The Classical Liberal’s Dilemma: Why Freedom Fails at the Ballot Box

Why the Classical Liberal Revival Feels Real

Across the political spectrum, recent efforts to reduce government spending, cut bureaucracy, and rein in executive power have generated renewed interest in classical liberalism. At first glance, initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appear to reflect the classical liberal ethos: limited government, individual liberty, and institutional accountability. These actions echo the timeless call to restrain state overreach and restore the rights of individuals to make their own choices, free from centralized interference.

For a classical liberal, these ambitions are noble. The push to eliminate redundant federal programs, implement zero-based budgeting, and decentralize decision-making reflects a core belief in both market discipline and individual agency. It offers a vision where public institutions serve the people, not the other way around.

Yet despite these promising signals, this resurgence faces a familiar challenge: permanence. As this article will argue, the very features that make classical liberalism intellectually appealing—its respect for pluralism, process, and principled doubt—also make it difficult to sustain in today’s political marketplace. The gap between rhetoric and structural reform remains wide. The revival may be real, but its longevity is uncertain.

What Is Classical Liberalism?

Classical liberalism is best understood as a philosophy of personal decision-making rooted in autonomy, responsibility, and individual rights. It begins with the premise that people, given freedom and minimal interference, are capable of defining and pursuing their own version of happiness. The goal is not to direct outcomes but to preserve the institutional framework where decisions can be made freely and utility is self-defined. In this view, liberty is not an abstraction. It is the architecture that makes meaningful choice possible.

Classical liberalism is deeply woven into the American founding. The Declaration of Independence proclaims that “all men are created equal” and endowed with “unalienable Rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—a direct expression of John Locke’s classical liberal ideals of natural rights and government by consent. The U.S. Constitution operationalizes these values through a system of checks and balances, federalism, and limited government—each designed to preserve individual freedom while constraining the misuse of power. For the Founding Generation, liberty was not merely an ideal but the guiding principle of a durable, accountable republic.

Why Classical Liberalism Is So Difficult to Define

The paradox of classical liberalism lies in its respect for difference. Unlike other political ideologies that derive power from clear platforms, classical liberalism resists uniformity. It champions the right to choose without prescribing the content of that choice. This creates an internal tension: how can a movement built on pluralism arrive at consensus?

Even among self-identified classical liberals, agreement on the philosophy’s scope and priorities is elusive. Some emphasize property rights and free markets; others prioritize civil liberties and decentralized governance. This ideological elasticity makes it challenging to organize. In truth, many classical liberals refuse to define the philosophy too narrowly, lest it betray its foundational ethic—the moral right of each person to choose their own way.

The Libertarian Party: An Oxymoron in Practice

This ambiguity is perhaps best illustrated by the Libertarian Party. While generally aligned with classical liberal principles, the party faces a contradiction. Political parties require cohesion, branding, and monetizable positions. Libertarians advocate for personal freedom, but there is no “choice industry” with billions of dollars to fund campaign machinery. Unlike fossil fuels or pharmaceuticals, freedom of choice does not write checks.

More importantly, libertarians often struggle to translate philosophy into policy. Their commitment to respecting divergent paths limits their ability to present a unified front. After all, if one truly believes in the “pursuit of happiness” as a deeply personal endeavor, then one also accepts that others will reach different conclusions. This philosophical tolerance makes collective action more difficult to sustain.

Why Classical Liberals Are Philosophically Anti-Majoritarian

True classical liberals are arguably the least dogmatic political actors. Their worldview echoes Bertrand Russell’s insight: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Doubt, not certainty, is a virtue. It fosters humility, pluralism, and the recognition that no one holds a monopoly on wisdom.

This mindset does not align well with the incentives of political marketing. Parties are rewarded for conviction, clarity, and repetition—not nuance or principled doubt. Over time, political positions often shift not because of changing philosophy but because of changing funders. One party may champion free markets in one decade and protectionist tariffs in the next; another may advocate for civil liberties before embracing expansive regulatory control. These reversals underscore a deeper truth: modern political parties are often unmoored from enduring principles, adapting instead to the demands of their most influential donors.

Classical liberals, on the other hand, resist owning anything that infringes upon voluntary choice. Their refusal to simplify reality or conform to groupthink becomes a liability in today’s binary political environment. Their philosophy is better suited for governance than for campaigning.

