What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Liberalism Failed
Has liberalism failed because it has succeeded? Of the three dominant ideologies of the twentieth century—fascism, communism, and liberalism—only the last remains. This has created a peculiar situation in which liberalism’s proponents tend to forget that it is an ideology and not the natural end-state of human political evolution. As Patrick Deneen argues in this provocative book, liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history. Here, Deneen offers an astringent warning that the centripetal forces now at work on our political culture are not superficial flaws but inherent features of a system whose success is generating its own failure.
248 pages, Hardcover
First published January 9, 2018
882 people are currently reading
11.6k people want to read
About the author
Patrick J. Deneen
19 books202 followersPatrick J. Deneen holds a B.A. in English literature and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Rutgers University. From 1995-1997 he was Speechwriter and Special Advisor to the Director of the United States Information Agency. From 1997-2005 he was Assistant Professor of Government at Princeton University. From 2005-2012 he was Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University, before joining the faculty of Notre Dame in Fall 2012. He is the author and editor of several books and numerous articles and reviews and has delivered invited lectures around the country and several foreign nations.
Deneen was awarded the A.P.S.A.'s Leo Strauss Award for Best Dissertation in Political Theory in 1995, and an honorable mention for the A.P.S.A.'s Best First Book Award in 2000. He has been awarded research fellowships from Princeton University and the Earhart Foundation.
His teaching and writing interests focus on the history of political thought, American political thought, religion and politics, and literature and politics.
Deneen was awarded the A.P.S.A.'s Leo Strauss Award for Best Dissertation in Political Theory in 1995, and an honorable mention for the A.P.S.A.'s Best First Book Award in 2000. He has been awarded research fellowships from Princeton University and the Earhart Foundation.
His teaching and writing interests focus on the history of political thought, American political thought, religion and politics, and literature and politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 566 reviews
December 22, 2017
Those of us born into a post-Cold War world have no memory of a mass political ideology other than liberalism. As a result, liberalism doesn't appear to us an "ideology" at all, at least not in the same sense that communism and fascism do. Just like a fish isn’t aware of the water its swims in and we generally aren't aware of the air that we breathe, liberalism seems to us as simply the “natural way of things,” rather than as an ideological program with specific attributes, tenets and anthropological contentions.
In reality, however, liberalism as a project of the Enlightenment is a distinct sociopolitical ideology that contains many contentious assumptions about human beings and the natural world. Although I’m not sure that liberalism has “failed” in the sense that it will cease to exist, it seems increasingly incapable of providing for the material and spiritual needs of most ordinary people, though it continues to provide great benefits to a highly-empowered elite. "Liberalism becomes daily more visible precisely because its deformations are becoming too obvious to ignore," Deneen writes. His book is a provocative attack on liberalism tout court, which is worth engaging with regardless of ones own preferences. As the gap between the lofty rhetoric of liberal politics and the lived reality of most people widens, the visibility of liberalism as a distinct ideology, rather than a default state of nature, may soon lead to its collapse, barring some sort of course correction. What replaces it could be either outright despotism or an even worse sociopolitical program.
To understand liberalisms contradictions (to use the Marxist term), it’s important to understand the roots of its claims to human emancipation. Liberalism claims to free people from “artificial” bonds imposed by cultures and distinct local communities that have been deemed oppressive if they infringe on the ability to the Self to do as it wills. Through the power of the state and market, it eradicates or weakens intermediate institutions, including the family, that historically have been tasked with molding human beings in particular directions. Instead, it liberates individuals in order to give untrammeled indulgence to the individual will. Under liberalism, people can and should do what they "want," and should also not be trained in what it is best to “want," which would again be a form of artifice and oppression. As long as people meet the narrow requirement of not breaking the law or causing immediate physical harm to others, they are free to do as they wish.
