I am hearing a lot of talk these days about how—along with charts and graphs showing that—the Democrats have become more leftwing over time, while the Republicans have become more rightwing, hence the increasingly polarization of the political landscape, with the poles identified as “liberal” and “conservative” respectively.
But the reality is that Democrats have not become more liberal. On the contrary, they have become profoundly illiberal, which is to say that they have become progressive, the projection of authoritarianism inherent in corporate statism. At the same time, Republicans—albeit not the establishment McConnell types—have become more liberal. Trump is now allied with liberals— Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk.
How it’s possible to substitute the good name of liberalism for the term progressive is their repetitive pairing by New Deal Democrats in a propaganda campaign designed to dress big intrusive government in the rhetoric of civil rights. But it’s a lie. Put simply, it is an instantiation of type of linguistic trick George Orwell identified in his writings. If we fall for it, the trick robs liberals of the term that describes their beliefs.
Ironically, “conservative” has become something of the substitute term for liberal ideas. Not merely a substitute, I hasten to clarify, but a fusion of ideas and principles drawn from both standpoints. Thus, what is often framed as the liberal-conservative dynamic is revealed as the progressive-conservative oppositional, with liberalism switching from left to right. The principled liberal, therefore, has to switch sides, even if the left-right continuum makes little sense anymore.
Orwell warned about the dangers of imprecise or manipulative language as a tool of propaganda in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” He argued there (and elsewhere) that vague and misleading language is often used by political actors to obscure meaning, mislead the public, and advance agendas without scrutiny. Orwell was particularly concerned with how political language becomes detached from concrete reality, allowing for concepts like “democracy,” “freedom,” and “justice” to be twisted to mean their opposite or nothing at all. In the case of the word “liberal,” current political language has turned it into its opposite—not left to right, as implied above, but libertarian to authoritarian.
In the present context—liberalism used to label both progressive and illiberal tendencies, while conservatism increasingly linked to classical liberalism—the imprecision of terminology serves as propaganda for the corporate state. When language becomes fuzzy, it becomes easier to manipulate public perception. By labeling policies that may be authoritarian or illiberal as “liberal,” those in power obscure the true nature of their designs.
Similarly, by conflating “conservatism” with rigid tradition or resistance to change, the classical liberal principles of individual freedom and limited government associated with those politics are overlooked, even when they are actively promoted by modern conservatives (e.g., Tucker Carlson), something those of us on the (authentic) left should encourage—something corporate state propaganda makes strange to the left. The manufacture of this estrangement is intentional.
I don’t want to speak for ghosts, but I’m confident that Orwell would argue that this trick of language is not accidental but a deliberate attempt to shape thought by controlling the terms of the debate by setting the frame for discourse formation. When political parties or movements co-opt terms like “liberal” or “conservative” to mean whatever is convenient for their narrative, they influence how people think about policy without engaging in substantive debate. Words used this way function as thought-stopping clichés. This is why Orwell emphasized the importance of clear, precise language to ensure that political ideas and debates remain grounded in reality, rather than becoming tools of manipulation.
In the case I’m analyzing in this essay, where the Democratic Party’s increasing authoritarianism or illiberal tendencies are still identified as liberal, and the Republican Party’s shift toward classical liberalism remains obscured by their conservative label, it is instructive to examine how elites manipulate language to obscure economic and political, even moral realities. We can apply Orwell’s critique to show how language is being manipulated to distort public understanding, turning complex political realities into easily digestible but misleading labels, thereby limiting the public’s ability to critically engage with the actual policies and ideologies at play.
