That is a far cry from John Stuart Mill’s classical liberalism. In his masterpiece, “On Liberty,” Mill argued that in view of human limitations, “a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.” And not as a formality, but because both conservatives and progressives champion truths that the other typically overlooks, belittles, or suppresses.

Both also tend to neglect the variety of ways of being liberal, as does Lefebvre. While he acknowledges that “a different shape and texture” than what he espouses could be given “to a liberal way of life,” he misses a splendid opportunity to demonstrate his liberality toward liberalism. Having extolled Leslie Knope’s liberalism, Lefebvre omits mention of her boss, the great comic figure Ron Swanson. Ron is a rugged individualist, a man’s man, a lover of sports, tools, guns, meat, and whiskey. He is taciturn and gruff, but also tolerant, good-hearted, and a shrewd judge of character. True, he takes to ridiculous extremes the belief that that government is best that governs least. Yet a liberalism unable also to delight in Ron Swanson’s principles and virtues is too cramped to guide a free and generous way of life.

Contrary to both progressive defenses and conservative critiques of liberalism, our liberals are not liberal enough.