11-13-2025
Today in the U.S., the classical liberal commitment to individual liberty is beset on all sides — by the left’s zeal for regulatory paternalism, and by the populist right’s enthusiasm for wielding state power against perceived cultural enemies. If ever classical liberalism needed a robust defense, now’s the time.
Cass Sunstein is an unlikely candidate to accept this challenge. While serving as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein embraced the expansion of federal administrative power and backed rules to shape behavior in the direction the Obama administration deemed optimal.
But accept the challenge he does, in his most recent book, On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom. The work is ambitious in scope but flawed in execution, as Sunstein attempts to smuggle progressive principles into classical liberalism’s intellectual framework.
Sunstein demonstrates sophisticated understanding of Enlightenment tradition, yet insists on having it both ways, championing individual liberty while advocating policies that treat citizens as children who cannot be trusted to decide for themselves. Acknowledging that liberals prize free markets as vehicles for exercising agency, he immediately argues for paternalistic interventions to protect people from choices they would freely make.
And his willingness to meddle goes beyond protections against self-harm. Implausibly asserting that most liberals “do not regard freedom of contract as sacrosanct,” he supports all manner of restrictions on consensual exchanges. Consider his tortured logic on minimum wage laws, which prohibit the unemployed from working for wages they might eagerly accept. Sunstein labels these laws “liberal” because they “merely substitute one form of regulation for another.” He blithely equates (liberal) frameworks that defend uncoerced exchange and (illiberal) mandates that override freely negotiated arrangements.
Sunstein contends liberals can back government paternalism, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the contemporary administrative state, and other regulatory apparatus, all of which classical liberals find abhorrent. He appears unable to perceive the contradictions between his stated principles and his preferred policies.
Sunstein sees “liberalism” as a tradition so broad and inclusive it encompasses figures that most deem ideological adversaries. He envisions a coalition spanning from Reagan Republicans to Roosevelt Democrats, disregarding irreconcilable disagreements. Reagan was deeply skeptical of government and confident that free markets and civil society could solve societal problems. Roosevelt saw comprehensive government intervention as necessary to address market failures and societal inequities. These positions don’t evolve from a shared framework. They represent incompatible visions of the state’s role in society.
Sunstein would likely disagree, arguing shared procedural commitments to freedom, pluralism and the rule of law unite people across vast substantive differences. To make this claim, Sunstein redefines liberty to include entitlement to adequate income, housing, medical care, education and protection from financial fears. He shifts the government’s role from protecting voluntary exchange and property rights to guaranteeing outcomes, subjugating individual sovereignty to collective welfare.
Recent surveys reveal the imminent danger: 62% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably; 76% of voters under 40 support nationalizing major industries; nearly half of undergraduates accept shouting down speakers, and a third endorse criminalizing offensive speech. These aren't the preferences of a freedom-loving people.
Facing these existential threats, classical liberalism needs defenders who understand that the primary danger to human flourishing comes not from insufficient expert guidance but from the concentration of power in institutions that lack knowledge, proper incentives and effective accountability mechanisms. Sunstein, conflating respect for individual autonomy and paternalistic concern for optimal outcomes, is not such a defender.
Read my full critique in the November issue of Commentary.
Michael Woronoff joined Purdue in February 2025 as a Business Fellow at the Daniels School. He practices law in Los Angeles and writes frequently about capitalism and freedom.
