Liberalism, in its original sense — the political doctrine advancing individual freedom, civil liberties, and equality under the law — has always prided itself on rationalism. This is partly because of a shared origin with early modern science — Galileo and Isaac Newton were profound influences on proto and canonical liberals like Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant. Part of it is also the broader Enlightenment culture from which liberalism emerged. Liberalism was a response to a long line of conservatives who believed that people should leave decisions to their betters and defer to the longstanding authorities which had governed them. Liberals like Kant answered by enjoining us to think for ourselves — an ideal that, while too seldom lived up to, resoundingly won out in the war of ideas.

Rationalist appeals to the legalistic language of “rights'' and dignity became the lingua franca of liberal campaigns for recognition. The victories of the LGBT movement, which successfully won acceptance across the Western world in the face of prejudice and bigotry, show another side of liberalism, one which has often taken a backseat to the hyperfocus on rationality. We did not arrive at more than 70% approval of same-sex marriages or relationships through the power of syllogisms but with appeals to emotion. While many modern-day activists have a habit of denying progress and playing up remaining problems, early liberal advocates were indeed fighting an uphill battle against genuine systemic injustices. For them, the change ran through the heart just as much as the mind. There is a long history of liberal thinkers who emphasized the importance of our emotional lives and interpersonal relationships in developing the kind of character needed to be both happy individuals and good citizens. Liberals should not shy away from the language of passion and emotion in our ongoing battles to preserve and spread LGBT rights. We need to get our groove back. This is especially pressing now, as right-wing movements in the US and elsewhere push to roll back the hard-fought gains of the LGBT community.

To be clear, liberalism has always had an emotional side. Giants like Adam Smith and David Hume wrote a great deal about the importance of character. Everyone from John Locke to Immanuel Kant wrote extensive works on education and child-rearing, much of which, like Kant’s absurdly long diatribes about the evils of masturbation, are not particularly useful (as one would expect from childless bachelors). But it was largely the most ardent liberals — the abolitionists, feminists, and LGBT rights advocates — who were most sensitive and emotive about these issues. They recognized how we could not become self-respecting people and upstanding citizens without acceptance and love from others — and that denying people these needs would end up corrupting all of society.

Early feminist masterpieces such as Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) explore the private relations between men and women at length. Wollstonecraft’s passion for women’s freedom went well beyond a commitment to their formal rights. She recognized that to be truly free and equal citizens, society also needed to stress the “Attainment of those talents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human character, and which raise females in the scale of animal being [to the level of man].” This would also require men to evolve in their understanding and treatment of women. By trying to dominate them, patriarchal men didn’t just degrade women’s character, but their own, too.

In an early critique of body shaming and its disproportionate impact on women, Wollstonecraft points out that the “Dependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and how can [a woman] be a good wife or mother […] if artificial notions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have been early entangled with her motives of action. [...] Genteel women are, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in their subjection.” She goes on to stress how, through educating and treating women better, not only will they be happier, but (straight/bi) men will ensure a more loving partner for themselves.

Later liberal feminists like John Stuart Mill go further by highlighting how the early feelings of patriarchal superiority and domination that are fostered in boys corrupt their outlook and make them less capable of being good liberal citizens who treat others with dignity and equality. He states this most powerfully in his Subjection of Women (1869):

“Such people are little aware, when a boy is differently brought up, how early the notion of his inherent superiority to a girl arises in his mind; […] It is an exact parallel to the feeling of a hereditary king that he is excellent above others by being born a king, or a noble by being born a noble. The relation between husband and wife is very like that between lord and vassal, except that the wife is held to more unlimited obedience than the vassal was.”

What we see in the writings of early liberal feminists is a recognition of how important our inner life is, and how chauvinistic systems pervert our character while those of mutual love and equality allow them to flourish. Far from the caricature of the classical liberal as homo economicus — a private atom pursuing her own self-interest without regard to anyone else — we see deep insights into the most intimate parts of the human soul. We also see a template for establishing freer and more loving relationships.

