Classical Liberalism vs National Conservatism: Israel Case

By Ron Raskin

Shifting tectonic plates in the geopolitical landscape are sending ripples across the globe, rapidly transforming Western democracies. One of the biggest changes happening today is the rise of national conservatism, which prioritizes national interests, while classical liberalism, which emphasizes individual rights, is declining. In Europe, classical liberalism has traditionally been represented by center-right and center-left parties, but its role in U.S. politics is less clear. For years, Western democracies prioritized economic growth and technological advancement, with classical liberalism—emphasizing individual liberty, free markets, capitalism, rule of law, tolerance, separation of powers, and checks and balances—serving as an ideal framework. This system thrived as parents worked tirelessly to build careers while ensuring their children received top-tier education to compete in an individualistic world.

The true goal of war is to increase the share of the population aligned with your interests and values

Yet, this model came with drawbacks. While liberalism fostered more educated and proactive individuals, it also drove up the “cost” of raising each child, leading to a sharp decline in birth rates. Parents, consumed by career demands, often lacked the time and energy to nurture large families of equally competitive, well-educated offspring. Meanwhile, other nations took a different approach, focusing on population growth rather than improving living standards, with Islamic fundamentalism being a key example. In their view, the true goal of war is to increase the share of the population aligned with your interests and values. From this standpoint, victory means little unless it ensures demographic dominance—otherwise, it’s just a temporary win in a long, ongoing struggle.

The outcome has been the rise of national conservatism in the West, which centers on three core goals:

• Boosting population growth through higher national fertility rates rather than relying on immigration-driven demographics. From the perspective of national conservatism, the declining population of Western nations is the main cause of today’s global instability. The survival of Western values depends on their ability to stabilize or even increase their share of the world population.
• Preparing the nation for war, a readiness tied to fertility rates— It’s easier for a family with ten children to send one to defend their home than to relocate all ten and start over. But if a family has only one child, that child means everything to them, making the situation completely different.
• Achieving industrial and military independence from other nations to secure national sovereignty and safety.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a key advocate of liberal economic policies as leader of the Likud party where the “L” stands for liberal, has shifted toward national conservatism in recent years. To push this change, he has aligned himself with religious and Orthodox groups, which naturally hold conservative values.

The shift became openly visible in early 2023 with the judicial reform, a move seen as an attack on one of the strongest pillars of liberalism in Israel. Given that Netanyahu himself faces legal challenges, targeting the courts first made strategic sense. However, after facing strong resistance, Netanyahu decided to retreat and rethink his approach. Instead of a direct attack on the judiciary, he turned his focus to what he calls the “deep state”—which is actually the liberal values that shape Israeli society, rather than a group of people working together on hidden plans and strategies. Ironically, these are the same values he supported just a decade or two ago.

 While moving from classical liberalism to national conservatism is a logical response to global changes, the way this transition happens is just as important. Netanyahu has chosen to align with religious and traditional groups (see my previous post for a breakdown of Israel’s Jewish population). However, this alliance comes at a cost—religious groups in Israel prioritize religion over democracy, meaning that alongside the shift to national conservatism, there is a real risk of harming both democracy and consequently the economy.

Additionally, while the religious Zionist community is well-positioned to lead national conservatism, the ultra-Orthodox sector does not necessarily share the same Zionist values. In fact, in 20–30 years, their growing influence could become a problem in itself.

A better approach would be a gradual, evolutionary shift rather than a sudden, revolutionary one. This would require involving a broader spectrum of Israeli society, including liberals, to ensure that the transition strengthens the nation without tearing it apart through internal conflict.

Hopefully, a significant part of Israel’s liberal population will recognize this challenge and take the initiative. If they do—and if they find the internal strength and motivation to increase birth rates—they can help preserve key liberal values like democracy…

Hopefully, a significant part of Israel’s liberal population will recognize this challenge and take the initiative. If they do—and if they find the internal strength and motivation to increase birth rates—they can help preserve key liberal values like democracy and investment in education, securing long-term economic strength. Not only that, but higher birth rates among secular liberals would also help balance the demographic divide between secular and religious communities, easing tensions between them.

The question remains: Will liberals in Israel rise to the challenge? Will liberals across the West?