The words used in public discussions determine the outcome of debates. In political discourse, language plays a crucial role in communicating ideas, shaping perceptions and even shaping public opinion. In the 21st century, despite liberalism’s successes in expanding freedom and reducing poverty, liberal ideas remain unpopular in many parts of the world. This suggests that the problem may not be with the ideas themselves, but with the way they are communicated.
Language is a powerful tool for shaping thinking. But the rapid evolution of political debates can obscure the importance of terminology, and words that seem neutral can have different meanings depending on the speaker and the audience. This variability in interpretation makes language an essential battleground for political ideologies, including liberalism.
Problematic concepts: ‘Freedom’, ‘Democracy’ and ‘Rights’
A good example of the language problems liberals face is the evolving meaning of the term “freedom.” Classical liberals love John Locke and Adam Smith viewed freedom as the absence of coercion – what Isaiah Berlin called “negative freedom.” Advocates of ‘positive freedom’, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseauargue that true freedom requires collective action, sometimes at the expense of individual freedoms. This shift in meaning has been exploited by those opposed to liberalism, leading to confusion about the true nature of freedom.
The concept of ‘democracy’ has also been distorted in recent decades. Originally, democracy referred to a method of majority rule designed to protect individual rights. However, collectivist movements have redefined democracy to justify government intervention in almost all aspects of public life, leading to terms such as “industrial democracy” (which Ludwig von Mises recalls in his book). Human action) that imply state control over private enterprises. This redefinition has created confusion about what democracy should be, weakening its connection to individual freedom.
Similarly, the concept of ‘rights’ has been transformed from a negative interpretation – freedom from interference – to a positive one, where rights require the provision of goods and services by the state. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the “right to an adequate standard of living,” meaning that individuals have the right to housing, food, and health care provided by others. This change contradicts the liberal view of rights as protection against coercion and promotes a view that sees them as guarantees of material goods.
Language manipulation is not a neutral process; it is often the result of deliberate attempts by political groups to impose their ideas on public debate. As Hayek, Leoni, and Mises have noted, collectivists have consistently twisted language to make authoritarian ideas seem compatible with freedom. Today, the same tactics are used to justify policies that restrict individual freedoms in the name of democracy and social justice.
So what can liberals do?
To counter these manipulations, liberals must develop strategies to reclaim the original meanings of key philosophical concepts and create a new language that better conveys liberal ideas. One approach is to reject terms and concepts adopted by collectivists, such as ‘social justice’ or ‘welfare state’. These terms need to be redefined in a way that emphasizes the coercive nature of the policies they describe. There can be no social justice, nor any welfare state, that is not based on an implicitly violent redistribution of material wealth. But when liberals take collectivist concepts for granted, they start debates at a disadvantage. If they want to have a chance, they must uncover the true meaning of words.
At the same time, liberals must make efforts to promote positive conceptualizations of freedom. The idea of freedom must be upheld to show that true freedom is the absence of coercion, and not the redistribution of wealth or the imposition of a collective will. Liberals also need to create a new, “liberal-friendly” language to make their ideas more accessible and persuasive to the public. For example, concepts like English-language “right to work” need to make their way into Spanish and other languages because they frame the discussion around labor rights in a way that emphasizes individual freedom and the ability to contract freely.
Reforming language for liberalism
The linguistic landscape is currently skewed towards liberalism, but this can be changed. By rejecting collectivist language pitfalls, defending classical liberal meanings of key concepts, and creating new language that accurately reflects liberal ideas, liberals can level the playing field in public debates. This effort is essential not only for the survival of liberalism, but also for the preservation of individual freedom in the face of increasing state intervention.
The manipulation of language has long been a tool of both authoritarian regimes and interventionist governments, and liberals must be vigilant in defending the meaning of words crucial to their philosophy. By doing so, they can ensure that the principles of freedom remain central to political discourse, even in a world where language manipulation is becoming increasingly common.
Marcos Falcone is the project manager of Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, and Reason, among others. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.