* * *
John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, among others of their time, are foundational figures in the development of liberal thought, particularly in the context of classical liberalism. In their writings, they emphasize economic freedom, individual liberty, limited government, and private property, principles that shaped modern Western political philosophy. They expressed the principle that, to be free to act on one’s desire, one must be free from the desires of others. The principle can be expressed this way: human agency is only limited by the rights that inhere in the human animal. Those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Locke, known as the “father of liberalism,” argued for natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, his ideas profoundly influencing the American Revolution. Adam Smith, through his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, championed free markets and the idea of the “invisible hand” guiding economic prosperity. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played crucial roles in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, respectively and promoting limited government and the protection of individual freedoms. Thomas Paine, in works like Common Sense, advocated for democratic governance and human rights, further reinforcing these liberal ideals and inspiring millions to take them up. While their opinions vary, the common thread among them is a commitment to individualism and skepticism of concentrated power, be it in the hands of monopolistic entities, religious institutions, and the state.
Over time, these liberal principles have been incorporated into modern conservative platforms, especially in economic policy. Modern conservatives frequently advocate for free market capitalism, deregulation, and individual responsibility, reflecting the classical liberal emphasis on economic freedom. Thus, modern conservatism, especially in the US, has absorbed many liberal principles, particularly from classical liberalism. This makes it distinct from traditional conservatism, which emphasized hierarchy, social stability, and the preservation of long-standing institutions and norms.
Edmund Burke, often seen as the father of traditional conservatism, emphasized the importance of community, continuity, and moral restraint. In contrast to liberalism’s more optimistic view of human nature and progress, traditional conservatism took a cautious approach to social change, advocating for gradual evolution rather than radical reform. In the modern era, conservatism retains elements of its traditional foundation, such as a focus on law and order, national sovereignty, and moral values, but it also embraces the liberal values of individual autonomy and market-driven economics, which makes it more liberal in comparison to its earlier, more communitarian form (which isn’t to say that communitarianism lacks virtue, but that there is danger in allowing communication sentiment to overwhelm individual liberty—the problem of majoritarianism). This fusion of liberal economic policies with conservative social values is often referred to as “fusionism” and characterizes much of today’s mainstream conservative ideology.
Progressivism and classical liberalism diverge in significant ways, especially when it comes to views on government intervention, the role of markets, and individual freedoms. Classical liberalism operates on the belief that society thrives when individuals are left to pursue their own interests within a framework of rule of law and minimal state interference. Smith’s famous metaphor of the “invisible hand” (which inspired Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection) nicely captures this idea.
Progressivism, on the other hand, advocates for greater government intervention to address social inequalities and to promote collective welfare. Progressives are inclined to describe unregulated markets as inherently unjust, benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the marginalized. They argue that without government intervention economic inequality, environmental degradation, labor exploitation, and systemic discrimination will persist.
This is what they say, anyway. In truth, progressives tell the people that they need big government to protect them from corporate power, but in reality corporations need big government to protect them from the people.
* * *
The Democratic Party has indeed moved further to the left in recent years, if by “left” one means policies associated with progressivism. Meanwhile, as noted above, the Republican Party has largely fused classical liberal principles, particularly around free market capitalism and limited government, with elements of modern conservatism, which emphasizes traditional values, national sovereignty, and skepticism of state overreach in cultural or moral issues.
This development makes the GOP economically liberal in the classical sense, but socially conservative. The modern conservative focuses on issues like family values and national integrity, which align with the party’s traditionalist base. In this sense, I argue that we should describe the Democratic Party as progressive rather than liberal and the Republican Party as a fusion of classical liberalism and modern conservatism. This better captures the complexity of current political ideologies in the United States.
The dynamic I’m describing extends to a range of issues, such as free speech, gun rights, privacy, and religious liberty, where the traditional ideological lines between left and right have shifted. Historically, liberalism emphasized free speech, individual rights, and limited government, aligning with protections for civil liberties like free expression, religious freedom, and privacy. However, in recent years, progressives in the Democratic Party have become more willing to accept restrictions on speech and other rights in the interest of protecting marginalized groups from harm, reducing hate speech, or addressing systemic discrimination. This has created tensions between traditional liberal free speech advocates and progressives who prioritize social justice and equality. This tension cannot be concealed by conflating terms.
