Why Neither Party Wants Social Liberty

Nothing on this site sorts cleanly onto a ballot line, and that's worth addressing directly rather than treating as an accident of subject matter. Personal Sovereignty argued that a Millian respect for individual judgment is the irreducible unit underneath the whole design. Splitting the Atom of Sovereignty and We the People argued that the checks holding power apart — federal, state, tribal, executive, judicial — have to stay genuinely real, not ceremonial, even when that's inconvenient for whoever currently holds the most of it. Growing a Movement as a Design Problem argued decisions belong at the smallest workable altitude, region by region, rather than settled once nationally and repeated everywhere it doesn't fit. None of that is a Democratic platform plank or a Republican one. It's worth asking why — not as a lament, but as a diagnosis, because the answer isn't "both parties happen to disagree with a few of our positions." It's that each party's current coalition depends, structurally, on a specific piece of this framework staying closed.

What's actually being claimed

Strip the individual essays down to their shared premises and there are really only a handful: judgment should stay with the person or the local unit closest to a decision's consequences, even when a more distant authority could technically supply a better answer, because the capacity to judge atrophies the moment it stops being exercised. Checks on power — a veto, a municipality's control of its own utility, the Voting Rights Act's constraint on how district lines get drawn — have to remain real enough to actually bind the coalition currently benefiting from ignoring them, not just the ones out of power. Unearned economic rent, land value chief among it, belongs to the public that created it rather than whoever happened to be holding the deed when the value showed up. And a citizenry has to actually cultivate the self-governance liberty depends on, rather than either running unrestrained or handing its judgment to whichever institution offers to carry it.

Read plainly, that's a set of commitments that borrows premises from both major coalitions and is loyal to neither. It's about to become clear why that's not a coincidence.

Why Democrats oppose it

The modern Democratic governing model runs on administrative capacity — expert agencies, credentialed professionals, and federal standards substituting for the slower, messier process of letting individual states, cities, or people work out their own answer. That's not a smear; it's the actual mechanism by which the party delivers on the substantive commitments its coalition cares about, from environmental regulation to labor protections to public health. And it runs directly against the premise Personal Sovereignty spent an entire essay defending: that ceding a judgment call to a more distant, more expert authority — even a correct one — atrophies the capacity of the person or place that used to make it, and that atrophy is a real cost even when the substituted answer is right.

The tension shows up concretely, not just abstractly. Occupational licensing is the clearest case: a body of research going back to economists like Morris Kleiner has tracked licensing requirements spreading from a narrow slice of the mid-century American workforce to roughly a quarter of it today, mostly justified as consumer protection, and mostly defended by exactly the professional and administrative interests a Democratic coalition tends to include. Control of Human Actions Through Land made the parallel case about zoning: a regime originally sold as a narrow public-health tool that calcified into a permanent, largely unquestioned veto over what a landowner can do with their own property, defended today by an unusually durable bipartisan coalition of incumbent interests that happens to include large parts of Democratic urban governance.

The preemption instinct compounds it, and it isn't only a federal-level habit. Beacon Hill's Interval Training covered a Democratic-controlled Massachusetts suing its own towns over the MBTA Communities Act's transit-zoning mandate — a state government, not a distant federal one, overriding local judgment on the theory that a housing shortage spread across dozens of towns was never any single one of their businesses alone to fix. The theory may well be correct. The pattern is the point: when the party holds power at whatever level, its policy reflex tends toward uniform standards overriding local variation on the premise that the correct answer is already known and shouldn't have to be re-litigated town by town. Growing a Movement as a Design Problem argued the opposite: that the right altitude for a decision isn't the altitude at which the correct answer is knowable, it's the altitude at which the argument for that answer can actually be made, tested, and revised by the people who live with the outcome. A coalition whose governing model depends on expert administration reaching the correct answer efficiently has a real, structural interest in that argument staying settled rather than staying open — which is precisely what this site keeps insisting it has to remain.

Why Republicans oppose it

The Republican coalition's current operating logic runs through a different mechanism, and The South Rises already supplied the evidence for it in detail. Across Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee this year, a party holding full trifecta control at the state level has repeatedly demonstrated that consolidating power across every governmental layer at once is not just achievable but electorally rewarded — a governor's veto overridden as a formality rather than exercised as a check, a municipality's control over its own utility diluted by a legislature it doesn't answer to, a federal voting-rights protection narrowed by a Supreme Court whose recent decisions have made district maps harder to challenge regardless of the discriminatory intent behind them. None of that required a single dramatic event. It required a coalition that has learned, this election cycle and the last several, that its interests are served by exactly the checks We the People and Splitting the Atom of Sovereignty insist have to stay real growing steadily more ceremonial.

