ReImagining Liberty

We're staring down the barrel of a presidential election, one that highlights deep questions about democracy and political participation. If our goal is radically more freedom, how should we think about democracy's place in achieving that, given that the popular will often isn't for more freedom. And if the system, as it exists, is rather far from fully just, how should we approach participating in it? These are questions libertarians, and others, raise frequently, and they're worth taking more seriously than most people do.

When Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Harris took over, we witnessed not just a change in candidate, but a change in rhetoric. Harris's campaign began talking in the language of "freedom" and "liberty." Harris's running mate, Tim Walz, contrasted himself with the meddlesome social conservatism of JD Vance by saying he was for "minding your own business."

For those of us who have long championed a politics of radical liberty, this was met by both enthusiasm and suspicion. Enthusiasm, because it's good for the country to have a major party talking in those terms, especially as the GOP has abandoned anything like a commitment to political and social liberty. Suspicion because, despite all there talk, there are plenty of ways Harris and Walz want the government to get in the way of minding your own business.

This, as it says on the tin, is a show about liberalism. But teasing out what that term means can be challenging. Not just because it's philosophically complex, but because common usage of terms doesn't always conform to rigorous conceptual categories, and even when it does, language evolves.

A liberal society is necessarily an open and diverse one. When people are free to move and free to choose, a country's population and culture will reflect all those differences in tastes, preferences, and ways of living. And that's part of what makes liberalism so great.

But a pluralistic society can be bothersome for those who'd prefer everyone be just like them. And if those sorts get uncomfortable enough with cultural diversity and dynamism, they can turn against liberalism itself.