The Division of Liberalism: Classical vs. Reform 

When one hears the term “liberalism”, the political parties that derive their namesake from this term are often the first things that come to mind.  

The political ideology of liberalism as a whole though cannot be solely represented by the views of parties such as the Liberal Party of Canada (some may argue they have very few similarities) but covers a broad spectrum of ideas that have been well-accepted by many people for hundreds of years. 

Classical liberalism was the first strand of liberalism and was really the first real political ideology at all, with the rise of the nation state after the scientific revolution and reformation (Romkey, 2018a). Reform liberalism, one of the other major strands of liberalism, challenged classical liberalism on some of its basic assumptions, as well as its view on the ideal role of the state and the ideal conditions for capitalism (Romkey, 2018c). Both of these ideologies have helped shape the way most Western societies function and many proponents of each ideology exist today.

​Although classical liberalism and reform liberalism have some major differences, they are obviously both liberal ideologies so they have some inherent similarities.  As one may be led to believe by the names of these ideologies, they are both focused on the idea of liberty defined as “being free from restriction or control” (Romkey, 2018b) and having the right and power to “act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing” (Romkey, 2018b).  

The movement of classical liberalism, which started in the mid-1600s, started the popularity of a number of foundational ideas in Western society: the idea of the social contract, giving up sovereignty and some rights to the government in exchange for the social order through “rule of law”, constitutionalism meaning the laws and regulations with universal standards so everyone including those in power are under the rules of law, and democracy, the “shifting location of power” and “determination of the majority”  (Romkey, 2018b).  These ideas were then generally accepted and assumed by the people who were part of the reform liberalism movement starting in the mid-1800s after the industrial revolution (Romkey, 2018c).

Some key differences in classical and reform liberalism emerge from a few of their basic assumptions: their views on human nature, and their views on equality. 

Although both forms of liberalism agree that humans are rational in that we can research, reason, figure things out on our own and make decisions, classical liberalists emphasise that humans are naturally self-interested and competitive implying that if we are simply able to focus on meeting our own interests it will result in a society where everyone’s needs will be fulfilled (Romkey, 2018b). 

Reform liberalists argue that humans are not self-sufficient and we need help or support from others for society to function, even though we can figure things out on our own (Romkey, 2018c). As for equality, again there is some agreement that political equality is part of the definition in that everyone should be equal in terms of the rules of law and status, no one should be born or deemed more important than others and everyone should be given the same opportunity to succeed (Romkey, 2018b).  

Reform liberalists though, would add that equality also includes economic and social equality in that everyone should not only be given the same opportunity to succeed but also the same resources, and the same standards of living, to be able to take advantage of the opportunity. (Romkey, 2018c).

These assumptions provide the basis for each ideology’s opinion on what the ideal role of the state should be.  The social contract is seen to be the origin of the state by both strands of liberalism (Romkey, 2018c) as mentioned. 

With classical liberalism, the social contract implies a small state with specific functions because it prioritizes the freedom of the individual and doesn’t see the need for a more involved state since everyone should be working to better society by doing what is best for themselves (Romkey, 2018b).  

John Locke, a prominent classical liberalist, states that under the social contract, it is the role of the state to provide us the right to “life, liberty, and property” with property being the most important because lack of security of one’s property impedes the ability to compete and look out for one’s needs in society (Romkey, 2018b). Adam Smith, another classical liberalist, also adds that the state should provide the infrastructure necessary to conduct business and education to make sure people are given opportunities, although this is not necessarily agreed upon between all classical liberalists (Romkey, 2018b).

Reform liberalists have a different idea of what the ideal role of the state should be, or a different "social contract". They advocate for a larger state that’s even more involved in business and economic issues than what Smith proposed (Romkey, 2018c).  To them the role of the state should be “to regulate economic competition in order to cure the social ills and redress injuries wrought by the capitalist system” (Romkey, 2018c) or in other words to help people who have fallen into poverty or financial trouble either because of their lack of success in the world of business or since they were disadvantaged to begin with, by redistributing income (Romkey, 2018c).  

A reform liberalist by the name of L.T. Hobhouse promoted the idea of reciprocal responsibility between the individual and the state where a person’s wealth is created both through their own hard work and through social policies and income redistribution by the state (Romkey, 2018c).

This kind of state would not go over well for classical liberalists such as Smith who as a well-known supporter of capitalism, advocated for laissez-faire (“let do”) economics, where the “invisible hand” guides the market with limited government intervention, meaning everyone’s looking out for their own interests and this produces an optimal outcome for everyone (Romkey, 2018b).  Smith also promotes the concepts of comparative advantage, free trade, and ultimately, competition (Romkey, 2018b).  Negative liberty, defined as “the freedom one has when one is unconstrained by government”, is a key value of classical liberalism and this is how they would describe the ideal conditions for capitalism (Romkey, 2018c).

Reform liberalists on the other hand, are defined by positive liberty: “the liberty one has when impediments to self-realization, such as poverty and disease, are removed through government action” (Romkey, 2018b).  They think resources can be allocated in a way that allows everyone to have the same ability to have economic success which can’t be done by the free market alone (Romkey, 2018b).  

John Maynard Keynes, a reform liberalist who had a major impact on the field of economics, challenged Smith’s arguments, with a similar idea to Hobhouses’ reciprocal responsibility theory but looked more specifically into the government’s role (Romkey, 2018c). Keynes argued that governments should be getting involved in the market by spending on social programs but only in times of recessions or busts because of the wave-like nature of a capitalist economy (Romkey, 2018c). His main point was that it isn’t fair for the average person to suffer during times of recession so the government needs to get involved to level it out (Romkey, 2018c).  

So although reform liberalists, aren’t the biggest supporters of capitalism, they think more government involvement will allow for a more egalitarian society, which in their opinion allows more people to be able to live “the good life” (Romkey, 2018c).

In both classical and reform liberalism this concept of the good life is centered around freedom, liberty, and equality (Romkey, 2018c).  Classical liberalists, such as Immanuel Kant focus on freedom of thought, with breaking free from “self-imposed tutelage”or not being told how to think, being an important aspect of the good life (Romkey, 2018b). 

The American Dream is an idea that sums up the classical liberalist view of the good life well: allowing everyone to have the freedom to be able to transcend class and have as much economic success to support the desires of oneself and one’s family as one is willing to work for (Romkey, 2018b). In their view, this can happen when the only real function of the state is to protect people’s property, nothing else (Romkey, 2018b). 

Reform liberalism argues the opposite is true. Green insists that the state needs to be used for social good by removing obstacles for the good life (Romkey, 2018c).  Being free to compete for economic success, is not the focus of the good life for reform liberalists but instead they would argue that a society promoting the realization of the good life is one that is based on social justice: where equality and human rights are valued by all, and the dignity of every human being is recognized (Romkey, 2018c).

Although the reform liberalism movement came after classical liberalism in history and challenged its values and principles, the way our society is run today in Canada and North America as a whole looks more like classical liberalism than reform liberalism to me.  

The current popular ideology is generally referred to as neo-liberalism but is fairly similar in its views as classical liberalism (Romkey, 2018d). Even though there are many social programs and there is significant government spending in Canada, in my opinion most people seem to think the way to the good life is by working hard, competing, having economic success, and they do not want the government interfering with this by taking their money through taxes. 

If our society was based on reform liberalism people would care more about supporting each other, sacrificing some of their own wealth to help those in need and would want the government to help with this. 

Whichever way society goes though, there will always be some people thinking that one way is better than the other; that’s why there is a division in liberalism.