On the other side, and frankly I did not see this coming, modern conservatives, particularly within the Republican Party, have taken up the mantle of defending free speech and religious liberty. Indeed, these have become cornerstones of conservative rhetoric, especially as they relate to resisting government intrusion and promoting individual autonomy. For example, conservatives often argue that religious liberty must be protected against perceived overreach from progressive social policies, like anti-discrimination laws or healthcare mandates. To be sure, gun rights are seen as a conservative position, but as a symbol of individual freedom, the right to keep and bear arms expresses the classical liberal belief in the right to self-defense and the necessity of a bulwark against excessive government interference.
Traditionally, liberals were strong defenders of privacy rights, but in recent years, Republicans have voiced concerns about government overreach, especially in areas like mass surveillance and technology, while progressives have embraced the censorship-industrial complex. This development in the Republican Party reflects the classical liberal concern with government intrusion into private life, a stance that has become more associated with modern conservatism, particularly in debates about the national security state and privacy in the digital age. Progressive measures, even when seeking social justice and systemic reform, prioritize collective well-being and social goals over individual liberties. Here authoritarianism arises, especially when restrictions on free speech, personal choices (e.g., in healthcare or education), and religious expression are imposed.
* * *
My analysis thus draws a clear distinction between classical liberalism and progressivism, emphasizing their fundamental differences regarding liberty and the role of government. Insisting on the classical definition of liberalism can indeed help clarify these distinctions, especially in discussions about personal autonomy and the relationship between individuals and the state.
Classical liberalism, with its focus on negative liberty, promotes the idea that freedom is fundamentally about being free from interference by the government or others. This understanding of liberty is grounded in the protection of individual rights, limited government, and personal autonomy. A minimal state allows individuals to pursue their own goals and make choices without coercion, promoting independence and personal responsibility.
In contrast, progressivism, which emphasizes positive liberty, ostensibly seeks to create conditions that enable individuals to realize their potential and improve their social circumstances, presuming that they are unable to accomplish this on their own, thus infantilizing citizens. Positive liberty, as articulated by thinkers like Isaiah Berlin, enables individuals to achieve their potential and pursue their own goals, often necessitating some form of collective action or state intervention to remove barriers to opportunity.
Positive liberty can be viewed as somewhat aligning with socialist ideals, at least in its positivist French sense, which advocate for systemic changes to redistribute power and resources to promote equality in a society run by administrative rule. The ostensive aim is to create conditions that allow individuals to thrive, rather than merely being free from interference; freedom may require not just the absence of constraints, but also the presence of conditions—like education, healthcare, and economic security—that empower individuals, which is certainly true in many respects.
However, even if we were to assume that this aim is rooted in the belief that equality and social justice can enhance individual freedom, law and policy based on these goals necessitates greater government intervention, which in turn restricts freedom of conscience and individual liberty, as the historical record attests to.
The progressive pursuit of social justice—through frameworks like DEI—leads to technocratic control over society, where individual choices are subordinated to collective standards determined by the state or expert managers. Moreover, government intervention leads to increased dependence of citizens on the state, undermining individual initiative and personal autonomy. The effect of Great Society programs on the fate of black urban dwellers testifies to this fact.
To be sure, there is a tension between individual rights and collective welfare. However, by framing social justice initiatives as necessary for promoting equality of outcome, and elevating equality of outcome to a virtue (and misdescribing it as equity), progressive law and policy limit the very freedoms they at least claim they want to enhance. The push for adherence to progressive norms creates an environment where, for example, dissenting opinions are censored or marginalized undermining the foundational liberal commitment to free expression.
Emphasizing the classical definitions of liberalism sharpens the conversation around the implications of progressive policies and their impact on individual liberties. By clearly distinguishing between negative and positive liberty, it becomes easier to critique the potential authoritarian tendencies in progressive thought, especially when these are framed as necessary for achieving social justice.
This distinction clarifies the stakes in contemporary political debates about the role of government, individual rights, and the nature of freedom itself. To wit, if positive liberty becomes synonymous with increased government control, within a democratic restructuring of the mode of production, it risk authoritarian practices, particularly if the state assumes a paternalistic role in determining what constitutes a “good life” or “realization of potential.” This is where the tension between the ideals of positive liberty and individual freedom becomes pronounced.
