Increasingly, contemporary liberalism has faced charges from both sides of the political aisle of being “illiberal.” On March 25th, the Illiberalism Studies Program and the Loeb Institute for Religious Freedom at George Washington University hosted Kevin Vallier and Brad Littlejohn to discuss the causes of the shift.
Vallier is a political author and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toledo Institute of American Constitutional Thought and Leadership. Littlejohn is a former fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Director of Programs and Education at American Compass.
Fed by rising polarization, technological shifts, and decreasing social trust, liberalism’s pillars are crumbling as it loses a consensus on Christian principles necessary to support it.
Vallier simplifies liberalism to four secondary, normative principles: equality, freedom, toleration, and harmony of interests. First, liberalism requires belief in principles establishing the equality of all people. Belief in human dignity and the rejection of “natural slaves” is essential.
Even though Americans, myself included, take for granted our freedom and recognition of dignity, Littlejohn reminds the audience that Christian impulses are not necessarily natural impulses. Love of enemies is not our default impulse. In a world without a Creator endowing rights, equality may not be the default either. Thus, declining Christian values among the citizens rejects the belief system that “invented the individual” and instituted equality.
Instead, liberalism has shifted its focus to the autonomous individual while abandoning grounds for finding individuality. Rather than engaging with each other in the world, Littlejohn argued we have shifted largely to screens for political engagement and identity. Hungering for group identities, we have turned from embodied relationships toward echo chambers where all members are indistinguishable. Thus, emphasizing autonomy, our liberalism has morphed into group movements with no grounds to create individuality.
Furthermore, Vallier argued decreasing trust alongside increasing polarization has created the ground for liberalism to collapse. Both sides of the aisle have abandoned toleration and the harmony of interests.
On the left, the breakdown of toleration surfaces most clearly through progressive sexual ethics. Vallier defined toleration as the decision not to engage in legal or social punishment for those with different first principles.
Yet, since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized nationwide homosexual marriage in 2015 with Obergefell v Hodges, those whose morality leads them to object progressive sexual ethics and its effects are “lower status” in the academy, “subject to losing their jobs,” and seeing increasing legal punishment in Europe.
Moreover, the belief that differing interests can exist in harmony is collapsing. From Vallier, the left no longer believes reconciliation is possible within a liberal system. Leftist rhetoric regarding the many “isms” plaguing society has portrayed them as systemic and potentially impossible to eliminate without radical change.
Yet, on the right, toleration and the harmony of interests have also weakened in reaction to the left. Conservative rhetoric portrays the left as citizens who do not love or even hate America. Framed by Vallier, “Why would you tolerate people who can’t be trusted… or why tolerate people who will destroy everything?” Moreover, President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other prominent Republican leaders have publicly abandoned hope in reconciling with the other side.
Both sides view the other as too radical, dangerous, and perhaps strengthening problems that require means beyond the constitutional change of power. If Vallier’s and Littlejohn’s assessments are correct, liberalism and the American experiment demand our immediate attention.
Moving forward, Vallier proposes two solutions: increasing federalism and stigmatizing political bigotry. Increasing choice at the state level would leave states to deal with the consequences of their bad policies. As seen in New York, cities with bad policies will be forced to change or suffer the consequences of its people fleeing to more favorable states. Furthermore, polarization could weaken if the entire nation is not constantly subjected to the imposition of the other’s view.
Additionally, Vallier argued for stigmatizing political bigotry in a similar manner to religious belief. For example, when meeting a Muslim, we are expected to listen to his views without automatically assuming we understand his view. Yet, when meeting a Republican or Democrat, we immediately assume knowledge of their entire worldview. While Vallier did not provide practical steps, this goal could greatly restore the quality of political dialogue.
Yet, Vallier’s practical solutions depend, at least in part, on the restoration of the Christian values that enable liberalism in the first place. We cannot restore liberalism while shunning the Christian values that establish dignity, equality, and individuality.
While much doom and gloom exists lamenting current politics, Vallier and Littlejohn addressed concerns that demand recognition and action. The causes weakening our liberal system will not miraculously disappear and the system is only further jeopardized when separated from the very foundations that created it.
Comment by Nine on April 12, 2025 at 3:03 am
“both sides-ism”
have some courage, for pete’s sake. This both sides nonsense has no dignity.
