The Linguistic Disadvantages of Liberalism

The words used in public discussions shape the outcome of debates. In political discourse, language plays a critical role in conveying ideas, shaping perceptions, and even determining public opinion. In the 21st century, despite the successes of liberalism in expanding freedom and reducing poverty, liberal ideas remain unpopular in many parts of the world. This suggests that the issue may not be with the ideas themselves, but with how they are communicated.

Language is a powerful tool for shaping thought. But the rapid evolution of political debates can obscure the importance of terminology, and words that seem neutral may carry 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 prime example of the linguistic problems that liberals face is the evolving meaning of the term “freedom.” Classical liberals like John Locke and Adam Smith viewed freedom as the absence of coercion—what Isaiah Berlin called “negative freedom.” However, proponents of “positive freedom,” such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue that true freedom requires collective action, sometimes at the expense of individual liberties. This shift in meaning has been exploited by those who oppose liberalism, leading to confusion over the true nature of liberty.

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 nearly all aspects of public life, leading to terms like “industrial democracy” (which Ludwig von Mises recalls in his Human Action) which imply state control over private enterprises. This redefinition has created confusion about what democracy should be, thus 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,” which implies that individuals are entitled to housing, food, and healthcare provided by others. This change contradicts the liberal view of rights as protections against coercion and advances one that views them as guarantees of material goods.

Language manipulation is not a neutral process; it is often the result of deliberate efforts by political groups to impose their ideas on public discourse. As Hayek, Leoni and Mises have noted, collectivists have consistently distorted language to make authoritarian ideas appear compatible with freedom. Today, the same tactics are used to justify policies that restrict individual liberties in the name of democracy or 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 new language that better conveys liberal ideas. One approach is to reject terms and concepts that have been co-opted by collectivists, such as “social justice” or “welfare state.” These terms must be redefined in ways that highlight the coercive nature of the policies they describe. There can be no social justice, nor any welfare states, that are not based upon an implicitly violent redistribution of material wealth. But if liberals take collectivist concepts for granted, they begin debates at a disadvantage. They must expose the true meanings of words if they are to have a chance.

At the same time, liberals should work to promote positive conceptualizations of liberty. The idea of freedom must be upheld to show that true freedom is the absence of coercion, not the redistribution of wealth or the imposition of collective will. Liberals should also create new, “liberal-friendly” language to make their ideas more accessible and persuasive to the public. Concepts like the English-speaking “right to work”, for example, need to make its way into Spanish and other languages, as they frame the discussion around labor rights in a way that emphasizes individual freedom and the ability to contract freely.

Reshaping Language for Liberalism

The linguistic landscape is currently skewed against liberalism, but this can be changed. By rejecting collectivist language traps, vindicating 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 liberty in the face of growing state intervention.

The manipulation of language has long been a tool of both authoritarian regimes and interventionist administrations , and liberals must be vigilant in defending the meanings of words that are critical to their philosophy. By doing so, they can help ensure that the principles of liberty remain central to political discourse, even in a world where linguistic manipulation is increasingly common.

Marcos Falcone is the Project Manager of Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His writing has also appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, and Reason, among others. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.