Two Kinds of Liberalism
There are two ways that one can be a liberal.
The first is to use the universal freedoms and rights promised by liberalism as a bulwark to protect those at risk. Whether it be based in a belief in fundamental and universal human rights, or a fear1 that one day you yourself might be marginalized (or might be marginalized further, or a fear resulting from being currently marginalized), the effect is the same: It is a liberalism aimed at setting a floor on societal marginalization.
The second is to use the universal freedoms and rights promised by liberalism as a weapon to cement power. In a historical sense, this is the liberalism that was created by white landowning men coming together to create a society for their mutual gain, while subjugating women, Black people, and the poor.2 In the present sense, this liberalism often manifests itself as a liberalism more interested in protecting the ability of bigots to spread their bigotry to large audiences than it is in protecting marginalized people from the violence and chilling effects created by bigotry. Sometimes it is not conscious and intentional, but that is the outcome of this kind of liberalism.
I am a devout liberal. While I adhere to the first kind of liberalism, the second kind of liberalism is very much in play today.
An excellent example is the recent decision by Amazon to refuse to sell books which characterize being LGBTQ+ as a mental illness. Amazon has a very big share of the book market, but Amazon is not a monopoly. If Amazon refuses to host your book, you have a very good shot selling your book elsewhere: Books-A-Million, Barnes & Noble, Walmart, Target… among many smaller, but not insignificant, sellers. Companies make decisions based on what gets people to spend money. If you have written a book that is more likely to harm a company’s bottom line than help it, then you shouldn’t be surprised when they refuse to sell it for you. And Amazon is more known for being brutally interested in its own bottom line than it is for capitulating to political interests.
Compare and contrast with my (admittedly controversial) analysis of the situation where Amazon Web Services dropped Parler. Amazon Web Services is down somewhat close to the foundation of the internet. If you use AWS and they refuse to continue to support you, you will have some difficulties finding an alternative. This is not even remotely similar to the matter of book distribution. There are a lot of book distributors, with varying policies and customer demographics, that are capable of getting your books to a fairly wide audience.
You do not have a political right to book distribution or web hosting. But with regards to the slightly more tricky ethical question, my adherence to the first type of liberalism leads me to this conclusion fairly naturally. The internet is incredibly important, so the risk of more general-service internet companies implementing strict policies are very high. If a website like Rainbow Railroad got shut down because internet companies didn’t want to risk the ire of violently homophobic countries, that would be very, very bad. On the other hand, if Amazon refused to distribute a book I wrote, I’d be peeved, but not much more. There are a lot of other ways to get my message out there.
The second type of liberalism disagrees. It wants to protect Parler’s access to Amazon Web Services and bigots’ ability to distribute their books through Amazon because of some odd notion that the proliferation of views requires that bigotry be given a platform. Little care is given to the reality of the violent they spark and the way that marginalized people’s ability to speak is limited.
I think it is very important to make a distinction between these two kinds of liberalism, for two reasons. The first is to make explicit acknowledgement of the historical role that liberalism has played in injustice. Men idolized as liberal saints were too often quite sexist and racist. Societies held up as early examples of liberalism were, for all their virtues, also systemically oppressive in a way that revolts us now. Attempting to cover up this fact is more likely to cause one’s faith in liberalism to enter a crisis than it is to strengthen it. Once this is acknowledged, we can then begin to see how liberalism can point a way out.
The second reason is to promote clarity. Among those who identify as liberals today, there is a confusing mix of progressives, social justice aficionados, party-line Democrats, centrists interested in maintaining democracy, and remarkably racist “classical liberals.” Acknowledging the diversity under the liberal umbrella allows one to clearly explain how one kind of liberal is better than another.
I don’t know about you, but I like the first kind of liberalism more than the second.
See Judith Shklar on the “liberalism of fear.”
See Carole Pateman on the “sexual contract,” and Charles W. Mills on the “racial contract.”