October 12, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

In the past few weeks, I have focused on the progressives and conservatives, two groups that have opposite ideologies regarding the social order. This week I will look at those ideologies that lie between those two extremes. First, let’s look at degrees of equality, a key characteristic of political ideologies. I’ll start with the extremes.

Progressives believe in the goal of an egalitarian society where everyone is equal in rights, resources and opportunities. The justification for that goal is a belief that all human beings have an intrinsic moral worth that is equal, a spirit embodied in the Declaration of Independence (Source). Inequality is a defect in the political, social and economic institutions that must be modified or expunged. Progressives thought that the equality promised by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment were intrinsically linked to economic equality, job opportunities, and pay equality.

Conservatives reject this approach. People of many persuasions, religious or secular, cringe at the claim that Mother Teresa and Hitler had the same moral worth. Despite the separation of Church and state in the First Amendment, the principles of the founding generation were built on conflicting religious beliefs. Some Protestant Christian sects believe in predestination, that God has chosen the saved and unsaved. Many Southern Baptists and Presbyterians, numbering almost 16 million in the US, cling to that doctrine (Source, Source). Others within the Protestant tradition are Arminian, believing that people can redeem themselves through faith. Catholics take a more nuanced view that faith, God’s grace, and good works can help a person attain salvation (Source). Each of these religious traditions focuses on the individual rather than the institutional environment.

Edmund Burke was an 18^th century English philosopher, political writer and Parliamentarian who founded modern conservatism. In 1790 he wrote an essay Reflections on the Revolution in France that was highly critical of the overthrow of the aristocracy in the French Revolution. He wrote “all men have equal rights, but not to equal things.” He believed that societies evolved over generations to form a cohesive coalition of many roles occupied by people with different temperaments and talents (Source).

Burke had less faith in reason than Locke and worried about the disruptive force of people’s passions. Ruling institutions must “thwart” the “inclinations of man,” control their wills and subject their passions. Taking a broader perspective, Burke wrote, “In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.” That may seem curious. How is a restraint on me a right? Burke seemed to reason that a restraint placed with equal force on my neighbor may protect me from my neighbor’s passion. This viewpoint is rather utopian for restraints are not implemented equally on each individual. Those inequalities are the systemic defects that the progressives rightly criticize.

At either end of this axis of equality and inequality lie the Progressives and Conservatives. Let’s turn to the ideologies that occupy the middle between these two extremes. To the right of center there are classical liberals and neoconservatives. Neoliberals lie on either side of the center and liberals are to the left. Although neoconservatives do not have liberal in their name they evolved from classical liberalism with some important differences. Let’s start with classical liberalism.

The classical liberal tradition began with John Locke, a 17^th century British philosopher. In Two Treatises of Government, he argued that people had natural rights given to them by God and that a government was bound to respect and protect those rights. Writing at the dawn of the Age of  Enlightenment, Locke argued that reason distinguishes human beings from other animals (Source, p. 20). Reason was God’s gift to each individual to use in the pursuit of happiness and freedom (Source).

Because a person has a property right to their own labor, Locke despised the institution of slavery. In Two Treatises, he wrote “Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation, that it is hardly to be conceived that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it” (Source, p. 7) Behind closed doors in a courthouse in Philadelphia, some of the framers of America’s Constitution reviled slavery as well but could not convince southern slaveowners whose economic self-interest and social status trumped liberal principles.  

The Constitution did not include any protections for the property rights of women either. As the nation prepared to declare independence from Britain in 1776, eleven years before the Constitution, Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, wrote in a letter to her husband, “I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation” (Source. Note: several decades later, Daniel Webster’s dictionaries helped standardize the spelling of many words).

The Constitution is intertwined with both progressive and conservative sentiments regarding equality and inequality. The document was a compromise after much argument. It is no wonder that we continue to argue over this central issue.

