Liberalism, as a doctrine, is defined simply, but is practiced and held in a field of hypocrisy. As defined in Liberalism: a Counter History, it is “the tradition of thought whose central concern is the liberty of the individual” (Losurdo). Despite this seemingly clear definition, the doctrine finds its clarity obfuscated by purposeful vagueness that allows for downright hypocritical action. Its sole purpose, liberty of the individual, is contorted, and the “individual” becomes, much like Kant’s “person”, a far from universal term.

Take one famous Liberalist as an example, John C. Calhoun. He was against ‘absolute governments’ (absolutism), fanaticism, the ‘spirit of crusade, and concentration of power. He thought slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilization could not possibly renounce (Losurdo). He was against the fanatic abolitionists who sought to destroy slaveholder’s rights to property (slaves) that was guaranteed to them through the Constitution. Further, he thought that abolishing slavery would lead to “extirpation of one or the other race”, likely Black people, because he felt they could not exist in America without white people (Losurdo). He believed in the “defense of minority rights against the abuse of an overbearing majority” (Losurdo). Somehow though, under the same doctrine, he could also declare that “[e]very freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves…” (Losurdo).

    Liberal doctrine can fear slavery, but not does not condone its real human uses. Instead, it often fears the governed becoming “slaves of the rulers” (Losurdo). In fact, the topic of slavery brings out further inconsistencies within the doctrine. Some liberalists, like Calhoun, supported slavery. Some, like Hutcheson, were against race-based, hereditary slavery, but supported its use as punishment. Even yet more, like Adam Smith believed in its abolition. Smith said “Slavery could be more easily abolished under a ‘despotic government’ than a ‘free government’” and that “the freedom of the free was the cause of the great oppression of the slaves… “(Losurdo). This put his as a proponent of abolition, and of a big government that controls much of a citizen’s life. It also shows his cognizance of the privilege inherent to American government.

    This raises the questions: who are the “minority”? Who is the “individual”? Like Kant’s philosophies, it is likely that the “individual” is also a property-owning, white man of European descent.

    Although Liberal doctrine may not come outright and say it, the “individual” is not and cannot be Black. Black people function outside of Liberalist doctrine. This sets the foundations for the kind of racial logic we can see today.