Liberalism is a doctrine that does not claim to have answers for everything, unlike Marxism, and welcomes divergence and criticism within its framework, based on a small but unmistakable core of convictions. For instance, that freedom is the supreme value, that it is indivisible and not fragmented, that it is one and must manifest itself across all areas – economic, political, social, and cultural – in a genuinely democratic society. Failing to understand this is why all those regimes in the 1960s and 1970s that attempted to promote economic freedom while being despotic – often military dictatorships – ultimately failed. These ignorant rulers believed that a market policy could succeed under repressive, dictatorial governments. But many democratic experiments in Latin America also failed because they respected political freedoms but did not believe in economic freedom – the free market – which is what brings material development and progress.

Liberalism is not dogmatic; it understands that reality is complex and that ideas and political programmes must often adapt to it in order to succeed, rather than trying to force reality into rigid frameworks, which tends to make them fail and leads to political violence. Liberalism has also generated its own “infantile disorder” – sectarianism – embodied in certain economists bewitched by the free market as a panacea for all social problems. To them, it is worth recalling the example of Adam Smith himself, the father of liberalism, who, under certain circumstances, even tolerated the temporary retention of some privileges – such as subsidies and controls – when removing them immediately might cause more harm than good. That tolerance shown by Smith towards his adversary is perhaps the most admirable trait of liberal doctrine: the acceptance that it might be wrong, and the opponent might be right.

A liberal government must face social and historical reality with flexibility, without believing that all societies can be fitted into a single theoretical model – a counterproductive attitude that leads to failure and frustration. Liberals are not anarchists and do not seek to abolish the State. On the contrary, we want a strong and efficient State – which does not mean a large one, burdened with doing things that civil society can do better under a system of free competition. The State must guarantee freedom, public order, respect for the law, and equality of opportunity.

Equality before the law and equality of opportunity do not mean equality of income and wealth, as some liberals might suggest. This can only be achieved through an authoritarian government that “equalises” all citizens economically by means of an oppressive system, levelling out individual differences in ability, imagination, inventiveness, concentration, diligence, ambition, work ethic, and leadership. This amounts to the disappearance of the individual, their immersion into the tribe.

Nothing is fairer than that, starting from a roughly equal base, individuals’ incomes differ according to their greater or lesser contributions to the common good of society. It would be foolish to ignore that there are intelligent and stupid people, diligent and lazy, inventive and unimaginative, studious and idle, and so on. And it would be unjust if, in the name of “equality,” everyone received the same salary regardless of their differing skills and merits. Societies that have tried this crushed individual initiative, effectively erasing individuals into a bland mass, paralysed by the lack of competition and suffocated in their creativity.

La llamada de la tribu