When Did “Liberal” Become an Insult
On Thursday, February 16, 2023, the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest virtually hosted Dr. Helena Rosenblatt, Professor of History, French, Political Science, and Biography & Memoir at the City University of New York, Dr. David Greenberg, Professor of History and Journalism & Media Studies at Rutgers University, and Dr. Nicole Hemmer, Professor of History at Vanderbilt University. The three panelists reflected on the emergence and evolving connotation of the word “liberal” within a political science and historical framework. This panel was moderated by Dr. Marc Gallicchio, Villanova University History Professor. Watch the recording here.
Dr. Helena Rosenblatt, Dr. David Greenberg, and Dr. Nicole Hemmer were the three esteemed panelists invited by the Albert Lepage Center to discuss the weaponization of the word “liberal.” In the highly polarized political atmosphere of the United States, the term “liberal” has become an effortless insult to some. However, as Dr. Helena Rosenblatt established, the unfavorable undertone to the word “liberal” is nothing new.
Dr. Rosenblatt began the discussion of the historical context of the term “liberal” by liberal” by sharing that “liberal” was coined in 1813 during the French Revolution. Although a revolution which fought for freedom, “liberalité,” the term “liberal” from the onset materialized as a vilified distinction of those fighting for revolution. The French Revolution marked a political shift in the use of “liberal” as it came to represent a political faction in opposition to monarchists who discriminated and slandered liberals in public writing. Dr. Rosenblatt added that this politicized movement pervaded into socialized ideas as well, such as George Washington declaring the United States “liberal,” expanding the word to describe an institutionalized society, as well as individuals. Therefore, the political discourse surrounding the word “liberal” continued its association with a singular position amongst two groups.
The politics of being labeled “liberal” in turn relate to the economic interests of a country, society, or individual. Dr. Greenberg expanded upon Dr. Rosenblatt’s claims about the politics of the word “liberal” by focusing on the paradox of postwar American liberalism. While the U.S. had a mixed economy with capitalistic and socialistic elements, as well as “a welfare state with a strong sense of social provisions” established earlier in the 20th century, “liberalism” was attacked by both the political left and right in the United States during the 1960s through the emerging New Left and robust Conservative movement. Dr. Greenberg asserted that America’s economy and structure is a combination of liberal economic and social components, the latter of which have evolved to include ideas like the state guaranteeing civil rights, for instance, rather than a fixed capitalist society. This definition of a Democratic Party places an emphasis on the virtuousness of liberalism, rather than the freedom of economic markets. Moreover, the aforementioned capitalist phenomenon has materialized in the current political system, due to a grander focus on economic markets and how these markets affect political ideology. While Richard Nixon’s two-term presidency reaffirmed the division between American conservatives and liberals in the 1970s, with Nixon’s administration preferring to use the term “radical liberal” to differentiate from his political opponents and whatever concessions they made toward the New Left. Moreover, during George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign, the word “liberal” became synonymous with the “cultural elite” who were out of touch with the average citizen.” Therefore, Dr. Greenberg stated, President Clinton’s subsequent presidency favored the word “progressive” to avoid negative connotation and reaffirm the very principles of freedom and unity that America was founded on; coalescing forces based upon commonalities, rather than highlighting differences.
Drawing on America’s stance on liberalism, as well as Dr. Rosenblatt’s position on the weaponization of the word “liberal,” Dr. Hemmer stated that post- Cold War conservatives relied on attacks on liberal ideology to maintain their political coalition. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Republican Party was conservative in name, yet seemingly liberal in action with less restrictive immigration and free trade policies. Thus, Reagan’s presidency unified liberals and conservatives against the greater enemies, communism and the Soviet Union. However, the fall of the Soviet Union also produced a return to partisan politics in America. Capitalist democracy had unified Americans against Soviet communism, but with the collapse of this ideological enemy, politics in the United States shifted to create a new opponent. Redefining core tenants of democracy and freedom, the two principal political parties in the United States aimed to be the most unlike the communists. Viewed as a step towards socialism and then communism, being “liberal” risked being ideologically close to Soviet communism. Thus, the word “liberal” became a hostile mode of partition in the United States. Dr. Hemmer states that it is for this reason that “liberal” once more became an insult and the target of attacks on TV, the printed news, and on social media, just as they previously were with attacks by Catholic groups, the pope, and in public writing.
Each panelist offered a unique viewpoint surrounding the evolution and connotation of the word “liberal,” painting a grander picture of the negativity that is and has almost always been associated with the word. Contextualizing the historical framework of the word and insertion of the term into international political discourse, such as the reshaping of American politics following the Cold War, the panel provided examples from the past of the weaponization of the word “liberal.” However, specific instances of this weaponization today need more emphasis. In order to discern the extent of polarization between American political parties, as voters and consumers of news, we must recognize bias in the mere terms that are used to define groups. It is essential to look to past trends to understand how this bias can pervade into other aspects of social and legal life and to acknowledge the manipulation with the ease at which it is linked to groups throughout history.
Therefore, despite being a term that promotes values associated with goodness, such as virtuosity, “liberal” has been used as a form of attack by political and religious groups, to promote shifty agendas and interests. As presented by the panelists, it is the duty of society to regulate media and uphold fair elections in order to maintain the principles of liberalism. Although historically differentiated from liberalism, which was a principle fought for in the French Revolution, “liberal”should respectively be reclaimed as a beacon of a just political system. Thus, it is our societal responsibility of society to consider why the word “liberal” has had such fraught credibility for so long.