This is the modern idea of liberty. The classical conception, dating from at least Greek antiquity, was very different. Instead of freedom to do as you wish within the bounds of the law, the classical definition of liberty was intended to educate people in character and virtue in order to "liberate" them from their base desires and instincts. Freedom meant freedom from enslavement to the appetite, requiring an education that taught individuals how to regulate their wants and needs in relation to both a personal and common good. Such a liberation from animal instinct would help individuals become full-fledged human beings, capable of reaching their true potential and living in harmonious coexistence with others in their society. This lofty definition of liberty is far from how most people most people understand it today, particularly in the United States where “liberty” has degenerated into a political slogan giving license to indulge in hedonism, consumption, sloth and even militaristic violence towards the Other.
The liberal redefinition of liberty started with Machiavelli, who denounced the idea of instructing people in character and virtuous behavior as distracting and unrealistic. Instead, we were gradually seeped into the idea that "greed is good" (to quote Gordon Gecko) and that humanity's base animal instincts should be harnessed for power rather than be futilely molded into a virtuous form. This is also the root of the idea of a liberal “anticulture," where culture is considered the norms, traditions and teachings passed down from generation to generation and intended to direct human beings in a teleological manner. The intermediate institutions (local, religious, ethnic, class-based) that once helped inculcate such culture were destroyed under liberalism, correctly viewed as obstacles to the unbridled expansion of the market and state, whose bonds liberalism falsely characterizes as voluntary.
The decline of these institutions and the accompanying abandonment of the idea that people must be educated in any idea of character and virtue has unsurprisingly led to greater social pathologies that must be policed by the state, in turn leading to the expansion of that state into our intimate lives as an enforcer. It’s important to note why this is. Liberal economics and ideology eviscerates local culture and economy, right down to the family level. The resulting chaos in turn generates the need for a replacement for those intermediate institutions, which ends up being the state itself. Instead of relying on taught social norms to regulate and minimize such ills as violent crime and avarice, the liberal state, which is opposed to molding people’s character in any particular direction, ends up filling the gap with punitive surveillance and carceral policies for those unguided people who end up breaking the law. Whereas people were once taught to do good for the sake of doing good, they are, under liberalism, instead reduced to the degraded standard of obeying positive law for fear of punishment. Among other things this long-term assault on culture has unsurprisingly led to epidemic levels of sexual harassment and assault, regions of private behavior that the state has a notoriously difficult time policing and delineating laws around.
While liberalism, like many other mass ideologies, claims to return people to a "state of nature" before the imposition of artificial constraints and impediments, in reality it is built around a particular anthropological theory of human beings that it seeks to bring into existence. In this case, it is an idea of humanity that defines people above all else as self-seeking autonomous individuals. Contrary to all natural evidence that considers human beings as inherently social and bonded to one another by duty and obligation, liberalism views any “non-voluntary” duty imposed on people towards each another as a form of oppression, meant to be swept away or diminished into insignificance by the force of state and market.
Under liberalism human beings are thus free to do as they wish, but without a culture to instruct them, what they "wish," Deneen argues, most often tends towards the base corporeal instincts of hedonism, titillation and distraction. It is also prioritizes the present above all else, by weakening our cultural bonds to both past and future generations. Instead of shaping individuals with higher duties or aims, liberalism actively encourages them to become primarily workers and consumers, focused above all on the satisfaction of immediate desires. This is neither the classical or religious definition of human purpose and any of the thinkers of antiquity that are generally lionized (though seldom read or understood) by modern Westerners would be horrified by this degraded image of man.
Given the limits of the natural world and the growing complexity of human societies, it is questionable whether this liberal conception of humans as greedy, atomized self-seekers is sustainable, let alone spiritually or psychologically rewarding for those indoctrinated into it. One of the fundamental tenets of liberalism is the necessity for human beings to make war against the natural world, in the name of increasing human power. Liberalism creates an alienation between man and nature that incentives exploitation in the name of maximizing the ability of the Self to satiate its ever-increasing desires. This takes the most obvious form in environmentally hazardous policies upon which modern societies have been built, but also in the more recent effort to overcome human nature through technological bioengineering and government policy. Just as cultural limits have become viewed as a form of oppression, environmental limits are too increasingly viewed as obstacles to the untrammeled and unmoulded will. Francis Bacon, a founding father of the Enlightenment literally described nature as something to be "tortured" to extract its secrets. We have taken his guidance, with results that have been mixed but may soon be lead us to our doom, if prognostications around climate change are correct.
