The words used in a public debate can influence the outcome of the debate. In political debate, language plays an important role in conveying ideas, forming perceptions, and even determining public opinion. Despite liberalism’s success in expanding freedom and reducing poverty in the 21st century, liberal ideas remain unpopular in many parts of the world. This suggests that the problem may not be with the idea itself, but with the way the idea is communicated.
Language is a powerful tool for shaping thought. However, the rapid evolution of political discourse can blur the significance of terms, and seemingly neutral words can have different meanings depending on the speaker and the audience. This diversity of interpretation makes language an essential battleground for political ideologies, including liberalism.
Problematic concepts: ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘rights’
A prime example of the linguistic problem facing liberals is the evolution of the meaning of the word “freedom.” I like classical liberals. john locke and adam smith They viewed freedom as the absence of coercion, or what Isaiah Berlin called “negative freedom.” However, proponents of “positive liberty” Jean-Jacques Rousseauargues that true freedom requires collective action, sometimes at the expense of individual freedom. This change in meaning is used by opponents of liberalism to create confusion about the nature of freedom.
The concept of “democracy” has also been distorted in recent decades. Originally, democracy referred to a method of majority voting designed to protect individual rights. However, collectivist movements redefined democracy, legitimizing government intervention in almost every aspect of national life, and giving rise to terms like “industrial democracy.” ludwig von mises I remember in him human behavior) This means state control over private enterprises. This redefinition has created confusion about what democracy should be and weakened its ties to individual freedom.
Similarly, the concept of “rights” has changed from a negative interpretation of freedom from interference to a positive interpretation of rights as requiring the provision of goods and services by the state. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the “right to an adequate standard of living,” meaning that individuals have the right to housing, food, and health care provided by others. This shift contradicts the liberal view of rights as protection against coercion and advances a view of rights as guarantees for material goods.
Language manipulation is not a neutral process. It is often the result of deliberate efforts by political groups to impose their ideas on public life. As Hayek, Leoni, and Mises pointed out, collectivists have consistently distorted language to make authoritarian ideas seem compatible with freedom. Today, the same tactics are used to justify policies that restrict individual freedom in the name of democracy and social justice.
So what can liberals do?
To counter these manipulations, liberals must develop strategies to restore the original meanings of key philosophical concepts and create new languages that better convey liberal ideas. One approach is to reject terms and concepts adopted by collectivists, such as ‘social justice’ and ‘welfare state’. These terms need to be redefined in a way that emphasizes the coercive nature of the policies they describe. There can be no social justice or welfare state that is not based on an implicitly violent redistribution of material wealth. However, when liberals take the concept of collectivism for granted, they begin the debate at a disadvantage. Given the opportunity, they must reveal the true meaning of the words.
At the same time, liberals should strive to promote a positive conceptualization of freedom. The concept of freedom must be upheld to show that true freedom is the absence of coercion, not the redistribution of wealth or the imposition of collective will. Liberals also need to create new “liberal-friendly” language to make their ideas more accessible and persuasive to the public. For example, concepts like the English-speaking “right to work” need to permeate Spanish and other languages to frame discussions of worker rights in a way that emphasizes individual freedom and the ability to freely contract. There is.
Rebuilding language for liberalism
The language environment is currently biased against liberalism, but this can be changed. By rejecting the trappings of collectivist language, legitimizing the classical liberal meanings of key concepts, and creating new language that accurately reflects liberal ideas, liberals raise the playing field of public debate. can be made equal. This effort is essential not only for the survival of liberalism but also for protecting individual freedom in the face of increasing state intervention.
Manipulating language has long been a tool of both authoritarian and interventionist regimes, and liberals must be vigilant to protect the meanings of words that are important to their philosophy. In doing so, we can ensure that the principles of freedom remain at the center of political debate, even in a world where language manipulation is increasingly common.
Marcos Falcone is a project manager at Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His work has also appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, and elsewhere. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
