In recent years, a philosophical and political shift has arisen in the form of postliberalism, challenging the traditional framework of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, the foundation for many democratic societies, aims to protect individual rights, limit government intervention, and allow citizens the freedom to pursue their beliefs within a neutral framework. Postliberalism, by contrast, critiques this perceived neutrality as insufficient for fostering a cohesive society and advocates for a stronger state role in shaping a unified moral vision. Yet, while classical liberalism may be messy, it offers a degree of freedom that shields against the risks of what can become soft totalitarianism under postliberalism.
The problem of true neutrality lies at the heart of this debate. Classical liberalism aspires to create a space where the government does not impose specific moral or cultural beliefs, allowing pluralism within a shared framework of laws and rights. However, complete neutrality is an ideal that is hard to realize in practice. Inevitably, policies reflect the values and beliefs of those who create and enforce them, leading to outcomes that may favor the majority view or the values of those in power. This creates a tension between protecting individual rights and recognizing that laws and policies are rarely, if ever, entirely value-free. Classical liberalism mitigates this challenge by emphasizing freedom of expression, association, and conscience, allowing citizens to voice dissent and promoting a society where multiple beliefs can coexist, even when the values of the majority shape the governing policies.
Postliberalism, however, directly confronts this lack of neutrality by advocating for a state-defined moral and social vision that transcends individual autonomy. Postliberals argue that liberalism’s hands-off approach has led to moral fragmentation, social division, and a loss of community cohesion. In their view, a stable society requires shared values that go beyond individual choice, and the state should play an active role in promoting these values to foster unity. This leads to policies and programs that integrate specific social goals into corporate and private life—whether through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, diversity and inclusion mandates, or socially responsible investing. Unlike classical liberalism’s restrained approach, postliberalism aims to establish a cohesive moral framework where public and private institutions are expected to align with state-endorsed values.
The risks of postliberalism’s approach are significant. By seeking to impose a unified moral vision, postliberalism crosses into what could be described as a form of soft totalitarianism, where conformity to state-endorsed values is incentivized and dissent is quietly discouraged. This top-down enforcement, even when exercised subtly through regulatory pressures or social incentives, limits genuine pluralism and marginalizes alternate perspectives. The result is an environment where conformity becomes essential for full participation in society, and dissenters face exclusion from privileges, resources, or even basic social acceptance.
In contrast, classical liberalism, though imperfectly neutral, preserves a space for diverse beliefs and values to coexist. While the lack of absolute neutrality leads to tension and even conflict, it allows for the messiness of a free society where individuals are not coerced into adopting the state’s chosen beliefs. Classical liberalism respects the role of personal conscience and prioritizes individual freedom over collective conformity. Ultimately, this openness, despite its flaws, protects against the risks of ideological monopoly, making classical liberalism the preferable option for those who value genuine freedom over enforced unity.