Deneen also takes to task the education system, which he claims has been bent to the will of the liberal economic and political order. The liberal education system has ironically helped eradicate the "liberal arts" by prioritizing the increase of raw human power over any importance of shaping human beings into a particular image of character or virtue, something that has unsurprisingly given rise to such grotesque phenomena as "rape culture" among young men on college campuses. Practical education, historically known as "servile education," has been exalted, training young people above all else to be inputs in the hegemonic economic and military research system of the state and market. Those remaining in the liberal arts field must respond to a pressure to create “new knowledge” rather than instructing young generations on the value of timeless wisdom, and have increasingly done so by attacking the roots of their own profession, lacking as they do any means of innovating upon classical knowledge.
Educational stratification has also helped foster a new aristocracy, perhaps even more powerful and detached than the old one, though indoctrinated in the liberal idea that it is not an aristocracy at all and that its advantages are earned by merit. This aristocracy uses its economic power to fashion for itself institutions that liberal economic and social policy destroyed for the rest of society, including societies of mutual support and family structures (see: expensive nannies), thus tacitly admitting the necessity of these things to success and happiness. As the gap between these highly-educated elites and the increasingly desperate masses widens, the incentive to control the latter with punitive policies of surveillance and policing grows.
Is there a chance for meaningful change through technocratic management? Probably not. The supposedly apocalyptic battle between Democrats and Republicans in domestic U.S. politics is rightly characterized by Deneen for what it is: a battle between two branches of liberalism. Although "liberalism" has a popular meaning in contemporary political discourse, by the terms of its traditional definition both parties, right and left, are committedly liberal. Both favor the expansion of the market and state, in varying proportions, at the expense of local forms of governance, cultural norms and anything else that may act as an impediment to the growth of these twin Leviathans of modernity. While generally speaking progressive liberals (Democrats) and classical liberals (Republicans) have different immediate priorities when it comes to expanding individual liberation from cultural norms or expanding the all-powerful force of the liberal free market, in reality their program works hand in hand and is mutually reinforcing. Where the global economy eradicates local economies and their accompanying cultures, the state fills the void and remakes those communities in its preferred image.
Deneen's argued solution for all this is admirably modest and practical. Instead of proposing a new grand ideology, which he rightly predicts would be prone to giving birth to a tyranny even worse than liberalism, he counsels an organic recreation of culture starting at the local level. People living in local communities of mutual knowledge, dependence, support and purpose could fashion an alternative model of society that may be expanded outwards, as long as it is seen as not mortally threatening to the liberal order. Although Deneen is a social conservative and his vision would likely be conservative, I don’t see why such communities could not be inclusive of new social groups that have come into existence as one of the positive outcomes of liberal society. The alternatives to this constructive ideal would be liberalism simply collapsing wholesale and being replaced with another mass ideology like fascism or communism, or continuing to exist in some form while expanding its coercive powers over the immiserated masses to the point where it becomes merely despotism with a cynically liberal face. Unfortunately, I think that the latter scenario is quite likely and is already becoming manifest. As elite-driven technological change continues to spin out of our collective ability to control or even understand, a future of techno-feudalism looms in the horizon, sedimenting itself more into our daily reality with every passing year, a subject that the book also engages with. (Our technologies are also designed in reflection of our governing values, atomizing us and setting us into economic competition with one another in most cases.)
Though I don't agree with the entirety of Deneen’s attack on liberalism (even his concessions to its achievements seem a little grudging and pro-forma) or his Malthusian predictions of environmental limits, I found this to be a succinctly argued book. More than anything, I'm grateful for its help in clarifying what is invisible to us: the ideology that governs our lives while deeming itself simply to be "the state of nature." Liberalism stripped away all supposedly artificial human institutions and returned us to what it claimed was our true self: atomized, self-seeking and individualistic. But this framing of mankind is no more natural than any other. Like other modern ideological programs, it was a social engineering project designed to bring about a certain person, and guided by people whose beliefs are as needful of questioning or modification as anyone else’s. It used to the power of central states and markets to impose this revolutionary new vision of politics, society and economy upon the world, as part of a centuries-long process that often had to make recourse to violence and is still ongoing in many places.