Comment by Different Steve on April 12, 2025 at 8:47 am
The term “both sides-ism” often refers to the tendency to present two opposing viewpoints as equally valid, even when one side may be significantly more justified or factual than the other. However, there are several points to consider in rebutting the dismissal of this approach:
Complexity of Issues: Many social, political, and ethical issues are complex and multifaceted. Reducing them to a binary perspective can oversimplify the reality. Acknowledging multiple viewpoints can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the situation.
Encouraging Dialogue: Engaging with differing perspectives can foster dialogue and understanding. It can help bridge divides and promote empathy, which is essential in a diverse society. Dismissing one side outright can entrench positions and hinder constructive conversation.
Critical Thinking: Evaluating arguments from both sides encourages critical thinking. It allows individuals to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each position, leading to more informed opinions and decisions.
Avoiding Polarization: In an increasingly polarized environment, “both sides-ism” can serve as a reminder that there are often more than two sides to a story. It can help mitigate extreme partisanship by recognizing that valid points can exist across the spectrum.
Historical Context: History shows that many movements and ideas that were initially dismissed or marginalized later gained recognition and legitimacy. Acknowledging diverse perspectives can prevent the oversight of important voices and ideas.
In conclusion, while it is essential to recognize when one side may be more justified, completely dismissing the concept of “both sides-ism” can overlook the value of dialogue, complexity, and critical engagement with differing viewpoints.
Comment by Nine on April 13, 2025 at 1:27 am
Hogwash! So much progressive nonsense is attempted justification by asserting that complexity exists when things are really very simple. Then they’ll redefine things in the most complicated terms possible, that they don’t understand themselves, and if you can’t make sense of their nonsense then they’ll demand that you accept their folderol as truth. You’re confusing nuance with sewer effluence.
Comment by Different Steve on April 13, 2025 at 10:21 am
The term “both-sidesism” is often used in political discourse to critique the tendency to treat opposing viewpoints as equally valid, especially in the context of media coverage or public debate. While both conservatives and liberals may use the term, it is more commonly associated with liberal critiques of media and political discourse.
Liberals may use “both-sidesism” to argue that the media often gives undue weight to conservative viewpoints, even when those viewpoints may be based on misinformation or lack of evidence. They may feel that this approach can dilute the seriousness of issues like climate change, social justice, or systemic inequality by framing them as merely a matter of opinion.
Conservatives, on the other hand, might use the term to criticize what they perceive as a liberal bias in media or to argue that their viewpoints are not given fair representation. However, the term is less frequently employed in conservative rhetoric compared to its use among liberals.
In summary, while both sides may use the term, it is more likely to be used by liberals as a critique of the perceived tendency to equate differing viewpoints without adequately addressing the validity or evidence behind them.
Here are some specific examples of liberals using the term “both-sidesism” in various contexts:
Media Critique: In a 2017 article for The Atlantic, writer Adam Serwer discusses the dangers of both-sidesism in the context of political reporting, particularly regarding the rise of white nationalism. He argues that media outlets often treat the views of white nationalists as equivalent to those of anti-racist activists, which he critiques as a form of both-sidesism that undermines the seriousness of the threat posed by hate groups.
Social Media Commentary: In a tweet from journalist and commentator Mehdi Hasan, he wrote, “Both-sidesism is a disease in political journalism. When one side is promoting hate and the other is advocating for equality, there is no ‘both sides’ to consider.” This highlights the liberal critique of media practices that equate harmful ideologies with progressive values.
Opinion Pieces: In a 2020 opinion piece for The New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman criticized both-sidesism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that treating the responses of different political leaders as equally valid can lead to disastrous public health outcomes. He stated, “We cannot afford both-sidesism when one side is promoting science and the other is spreading misinformation.”
Podcasts and Discussions: On the podcast “Pod Save America,” hosts frequently discuss the pitfalls of both-sidesism in political discourse. They emphasize that framing issues like climate change or healthcare as having two equal sides can mislead the public about the urgency and reality of these issues.
These examples illustrate how the term “both-sidesism” is used by liberals to critique the tendency to equate opposing viewpoints, especially when one side is seen as promoting harmful or unfounded ideas.
Comment by Randy H on April 15, 2025 at 2:48 pm
The problem with an abundance of federalism was revealed by the Civil Rights era. Many times, the issue wasn’t that federalism forced states to live with bad choices. It was that state governments , along with their voting majorities, were all too happy to INFLICT discriminatory policy choices on some segments of their people—from Black men and women to Christian cake-bakers who didn’t want to serve gay clients—until the courts snd government imposed a national standard.