Classical liberals generally support equality, limited government power, civil liberties, democracy, and free markets. Today they're sometimes described as libertarians, whereas modern liberals have morphed into intolerant authoritarians.
I would say classical liberalism of yore is closer to libertarianism today.
The big difference is positive versus negative rights. Libertarians and classical liberals believe in the latter (the right to be left alone, to live your life as you please, to marry who you want, to be gay, to be straight, etc)
Liberalism today, is all about positive rights, entitlements.
But the objection libertarians have against positive rights is that a) the state itself produces nothing, so b) everything the state gives to somebody has to be taken away from somebody else.
It gets more pernicious today in that "Conservative" and "Liberal" as delineated by the 2-party system in the US is perceived to be largely farcical bickering over very narrowly constrained policy tracks. Both parties are pro-war, anti-civil liberties, Big Government oligarchs.
Classical liberalism - complete laissez faire market, no government interference and individual wealth creation. Today's libertarians are closest to classical liberals.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
There are two types of freedoms under liberalism, the "freedom to", and "freedom from". Libertarians are mostly concerned with the former (e.g., minimising laws which stop their ability to do something) whereas modern liberalism takes a more balanced approach (for example, making racial discrimination illegal reduces someone's freedom to be racist whilst improving another groups ability to partake in society without experiencing discrimination)
Classical liberalism (what you call "true" liberalism) focused on negative freedom. Modern liberalism (what you call "socialism" although it's not: modern liberals are still in favor of regulated but mostly free markets) focuses on ensuring positive freedom. Again, no big deal as long as we understand what each person means when they're talking about being a "liberal". In contemporary world, however, calling yourself a "liberal" in sense of classical liberalism tends to indicate you're that you're an academic, a libertarian, or some variety of free-market capitalist. In contemporary world, the usual meaning when someone says they're a "liberal" is that they're socially liberal, focus on equality and positive liberty. And the usual meaning is entirely correct, even though you apparently want to restrict use of the world to its meaning in classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism (little-L liberalism) is a political framework for lowering the horizon of government. It was born out of the religious sectarianism of the 17th century, replacing religious fundamentalism with religious freedom: by disestablishing church and state (or limiting the state's capacity for legislating religion), religion was relegated to the home and this lowered the possibility for civil war.
American Liberalism (big L) is a political identity (as opposed to American Conservatism, which is also a political identity) and many policy positions are about signaling membership of an in-group to demonstrate moral puritanism (same goes for Conservatism). It is not governed by an overarching ideology
In the American political climate, the only people advocating something like traditional liberalism are the libertarians. And libertarianism is, roughly, exaggerated liberalism.
I know personally I identified as a left-libertarian and then realized that classical liberal was a more legible way to express the same positions.
The definition of liberal has morphed quite a bit over the centuries. I hail from the camp now known as "Classical liberalism"[0]. I value freedom and consider the government to be a necessary evil to be minimized.
From the other comments here, it seems we're all from the US, but I'd imagine if any Europeans chime in, they'll have a different take on the word liberal altogether.
I'm aware of classical liberals, but minus some minor differences the contemporary term for them is "libertarian"; in my experience the only people who use the term 'classical liberal' are libertarians seeking to distance themselves from their own cohort.
it's funny that you mention liberalism because the common understanding of the meaning of "liberalism" has shifted over time. Classical liberalism is much closer to libertarianism than progressivism.
You shouldn't act like terms exist in a vaccuum. Remember that the Republicans and Democrats were on completely different sides of the political spectrum less than a century ago.
Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government
In a modern political climate these would sound somewhat conservative (mainly 'free markets' and 'limited government'). I think the best modern-day fit would be Libertarianism, which is considered by many to be far-right.
This is why we as a society should really adopt the two-axis means (political compass) of understanding "ism"s. I really hope the public is smart enough to factor just one more dimension into their political analysis, but mass stupidity is always full of surprises.
When I think of liberal, I think of people like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. I realize my US-bias is showing, but when the country was founded the idea of a country where liberty was to be maximized was inconceivable. Currently, the people called conservatives are trying to conserve the liberal ideas of the late 18th century.
According to Wikipedia,
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom."
I think universal health care is fundamentally incompatible with both civil liberties and economic freedom.
What some consider progress, like more centralized power from elites that live X,000s miles away, others consider a regression. The biggest problem with monarchies was not their bloodline-based successions or validation by the Pope, it was their highly-centralized power.
Classical liberalism overlaps in politics with some of the Libertarian party. The little (l) libertarians in the US are, recently in the age of Trumpism, conservatives embarrassed with the GOP as a conservative party and their support for authoritarianism/traditionalism. They adopt big (L) name, but typically aren't informed on a lot of classical liberalism thought and history.
Classical liberalism is a large umbrella and incorporates principles from the left and right. It's defining characteristic is eschewing authoritarianism.
For a very casual introduction, check out the Political Compass [0]
Ayaan Hirsi Ali expressed the difference between classical and modern liberalism perfectly. Classical liberalism values freedom, whereas today's liberalism often favors justice. To take Islam as an example: the classical liberal response would be to strive for the the freedom of individual women, heretics, and homosexuals. Today's liberal response would be more along the lines of judging how justly society treats Muslims as a group. Identity politics is rife in modern liberalism. In Ali's view (and mine) freedom is a precursor to justice.
"Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.[10] Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, it was used under the name of economic liberalism. As a term, classical liberalism was applied in retronym to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[11] By modern standards, in the United States, simple liberalism often means social liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, simple liberalism often means classical liberalism.[12][13]
...
In the United States, classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal". Despite this context, classical liberalism rejects conservatism's higher tolerance for protectionism and social liberalism's inclination for collective group rights, due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism.[14] Classical liberalism is also considered closely tied with right-libertarianism in the United States.[15] In Europe, liberalism, whether social (especially radical) or conservative, is classical liberalism in itself, so the term classical liberalism mainly refers to centre-right economic liberalism.[16]
"
"Liberal" in the US -> some social freedoms, but restricted in certain ways + economic restrictions.
"Liberal" outside the US -> social freedoms + economic freedoms.
I learned this as an American abroad when someone called me, who would generally be seen as conservative / libertarian in the US, "very liberal" when discussing gay rights (pro), gun rights / armed self-defense (pro), and abortion rights (pro-choice).
Again, it's just a fine point when discussing in an international context (like on HN). When speaking only with Americans, you'll never need this distinction, it's just good to be aware of it when discussing with non-Americans or when reading about foreign politics (e.g. FDP in Germany is a "liberal party" in the European sense of the word, but their policies are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If an American reads "liberal party", they would be surprised to learn that they campaign on cutting taxes, pro free market, privatization, etc., yet are also pro gay marriage and are for legalizing marijuana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany...)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism/Classical-libera...
reply