Welcome to Conquest of Grace! If you would like to know more about who I am and where I am coming from, I highly recommend checking out my about page.
In prior articles, I have already discussed the fact that the left/right spectrum is a myth. I have also described the problems with terms like “conservative” or “right-wing.” We know that conservative, right-wing, and Republican (within the US) all mean exactly the same thing and refer solely to an adherence to a political alliance, regardless of what one believes. One can also say the same thing about the terms liberal, left-wing, progressive, and Democrat. I won’t rehash that here, as you can check out the previous articles to see my explanation of that particular fact.
Instead, I wish to cover a different angle here and point out that while the terms conservative, right-wing, and Republican are effectively identical (as it stands now), their counterparts have some important nuances. Calling someone a leftist is exactly the same thing as calling them a Democrat. Strictly speaking, “leftism” is indistinguishable from membership in the Democratic Party. In most circumstances, the same applies to anybody deemed a “liberal” or a “progressive.” In modern discussions, all four terms are entirely interchangeable. However, progressive and liberal both have usages that refer to something different from what exists today. This is where there is more nuance than their counterparts on the “right.”
Modern-day liberalism has become synonymous with the Democratic Party. When people use this term, they’re either referring to the Democratic Party as a political affiliation, or they’re making a similar error as they do with conservatism. They are wrongly referencing a made-up and arbitrary belief system. The error of treating a belief system as distinct from the political alliance it’s part of. There is no belief system of “liberalism.” People cannot be more or less “liberal” because it is now nothing more than an alternative term for Democrat.
The problem is that liberalism used to refer to an ideology with a more distinct set of beliefs. Classical liberalism refers to the beliefs and subsequent movement that emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries. Though the reality is more complex, people often credit John Locke as the originator, but no single founder can be said to have originated this belief system. The best way to understand classical liberalism is to view it as the direct ancestor and prototype of current libertarianism. Classical liberalism is a movement emphasizing liberty, personal rights, consent of the governed, political equality, private property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. It is best understood in contrast with absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings, hereditary privilege and partiality, feudalism, and aristocracy. Classical liberalism (in various forms and with several other very important influences) is what motivated the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
The way people use liberalism now has nothing to do with that. The people who believe in the liberalism that we associate with the 18th century are called libertarians now. However, we should point out that libertarianism developed from classical liberalism and is one resultant form of that philosophy. They are not perfectly comparable. It is better to think of them as neoclassical liberals. Modern-day liberals and classical liberals differ significantly.
This is because modern liberals advocate for statism, social welfare, socialism, hedonistic social movements such as the “LGBTQ+” movement, abortion, and transgenderism. None of which classical liberals would support. Modern liberals would not be allies of people like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson (think of the hatred directed towards Jefferson in accusing him of being a racist, white slaver), Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington.
Therefore, it is an error to link liberalism (as a philosophy) to the political left, since authentic classical liberals and libertarians (who are the actual successors of classical liberalism) would more often be associated with the Republican party and be classified as “conservatives” in today’s political landscape. Instead, this term, as it is used currently, is just a synonym for Democrat. There are no fundamental principles tied to it. It is this confusion that makes the term “liberalism” problematic when applied to an ideology or belief system. True liberalism is not at all compatible with the beliefs of the people who claim that label now.
Progressive is another term with a similar history. Modern-day “progressives” (again, just Democrats/leftists in reality) do in fact share ancestry with the Progressive movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, modern progressivism is very different. Though it has roots in the social gospel and social welfare movements that came from the late 19th-century progressives, it has evolved considerably. So much so that it is a mistake to even use that term as if it were meaningfully different from leftist/Democrat/liberal.
The core beliefs of the progressive/liberal/leftist movement are best understood as stemming from multiple distinct religions that now form the majority of the political left/Democratic party. Of these religions (note how I define religion here) the most dominant right now is Distrephism. The others are mostly different forms of Humanism and/or Neo-paganism. The religion and worldview of Distrephism is the impetus behind the belief in homosexual identities, transgenderism, promotion of abortion, climate apocalypse eschatology, and the prevailing victimhood culture within institutions dominated by people on the political left (academia, for example).
A perfect example of this is the problematic, and ultimately disingenuous, label of “Progressive Christianity.” There is no such thing as “Progressive” Christianity because that is the same thing as saying “Democratic Christianity,” which doesn’t actually make any sense. If we are trying to describe a belief system, then we need to portray them as syncretists and Distrephists. So-called “Progressive Christians” are not Christians; they are Distrephists wearing a Christian disguise. They are syncretists at best. Syncretists who have created a heretical pseudo-Christianity that has discarded actual Christian doctrine for Distrephist beliefs. They have done this while deceptively presenting themselves as “Christian” only because they use pseudo-Christian language and talk about “Jesus” in vague ways.
In the end, we have to stop the bad habit of conflating political allegiance with a singular religion or worldview. Just because political tribes lead to increasing homogeneity and conformity among their members does not mean that the parties are actually based on a coherent belief system. This fallacious way of framing things is why tribalism is as bad as it is, and why there are so many bad-faith arguments. Christians need to stop playing into this deceptive and contradictory narrative. We need to stop using the language that perpetuates these myths and avoid the simplistic and superficial tribal designations that “conservative” media keeps repeating.