A Note on How Neutrality is Probably Impossible

Is Seattle's Mayor a Postliberal?

No, he isn’t—but his recent statement supports postliberal thinking. Here’s what happened. On May 26, 2025, MaydayUSA, a conservative Christian group, came to Seattle to stage a rally called “#DontMessWithOurKids.” This organization opposes sexual education in grade school, particularly around transsexuality. In other words, they take a counter-cultural position on the disputed question of what to teach kids in public school about sex (i.e. “gender”) and sexuality.

In response, a crowd of progressives gather to protest the rally. At some point, people began throwing things at each other, and 23 protesters were arrested by Seattle police, often for interfering in attempts by police to arrest other protesters. No one was seriously hurt, though one officer received a minor injury.

At this point, Mayor Bruce Harrell released a revealing statement. It read, in part: “Seattle is proud of our reputation as a welcoming, inclusive city for LGBTQ+ communities, and we stand with our trans neighbors when they face bigotry and injustice. Today’s far-right rally was held here for this very reason – to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.” He proceeding to call on the people of Seattle to “triumph by demonstrating our values through our words and peaceful protest,” not violence.

Mayor Harrell’s statement demonstrates a fundamental claim of postliberalism: that neutrality is impossible for any political community. Every political community is based on some theory of how the world works and what is right and wrong. The claim of liberalism is that we can “bracket” controversial questions—such as the question of the one true religion, or even morality itself—and base our politics on “neutral” values like liberty and freedom. “Just let people be free and don’t tell them what to believe.” This “tolerance,” it is argued, will produce peaceful societies that are not wracked with conflict.

There is not question that neutrality is possible to an extent, and that some questions have become politically irrelevant. I’m reading a book about the Thirty Years War right now. (I’ve also discovered an excellent power metal song lamenting the tragedy of the Thirty Years War.) That conflict was driven in part by religious differences between Catholics and Protestants sects in the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was a massive conglomeration of principalities united under a common emperor, who had little real power. Following the Protestant Reformation, the principalities of the Empire were divided between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists. Attempts by the Catholic Emperor to roll back Protestantism (the so-called “Counter-Reformation”) triggered a revolt in Bohemia, which escalated into a continental war that devastated central Europe. The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the war, established a form of toleration between Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists. (Sorry, Anabaptists, everyone still hated you.) Rulers in the Holy Roman Empire could choose any of these sects to be the official religion of their principality, and subjects could privately worship according to any of them, even if their ruler belonged to a different sect. The Peace of Westphalia paved the way for broader religion toleration, and most people are happy to see the era of religious warfare done and gone.

But its harder to extend toleration all the way down. Religious “neutrality” only seems to work because it is not generally necessary to base a law on whether or not the elements of the Lord’s Supper literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (to take one example that has divided Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists since the 1600s). But it is necessary to base laws on general morality and/or on visions for what promotes human flourishing. We have to teach something about gender in public schools. Teachers have to either use or not use a students preferred pronouns. Biology classes have to take a position on it. Etc. Almost every issue of public concern depends in some way on a specific philosophy regarding the good life, how to get there, and what is stopping us from getting there.

This is why philosophers used to literally define a community as something united around a common conception of “good” and “bad.”¹ Without that common ground, it’s hard to imaging forming public laws at all, at least without violence. A great modern example of this is the debate over slavery in the antebellum United States. Over time, it became literally impossible for pro-slavery and anti-slavery people to coexist in the same country. In this case, the pro-slavery side was violently suppressed, and their interpretation of history and morality was written out of public education. The only reason people don’t feel the impossibility of neutrality more often is because many truths are commonly agreed upon, and therefore do not provoke debate. There isn’t really a religion or philosophical sect that denies that 2+2=4, or that morally objects to teaching kids math. If there was, then mathematics would not longer be “neutral.”

In the end, it’s not surprising that Seattle’s Mayor appeals to “our values” and presumes that it’s acceptable for Seattle to base itself on a contested philosophy called transgenderism. He’s just doing what everyone has been doing forever. But in a country that no longer accepts a unified morality, this causes protests and counter-protests. The task for postliberals, then, is to articulate how we can move past “neutrality” without going back to something like the Thirty Years War.²

1. Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas are non-exhaustive examples.

2. That’s what this blog is all about, although I’m finding it difficult to make time to write.