Thus, while positive liberty can align with socialist ideas about emancipation from oppressive structures, in the corporatist context, it produces dependency on government and reduces personal autonomy.
* * *
An overdeveloped progressivism resembles a form of “soft fascism,” which raises important concerns about the potential for authoritarianism within movements that prioritize collective goals over individual liberties.
As noted, on its extreme forms, progressivism leads to a prioritization of group identity and collective norms over individual rights, where dissenting voices or alternative viewpoints are marginalized or silenced in the name of social cohesion or justice. This development creates an environment where adherence to progressive ideology is enforced, often through social pressure or institutional mandates, rather than through open debate and democratic processes. In this way, the emphasis on social justice morphs into a form of social control that echoes authoritarian tendencies.
By the term “soft fascism” I mean to evoke the idea of an authoritarian regime that maintains the veneer of democracy and individual rights while enforcing conformity through state mechanisms, social norms, or cultural hegemony. In such contexts, individuals may feel compelled to align with progressive ideals or risk censorship, ostracization, shaming, or other forms of coercion and manipulation. This can undermine the foundational liberal principles of free expression, dissent, and personal autonomy.
This is why history is so important to know. Progressivism emerged alongside the rise of corporate power in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which significantly influenced its development and the political landscape in the United States. The interplay between progressivism and corporatism highlights a complex relationship that shaped both movements.
At the same time, progressivism is an expression of corporate statism. As the industrial revolution progressed, large corporations came to dominate the economy. This era was marked by rapid urbanization, the rise of monopolies, and increasing economic inequality. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few corporate elites prompted widespread concerns about the impacts of unregulated capitalism on society. Socialism emerged as a response to these developments. To blunt the socialist challenge to class power, progressivism emerged as an alternative response, advocating for reforms to address the excesses of industrial capitalism and the injustices faced by workers and marginalized groups.
For the sake of the corporate class, progressives sought to mitigate the negative consequences of corporate capitalism through a variety of means, including antitrust laws, limited labor rights, regulatory reforms, and social welfare programs. Progressives created the illusion of a more equitable society by appearing to curb the influence of corporations on politics and advocating for the public interest.
However, these efforts led to an over-reliance on government intervention and regulation, which paved the way for a form of corporatism, where government and corporate interests become intertwined. In this context, corporatism, which refers to a system in which the state, corporations, and other interest groups collaborate to manage the economy and society, became a competing form of government within the constitutional republican form (see my recent essay).
The mechanisms progressives employed—such as regulation and oversight—also create opportunities for corporate influence within government. This has resulted in a situation where government interventions meant to safeguard against corporate abuses strengthened corporate power through regulatory capture, where industries exert significant influence over the very regulations designed to control them.
* * *
As I have done in several other essays, I find history usefully organized by a theoretical framework. Here I will provide a synthesis of a dispute that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, the debate within Marxism between “instrumentalist” and “structuralist” interpretations of the relationship between the base and superstructure. Both sides agreed that the state serves the interests of capitalism, but they differed on the mechanisms and agency behind this.
Instrumentalists, most famously represented by Ralph Miliband, argued that the state is an instrument directly controlled by capitalist interests. In this view, key state actors are often members of the capitalist class or deeply aligned with its interests, so policy outcomes reflect the interests of capitalists. This position emphasizes that the ruling class uses the state to pursue its own economic and political interests, often through lobbying, campaign contributions, and other direct influences. According to instrumentalists, the capitalists don’t necessarily need to conspire, as their shared class position aligns their interests in a way that drives state action in their favor.
In contrast, structuralists, led by Nicos Poulantzas, argued that the state serves capitalist interests, not through direct manipulation by individuals, but because it is structurally organized to reproduce capitalism. Poulantzas contended that the state’s policies align with capitalist interests because of its inherent organization within a capitalist society. According to structuralists, the state maintains the social conditions necessary for capitalism (like law and order and private property rights) as a matter of systemic function rather than collusion. Poulantzas argued that the state does not need direct intervention from capitalists because its very structure compels it to act in ways that stabilize and support capitalist society, even when individual actors are unaware of these dynamics.
