Values-forward liberalism

Although from a conservative angle, it exemplifies the broader shift from procedural neutrality to explicit moral claims in defending (or redefining) liberal-democratic partnerships around foundational values.

The article rejects a status-quo, defensive definition of liberalism (citing Galston) and argues liberals must make explicit, affirmative moral claims and pro-growth policy pitches against postliberal populism. This directly advances the shift from procedural neutrality to value-assertive defense of liberal democracy outlined in the existing idea.

Calling for government to champion family formation is a move from procedural neutrality to explicit moral claims, reframing liberal governance around affirmative pro-family norms rather than value-neutral administration.

By questioning the viability of 'liberal neutrality' and emphasizing the need to defend rule-of-law institutions against sophistic, power-first politics, the article advances the shift from procedural neutrality to explicit moral claims as the grounding for liberal governance.

The essay argues liberalism requires substantive claims about human nature (e.g., fear of violent death, thymotic recognition) rather than mere procedural neutrality, exemplifying a shift toward explicit moral grounding in defense of liberal norms.

Enoch and Mounk argue liberals should stop ‘refereeing’ and embrace moral objectivism, with a funded series explicitly reframing liberal virtues and values.

The article explicitly reframes democracy as requiring specific moral virtues (individual rights, rule of law) and advocates proactively instilling them, moving beyond procedural neutrality—precisely the values-forward defense of liberal democracy described in this idea.

By urging the Left to foreground America’s comparative virtues and moral positives rather than procedural or purely critical frames, the article pushes a values-explicit defense of liberal democracy consistent with this shift.