Liberals value liberty; however, so do illiberals, including conservatives. Almost all modern opponents of liberalism claim to support liberty, though their interpretations of the concept often differ greatly. As a result, liberty cannot serve as a definitive criterion for distinguishing between political camps.
In my view, the issues of equality and inequality are more central and diagnostic in differentiating ideologies. These matters remain unresolved at both national and international levels. The French economist Thomas Piketty highlighted that every human society must justify the inequalities that arise within it. Without justification, the political and social structure risks collapse. Consequently, each era and society develops competing discourses and ideologies to legitimize existing inequalities or those deemed necessary.
Inequality is fundamentally an ideological and political issue, rather than merely an economic or technological one. Social, economic, and political rules emerge from these ideological discourses, giving meaning to the surrounding social structure.
Historically, equality was not always considered a universal value. Aristotle argued that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. Similarly, socio-political thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that while equality might represent the natural state of humanity, it could coexist with significant social inequalities. Even Immanuel Kant supported inequality when he considered it justified.
The core issue surrounding equality lies in the assertion that all human beings are equal in their shared humanity – and in that respect alone. As humans, no one is more or less human than another. However, individuals may differ in the extent to which they possess qualities common to humanity. Recognizing that all humans are personally equal in their humanity implies they are entitled to circumstantial equality – at least in terms of equality of opportunity.
In modern political discourse, a key distinction between the conservative-right and the liberal-left concerns their valuation of equality and inequality. The conservative-right views equality as an unattainable or even undesirable goal and works to preserve or amplify inequality' while the liberal-left advocates for equality and actively seeks to promote it.
More specifically, some argue that liberal socialists value both equality and liberty; capitalist conservatives prioritize liberty alone; communists value equality exclusively; and fascists value neither liberty nor equality.
Voltaire, the Enlightenment philosopher, insightfully remarked that "equality is the most natural thing and at the same time the most imaginary." Similarly, Norberto Bobbio differentiated between the right and left based on their attitudes toward equality: the right perceives inequality as natural and beneficial, believing the state should protect or preserve it, while the left regards inequality as artificial and harmful, striving to overcome it through an active state.
Piketty posits that ideas and ideologies hold historical significance, enabling us to envision new societal models and distinguish between potential social structures. His perspective challenges the conservative argument, which often assumes inequality has a "natural" basis. Piketty argues that elites in many societies strive to present inequality as a natural phenomenon. Unlike the Marxist approach, which sees economic forces and production relations as mechanically determining a society's ideological "superstructure," Piketty asserts that the political-ideological realm has its own autonomy.
Equality among human beings is essential to understanding the emergence of the left in history. The liberal left tradition is anchored in several fundamental values, chief among them being the principle of equality – a belief in the inherent equality of all humans.
The Enlightenment most clearly articulated the modern concept of equality. This era rejected religious justifications for equality, such as the belief that “all men are created in the image of God” or stem from a common father. Instead, equality was grounded in the idea that every individual possesses reason, a tool enabling them to think, evaluate, and decide autonomously. Enlightenment thinkers argued that men are equal not only in their intelligence but also in their rights. As rational beings, all people have equal moral value, dignity, and entitlement to rights. Liberalism, as a tradition, strives for egalitarian goals where equality of opportunity aligns with equality of outcomes.
In contrast, conservative right-wing movements often center around the axiom of inequality in human society. They do not advocate equality among individuals, nations, or citizens. Instead, they tend to favor some form of "ethnic nationalism," which inherently opposes the liberal emphasis on universal equality.
Equality, according to right-wing ideologies in general, is often seen as the Trojan horse of liberalism. The right, therefore, rejects the Enlightenment and liberal concept that humans are born equal. Its adherents frequently subscribe to the principles of social Darwinism. This perspective is exemplified in the words of Walter Gross, head of the Nazi Office for Enlightenment on Population Policy and Racial Welfare, who declared in 1939 that "no agreement is possible with the international intellectual systems, because they are not faithful to the truth, and are not fair. They are based on an unbelievable lie, namely that of equality between human beings."
This fundamental difference in axioms has far-reaching implications across various aspects of life, most notably in the treatment of the "other" and the formulation of attitudes toward them. Today, inequality seems to be the accepted default, forming part of a new paradigm that dominates our cultural horizon. Society faces a "crisis of equality," reflecting a shift in the balance of power between the radical, extremist right and the progressive left. When the former gains dominance, challenges to human equality become pervasive, and its violation normalized in practice.
Those who choose to undermine fundamental social and state values effectively exclude themselves from the democratic framework. When an individual, group, or movement adopts criteria such as culture, religion, nationality, race, gender, or skin color to distinguish between "us" and "them" – and institutionalizes these distinctions within a hierarchical system – they embrace racism as a way of life. Such an anti-liberal approach, epitomized by racism, cannot coexist with a democratic regime, just as democracy cannot coexist with incitement, violent extremism, or terrorism.
The harm caused by the establishment of right-wing, radical, religious-nationalist ideologies – and particularly extremist views – represents a grave threat to the humanistic, democratic foundations of trust, consensus, and social cohesion. This is especially true in diverse societies, such as the State of Israel, where a complex social mosaic necessitates shared values. The value of equality is indispensable in such societies, serving as a cornerstone of the multicultural framework. This framework seeks to ensure the protection of the rights of individuals and groups outside the hegemonic majority, including their rights to culture, religion, language, housing, and other fundamental aspects of life.
This situation mirrors developments in the United States, as well as in Israel. Although the founders of Israel declared that the future state would treat all its residents equally, "regardless of religion, race, and gender," this vision faced opposition from certain sectors of Israeli society from the very beginning. Over the years, this opposition has grown more pronounced. For instance, Rabbi Meir Kahane explicitly argued that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between a Jewish state and a state in which Arabs and Jews have equal rights. According to his view, equal rights for all citizens and the Jewish character of the state are mutually exclusive.
One of the most prominent legal expressions of efforts to "break equality" in Israel is the Basic Law: Israel – The Nation-State of the Jewish People (2018). This law notably omits any reference to the value of "equality" or the preservation of democracy. It disregards the principles outlined in Israel's Declaration of Independence, which promised equal rights to all citizens of the state. Furthermore, the law fails to include the phrase "Jewish and democratic," effectively sidelining one of the core values that had been foundational to Israel's national ethos.
