Of liberals and leftists
The political left has been divided by the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks upon Israel. One part, the more moderate, stands with Israel. The other, the more radical, stands with the terrorists and claims the attacks were justified.
This divergent response has brought into the open what anyone with any knowledge of political theory should already know—that there is a major difference between liberalism, on the one hand, and radical leftism on the other.
Like any ideological framework, liberalism is amenable to modification over time in response to events and the emergence of new issues, but to be a genuine liberal, whether in the “classical” or “New Deal” sense, still requires acceptance of certain defining principles flowing from the Enlightenment and concisely codified in the American founding: representative government, individual liberty, equality (particularly in terms of rights and responsibilities), and the rule of law, often expressed in the form of constitutionalism.
Although differences emerged among liberals in the 20th century over the proper role of government vis-à-vis economics, liberalism has always also supported (and been supported by) a market-based economy and maintained a healthy respect for the institution of private property, on the grounds that a reasonably capacious private sector is necessary to constrain state power, and economic freedom is in practice inseparable from other forms.
Liberalism in the American context consequently has both “right” and “left” factions, to the extent that it includes figures as seemingly diverse as James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. On a more global scale, it historically includes not just American Democrats and Republicans but also the mainstream political parties of left and right found in other liberal democracies, such as the German Christian Democrats, the British Labor Party (at least in its post-Marxist manifestation), and the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party.
By understanding what liberalism is and its various permutations and internal disputes, it becomes easier to identify that which isn’t liberal— Marxism-Leninism (communism) and its various permutations (Maoism, Trotskyism, etc.), fascism (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) and the theocratic Islamism that motivated the Oct. 7 attacks upon Israel and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks upon us.
This is also why, so much of the framing of our contemporary political discourse to the contrary, one doesn’t necessarily become “more liberal” as one moves leftward along the ideological continuum. Indeed, moving too far to the left necessarily means that you have left liberalism far behind, to the point of embracing positions no genuine liberal would countenance (such as endorsing antisemitism and terrorist attacks upon a liberal democratic state like Israel).
Put differently, those folks chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and carrying placards with the slogan “By Any Means Necessary” (presumably including terrorism) should never be confused with liberals or “progressives” (the alternative term for liberal, borrowed from the early 20th century progressive movement, and latched onto by liberals more recently to avoid the opprobrium of being called liberal).
Media depictions suggesting that President Joe Biden is losing support among the “more liberal” factions of the Democratic Party because of his support for Israel therefore get it precisely, spectacularly backwards—it is not the most liberal but the most illiberal factions of the Democratic Party that are most angry because of that support.
Those who understand this but continue to use such labels are dishonest; those who don’t understand this are simply ignorant.
Logically, if one became more “liberal” the further one moved leftward, then Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot would have been among the most prominent liberals of the 20th century, a labeling which is neither accurate nor complementary of liberalism. The totalitarian states that presided over the killing fields of Cambodia, China’s cultural revolution and Stalin’s “dekulakization” campaign would instead and absurdly be characterized as “liberal” states.
In reality, belief systems like communism and Islamism are profoundly hostile to liberalism, to the point of identifying it as the primary historical enemy (hence the virulent Islamist hatred of a liberal democratic Israel).
Few sayings are, consequently, as ridiculous when it comes to liberalism than “no enemies to the left.”
One would think genuine liberals would be aware of this distortion and go to great lengths to combat it, since the association of liberalism with radical leftism prevents the former from identifying its real enemies and disadvantageously links it to the historical atrocities committed by the latter.
More to the point, just as liberals felt a special obligation to lead the struggle against communism during the Cold War, they now need to do the same with respect to the challenge to liberal values posed by communism’s crude ideological successor, intersectionality theory and its various tributaries (cancel culture, identity politics, critical race theory, etc.).
Then again, for those who might prefer a simpler means of differentiating between liberals and radical leftists: Liberals reflexively support the victims of terrorism; radical leftists support the terrorists. Liberals are devoted to the American project; radical leftists hate everything about America.
And, again, communists aren’t more liberal liberals.