Poulantzas was significantly influenced by the work of Louis Althusser, particularly by Althusser’s structural Marxism and ideas around the state, ideology, and class relations. Poulantzas’ work, especially in Political Power and Social Classes and State, Power, Socialism, develops a structuralist theory of the state that resonates with Althusser’s concepts. He uses Althusser’s idea of the “relative autonomy” of the state, arguing that the state is not simply an instrument of the ruling class but has its own structures and functions that maintain the capitalist system by managing class conflicts.
The regulation and control of corporations is certainly part of a corporate strategy to secure hegemony over governance in place of democratic government. Corporations seek to shape regulatory frameworks in ways that ultimately serve their interests, allowing them to exert influence over public policy and governance without directly engaging in democratic processes.
In this view, corporations advocate for regulations that seem beneficial to the public or aimed at protecting consumers and the environment but that also serve to entrench their power and market positions. For instance, regulations that require significant compliance costs can disproportionately impact smaller competitors, consolidating the market power of larger corporations. Moreover, by engaging in the regulatory process, corporations can help craft rules that favor their interests while creating barriers to entry for new or smaller firms, which can limit competition and innovation.
This dynamic leads to what we might call “governance capture,” where corporate interests shape policy decisions, creating an environment where regulatory bodies serve more as facilitators of corporate agendas rather than independent guardians of the public interest.
In this context, the regulation of corporations can become a means of maintaining the status quo, reinforcing existing power structures rather than challenging them. Additionally, the language of regulation and oversight can provide a veneer of legitimacy to corporate actions, framing them as accountable and responsible while diverting attention from deeper systemic issues, such as inequality and the concentration of power. This creates an illusion of democratic governance, where decisions are made under the guise of regulation, but the influence of corporate interests ultimately shapes the outcomes.
The instrumentalist-structuralist debate highlighted crucial questions about agency and class in Marxist theory. Instrumentalists raised the importance of elite control and direct influence over the state, while structuralists emphasized the systemic logic of capitalist societies that shapes state actions. This tension contributed to later debates on hegemony, ideology, and the relative autonomy of the state within capitalist societies, influencing subsequent Marxist theorists, including those exploring Gramscian ideas on consent and coercion in maintaining capitalist order, which I have covered extensively on Freedom and Reason.
Thus, while progressivism emerged in part as a response to the challenges posed by corporate power, its relationship with that power is complex, reflecting a tension between the desire to regulate and control corporations for the public good and the potential for government action to reinforce existing power structures. This dynamic raises important questions about how to balance the need for regulation with the risks of creating a corporatist society, where corporate interests continue to shape policy and governance. It also asks us to consider whether we can restore capitalism to its liberal form, which would make it compatible with republican principles and individual freedoms, on the one hand, or whether the tendency towards authoritarianism is backed into the capitalist mode of production.
* * *
A note is needed here about the populist-nationalist movement led by Trump and its views on tariffs, since neoliberal propagandists have endeavored to portray protectionism as detrimental to economic growth and itself an illiberal intervention. While Locke’s work suggests that he might have been wary of tariffs that interfere with individual rights to trade and market autonomy (his focus on natural rights and the limitations on government power implied skepticism toward state-imposed restrictions on commerce, as tariffs were often perceived), and Smith argued strongly against tariffs and other forms of protectionism, which he saw as violations of the free-market principles, in particular the distorting the natural allocation of resources by encouraging unproductive industries and raising prices, experiencing the disruptive effects of dependence on foreign imports and witnessing the economic instability in the United States, both Jefferson and Madison came to believe that tariffs were necessary to encourage American manufacturing and economic independence. Both sought tariffs to strengthen national economic security. They saw strategic tariffs as promoting self-reliant while still upholding free-market principles in a national context. I agree.
freedom and reason 