Like John Locke, the 18th century philosopher Adam Smith thought that the market helped rational people pursue their self-interest and advocated a limited role for government in the market. In business or in government, men were not angels. In the Wealth of Nations he criticized businessmen  who were prone to price fixing. In government, officials interfered with commerce, granting their allies monopolies on certain markets. In The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, Gary Gerstle (2022) writes that classical liberalism “sought to liberate markets from encumbrances: monarchy, mercantilism, bureaucracy, artificial borders and tariffs.” It wanted to “release the economy from the heavy hand of the state in its various guises” (p. 6).

Although libertarians champion the values and principles of classical liberalism, they disagree on the limits of government’s role in governing individual behavior, economic or otherwise. The accept the principle of equality, but reject the idea that government should take from some and give to others to achieve equality. Ardent libertarians regard such social taxation to be a violation of one’s property rights. Some libertarians advocate an extremely minimalist role for government in society. Others adopt a more practical approach that admits a more expansive role for government in a highly complex society and economy.

This sense of realism is shared with neoconservatives who argue that the role of government is to preserve moral order in a domestic society, and promote democratic principles and institutions around the world. Neoconservatives advocate both soft and hard power to combat the inherent anarchy of the world order. Contrast this darker outlook on human nature with Locke’s view that rational human beings are capable of self-governance.

Gary Gerstle (2022, p. 5) argues that the term liberal describes the version of social democracy that the Roosevelt administration introduced during the 1930s. Some call it modern liberalism to distinguish it from classical liberalism. During FDR’s presidency, the government exerted a far greater force in the market than previous administrations. At a time when 25% of working age people were unemployed and millions had lost their savings, FDR expanded government’s role to achieve more social and economic well-being.

In his first 100 days, FDR signed 99 executive orders to bring some quick relief to a nation suffering during the Great Depression. He did not act alone. In that time, Congress passed almost as many laws (Source), a partnership of the executive and legislative branches. In his second term, Trump has broken that record, signing 143 order in his first 100 days. However, Congress has been little more than a silent partner, quietly acquiescing as the executive assumes much of its legislative power. In the first 100 days, Congress passed only five laws, a stark contrast to the vigorous production of the 1930s Congress (Source).

During the 1960s, modern liberalism evolved to place far more emphasis on equality among members of society. Progressives wanted to use all the power of government to achieve an egalitarian society, a utopia of equality. In the 1970s, neoliberalism arose as a counterforce. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and economist Milton Friedman were right of center, placing little emphasis on economic equality. They believed that the market was the best mechanism to distribute the rewards and risks of individual behavior. They wanted to blend elements of 19^th century classical liberalism with some social supports of 20^th century liberalism like Social Security. Bill Clinton espoused a version of neoliberalism that was left of center with more emphasis on economic equality. His administration coupled government social welfare supports with individual effort and market incentives. In an ironic twist, Gerstle argues, the neoliberals used as much coercion to implement market reforms as the liberals had used to achieve a more equal distribution of economic gains (p. 7).

Our political loyalties may shift with age, sometimes with circumstance. Many of us do not cling to a consistent political ideology on every issue. We may vary our emphasis on some principles. Our priorities and viewpoints change. When I was in my twenties, I was against Social Security. Like so many government programs, it was poorly designed from the start. Until 1960, the combined tax share for both workers and employers was less than 6%. By 1980, the combined tax had doubled to 12% and the program was still running out of money (Source). In my view at that time, retiring workers had paid relatively little and were “milking” the younger generation. We had to keep paying higher Social Security taxes at a time when inflation was more than 10%. Some of us struggled to pay rent and feed our families so that we could pay some stranger’s retirement benefits.

Regardless of ideology, each of us has a unique sense of what is fair. That is true north on our moral compass and we act on that. That needle may sometimes point to the left or right on an issue or a candidate. No matter how pollsters and political analysts categorize our beliefs, we have only one political ideology, the Fair ideology.

////////////

Photo by Tomoe Steineck on Unsplash

Gerstle, G. (2022). The rise and fall of the neoliberal order: America and the world in the free market era. Oxford University Press.