These lessons were carried over in the 20th century by liberal LGBT advocates, who recognized that demanding people subordinate themselves to societal norms imposed by force violated fundamental rights to freedom. But they also saw that preventing LGBT folks from living and loving as their hearts desired led many to develop notions of inferiority. Such appeals could inspire even the most staid liberal rationalists to moments of rhetorical passion. One of the most powerful denunciations of homophobia came from the English philosopher H.L.A Hart in his little book Law, Liberty, and Morality (1963). One of the most important legal theorists of the 20th century and well-known for his rationalism and utilitarianism, Hart was also a closeted gay man and a deep soul who wrestled with his sexuality throughout his life.

In the mid-20th century, Hart engaged in a famous debate with Lord Patrick Devlin, who argued that criminal law had a right to enforce the traditional morality of the everyday (read: socially conservative) man. Since this hypothetical everyman happened to be homophobic, it was right and proper for the law to express that viewpoint. Hart struck back by arguing that homophobic prejudices controlled people’s choices in a manner akin to a sort of slavery. Hart’s conviction wasn’t just that LGB people had a right to do as they wished so long as they posed no harm to anyone else, but that this freedom was a necessary prerequisite to living a good life and improving society through helping rid us of our prejudices.

Hart, Wollstonecraft, and Mill converge on the same insight. Lord Devlin and his ilk defended homophobia because they feared that challenging traditional mores would lead to the disintegration of society. Or, at least, the society they recognized and approved of. The truth, of course, is that prejudice remains the far larger danger. What we find in these liberal thinkers is a subtle recognition of the connections between freedom, reason, love, and their dark counterparts, tyranny, bigotry, and hatred. Liberals felt that equality and individuality enabled people to think more clearly and love more passionately. From this standpoint, patriarchy and homophobia don’t merely violate fundamental rights — they also encourage unthinkingly-held irrational prejudices, which in turn fosters hatred and suffering in the broader society. It’s the convenience of leaning on tradition and not having to think through one’s bigotries that explains their enduring appeal.

The reactionary appeal is one that liberals underestimate at our peril. For many years, we had a bad habit of assuming Fukuyama’s “end of history” — that there is some kind of unidirectional inevitability to the expansion of freedom and tolerance. This ignores the complicated ebbs and flows of real history and how hard-won rights and freedoms can be stripped away far more quickly than we’d expect. The events of the past decade have mostly snapped people out of this misconception, but the fact that it took hold for so long should warn us about the allure of complacency.

This is just what is happening in many parts of the world. Under the guise of protecting “family values”, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán — inspired by Poland’s Law and Justice Party — recently banned same-sex adoption and limited the expression of LGBT love. This should worry anyone who has followed the American right’s recent trajectory, as figures like Tucker Carlson fawned over the tin pot despot even before he was invited to speak at CPAC. In the United States, we’ve seen a flurry of new anti-LGBT bills passed in red states, and sitting SCOTUS judges all but giddy at the prospect of further rolling back human rights victories many thought were entrenched precedents. If the American right commits itself to following Hungary and manages to regain political power at some point, we could see a country-wide retraction of LGBT rights.

In an era of increasing illiberalism, it isn’t enough for us to just appeal to reason and fundamental rights. We must show that a victory of the LGBT community is also a victory for love and freedom, and that this will ripple through the character and ethos of all society. This is why it is so vital for everyone — LGBT or not — to celebrate both our individuality and common humanity; to understand that we all thrive when people are free to express their true selves. Focusing too narrowly on reason to the exclusion of emotion doesn’t just limit ourselves; it is, ironically, irrational. Research shows that emotions are the driving force behind decision-making and persuasion. If we want to change hearts and minds, then, rationally, we must speak not only from the mind but also from the heart. When it comes to persuasion, data and logic are not at odds with passion and affect. Indeed, it is often only through the doorway of the latter that we can reach people with the former. Let’s work with human nature, not against it. The stakes are too high not to wear our hearts on our sleeves.

Published Jan 26, 2023
Updated Feb 1, 2023