Today’s Political Parties Are Not Philosophies

The major political parties in the United States no longer embody coherent political philosophies. Instead, they operate as perpetual fundraising enterprises, where policy positions are fluid, transactional, and often contradictory. The same party may champion free markets while imposing tariffs, or demand civil liberties while expanding surveillance—depending on which donor blocs are ascendant.

These shifts reveal a deeper pattern: the two dominant parties are playing an infinite game of institutional survival. Electoral wins and losses are not existential events but tactical moves in a long-term game designed to sustain relevance, secure media attention, and maximize fundraising. Even competitive elections function as rituals within this self-reinforcing system, where the appearance of conflict fuels the business model of politics.

In this landscape, classical liberalism becomes increasingly marginalized. It is too principled to auction off its convictions and too ideologically diverse to unify around slogans. It demands too much of its adherents: to think critically, embrace pluralism, and defend freedom even for those with whom one disagrees.

The Trump Administration: The Rhetoric-Reality Divide

Recent political movements have claimed classical liberal credentials without delivering structural reform. The Trump administration is a case in point. While rhetorically committed to reducing government and expanding individual liberty, the administration often prioritized executive action over constitutional process. In doing so, it violated a core classical liberal principle: the idea that process matters as much as outcome.

Real reform requires more than executive orders or political slogans. Lasting change must come through structural commitments that shift the incentives and constraints embedded in government systems. This includes working through the legislature to reduce the size and scope of government in a principled, durable way. Meaningful reform depends on three foundational elements: legislative consensus, rigorous accountability mechanisms, and procedural discipline. Without these, any attempt at downsizing government risks being temporary or easily reversed.

Zero-Based Budgeting would require agencies to justify each dollar spent, resetting expectations around government growth. Regulatory sunset provisions would embed expiration dates into rules, forcing active reauthorization and eliminating policy inertia. Decentralization would reassign responsibilities to states and localities, enabling tailored governance closer to constituents.

Classical liberalism demands that power be constrained—even when it serves one’s own goals. It insists on a constitutional mindset: that process matters as much as policy. Executive fiat is not reform; it is a shortcut that undermines the very institutions classical liberals seek to preserve.

The Paradox That May Doom the Revival

This is the classical liberal’s paradox: the same intellectual integrity that makes the philosophy noble also makes it politically fragile. Its commitment to individualism resists centralization. Its respect for diversity resists branding. Its adherence to due process resists expedience.

In a world dominated by algorithmic outrage and donor-driven certainty, classical liberalism may be making a principled comeback. But without a way to convert that philosophy into durable political infrastructure, it will likely remain a moral compass rather than a governing force. And perhaps that is exactly what it was meant to be.

 Resources for the Curious

1. Hayek, F.A. The Constitution of Liberty. University of Chicago Press, 1960. Defines the philosophical foundation of classical liberalism with a focus on individual freedom, rule of law, and decentralized governance.

2. Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books, 1980. Explores how institutional structures affect decision-making and why good intentions often fail without proper constraints.

3. Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. University of Michigan Press, 1962. Presents a decision-theoretic justification for constitutional limits and voluntary exchange in politics.

4. Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Demonstrates how decentralized, rule-based systems outperform central planning in managing shared resources.

5. Sunstein, Cass R. Why Societies Need Dissent. Harvard University Press, 2003. Argues for the value of principled doubt and disagreement in maintaining democratic health—core traits of the classical liberal ethos.

6. Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Books, 2009. Though not traditionally classical liberal, it illustrates how to support choice without coercion—echoing liberal pluralism with behavioral tools.

7. Munger, Michael C. Choosing in Groups: Analytical Politics Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Clarifies why classical liberal values often break down in collective decision-making processes like political parties and elections.

8. Hulett, Jeff. The Challenge of Reducing Government: A Path to Accountability and Consumer Choice. Personal Finance Reimagined, Mar 4, 2024. Analyzes why attempts to shrink government often fail without structural safeguards and a constitutional approach to reform.

9. Hulett, Jeff. Self-Interest Is Not Selfish: Redefining the Core of Economic Motivation. Personal Finance Reimagined, Jan 2024. Reframes classical liberal economic behavior through the lens of adaptive, ethical, and interdependent utility functions.

10. Russell, Bertrand. The Triumph of Stupidity. The Mortimer Society, 1933. A powerful historical essay emphasizing why confidence and conformity dominate public discourse over thoughtful restraint and doubt.