration or through clear social liberal policies), be considered social liberal by an international liberal organization or be considered so by a political science book or publication. Having "social liberal" on its name or a minority social liberal faction inside the organization is not enough to be considered on the list.
3. ^ Only thinkers considered social liberal by one or more reliable sources, or which declared themselves social liberal publicly, are included here.

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Social liberalism (United States)
• Classical liberalism