That's the structural half of the opposition — a coalition currently benefiting from weakened checks has little incentive to insist, on principle, that they be restored the moment the advantage runs the other way. The cultural half runs in a different direction but lands in the same place. Personal Sovereignty built its whole argument on Mill's claim that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" — and a meaningful strand of the current Republican coalition's legislative energy runs directly against that specific claim, not through administrative paternalism but moral paternalism: restrictions on private decisions that don't harm a third party, justified by a community's discomfort rather than a measurable external cost. Austin's Long Recess covered one clean instance of the pattern — a legislature failing twice, in public view, to ban a consumable product outright, only for an executive agency to accomplish through rulemaking what the elected body couldn't pass, while the underlying premise (that the substance belongs under the state's control rather than the individual's) went unquestioned by either side of that particular fight.

Democratic administrative paternalism and Republican moral paternalism don't look alike on the surface — one runs through an agency's technical judgment, the other through a legislature's moral one — but they perform the identical move against the same premise: they remove a domain of judgment from the individual "for their own good" or the community's comfort, in exactly the domain Personal Sovereignty says belongs to the person specifically because it's a decision about their own body and mind.

What the schisms inside each party mean for us

Neither coalition is actually monolithic on any of this, and the internal arguments each party is currently having with itself matter more to this site's project than either party's official platform does. Inside the Democratic coalition, an "abundance" faction — economically minded writers and a growing bloc of state legislators, not a fringe — has spent the last several years arguing for exactly the kind of deregulation Control of Human Actions Through Land described: California's own SB 9, SB 35, and builder's-remedy statutes, all passed by Democratic legislatures over the objections of a more traditional wing of the same coalition, exist because that internal argument is currently being won in at least one state. Inside the Republican coalition, a smaller but real libertarian-leaning wing — closer to the party's older fusionist self than to the trifecta-consolidation logic The South Rises documented — still argues for the kind of limited, genuinely checked government the party's national rhetoric invokes and its current state-level behavior mostly doesn't practice.

Neither schism is proof that either party is about to realign around this site's premises, and it would be wishful to read it that way. What it means, more usefully, is that the coalition-level logic described above isn't a fixed fact about either party's membership — it's a fact about which internal faction currently holds the upper hand. Growing a Movement as a Design Problem argued that a movement's real organizing unit is the trust-sized regional cell, not the national party label attached to whoever's in it. That argument applies here with unusual precision: the people whose instincts already run toward this site's premises are sitting inside both coalitions right now, losing an internal argument their own party's structural logic is currently stacked against. Organizing with them doesn't require either party to convert as a whole. It requires finding them, region by region, and building with whichever side of each intra-party argument is already closest to sovereignty staying genuinely contestable — which was always going to be a smaller, harder task than waiting for a party to change its platform, and a considerably more realistic one.

The shape of the disagreement, not its content

It would be a mistake to read the two sections above as symmetrical in content — they aren't, and treating them as interchangeable would flatten real differences this site's other essays have taken seriously one at a time. What's symmetrical is the shape underneath the content. Each coalition currently benefits from a specific "who decides" question being closed rather than left open, and each has built its recent operating model on the assumption that it will stay closed in that coalition's favor. Democratic administrative capacity depends on expert judgment substituting for local judgment and staying substituted. Republican trifecta consolidation depends on internal and external checks weakening and staying weak, and its cultural wing depends on the individual's sovereignty over their own body and mind not actually being absolute.

Social liberty's entire project, across every piece this site has published, is keeping exactly those questions open — not landing on one static answer and defending it forever, but insisting the argument stay contestable, region by region, election by election, generation by generation, answerable back to genuinely sovereign persons rather than settled once and administered from then on. That's an uncomfortable position for any coalition built to win and then govern efficiently, because a framework that keeps every "who decides" question open by design doesn't hand either side a permanent structural advantage. It makes both of them win the argument again, every time, in every place — which is a much harder thing to ask of a coalition than asking it to hold the advantage it's already built.

Not evidence of error

None of this means either party is wrong about everything it believes, and it would be exactly the kind of tribal simplification this site has tried to avoid to conclude that. It means something narrower and, in its way, more useful: an idea that doesn't have a natural institutional home in either of the two coalitions built to hold power isn't automatically an idea without merit. Sometimes it's the clearest sign available that the idea is actually about how power should be constrained, rather than about which coalition should currently be the one holding it — and neither coalition, understandably, is eager to examine an argument that applies just as forcefully to itself in power as it does to the other side.

---

Sources: John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ch. 1 (1859); James Madison, Federalist No. 55 (1788); Morris M. Kleiner, Licensing Occupations: Ensuring Quality or Restricting Competition? (Upjohn Institute, 2006) and subsequent research with Alan B. Krueger on the growth of occupational licensing coverage in the U.S. workforce; this site's own prior dispatches on Texas (Austin's Long Recess), Massachusetts (Beacon Hill's Interval Training), and the East South Central states (The South Rises).