All this does not mean that preliberal society was better than liberalism, let alone desirable to us today. But it does indicate that liberalism is a contingent phenomenon that is open to modification as our needs change, rather than a cosmic power governing our lives. Once we understand this, we can begin exercising genuine "liberty" by deciding, on some level, what kind of people we'd actually like to be. Whether that means continuing to embrace liberalism or attempting to return to, or create, new identities based on ideas of self-discipline, community and nature is a choice that’s up to us.
In reality, however, liberalism as a project of the Enlightenment is a distinct sociopolitical ideology that contains many contentious assumptions about human beings and the natural world. Although I’m not sure that liberalism has “failed” in the sense that it will cease to exist, it seems increasingly incapable of providing for the material and spiritual needs of most ordinary people, though it continues to provide great benefits to a highly-empowered elite. "Liberalism becomes daily more visible precisely because its deformations are becoming too obvious to ignore," Deneen writes. His book is a provocative attack on liberalism tout court, which is worth engaging with regardless of ones own preferences. As the gap between the lofty rhetoric of liberal politics and the lived reality of most people widens, the visibility of liberalism as a distinct ideology, rather than a default state of nature, may soon lead to its collapse, barring some sort of course correction. What replaces it could be either outright despotism or an even worse sociopolitical program.
To understand liberalisms contradictions (to use the Marxist term), it’s important to understand the roots of its claims to human emancipation. Liberalism claims to free people from “artificial” bonds imposed by cultures and distinct local communities that have been deemed oppressive if they infringe on the ability to the Self to do as it wills. Through the power of the state and market, it eradicates or weakens intermediate institutions, including the family, that historically have been tasked with molding human beings in particular directions. Instead, it liberates individuals in order to give untrammeled indulgence to the individual will. Under liberalism, people can and should do what they "want," and should also not be trained in what it is best to “want," which would again be a form of artifice and oppression. As long as people meet the narrow requirement of not breaking the law or causing immediate physical harm to others, they are free to do as they wish.
This is the modern idea of liberty. The classical conception, dating from at least Greek antiquity, was very different. Instead of freedom to do as you wish within the bounds of the law, the classical definition of liberty was intended to educate people in character and virtue in order to "liberate" them from their base desires and instincts. Freedom meant freedom from enslavement to the appetite, requiring an education that taught individuals how to regulate their wants and needs in relation to both a personal and common good. Such a liberation from animal instinct would help individuals become full-fledged human beings, capable of reaching their true potential and living in harmonious coexistence with others in their society. This lofty definition of liberty is far from how most people most people understand it today, particularly in the United States where “liberty” has degenerated into a political slogan giving license to indulge in hedonism, consumption, sloth and even militaristic violence towards the Other.
The liberal redefinition of liberty started with Machiavelli, who denounced the idea of instructing people in character and virtuous behavior as distracting and unrealistic. Instead, we were gradually seeped into the idea that "greed is good" (to quote Gordon Gecko) and that humanity's base animal instincts should be harnessed for power rather than be futilely molded into a virtuous form. This is also the root of the idea of a liberal “anticulture," where culture is considered the norms, traditions and teachings passed down from generation to generation and intended to direct human beings in a teleological manner. The intermediate institutions (local, religious, ethnic, class-based) that once helped inculcate such culture were destroyed under liberalism, correctly viewed as obstacles to the unbridled expansion of the market and state, whose bonds liberalism falsely characterizes as voluntary.
The decline of these institutions and the accompanying abandonment of the idea that people must be educated in any idea of character and virtue has unsurprisingly led to greater social pathologies that must be policed by the state, in turn leading to the expansion of that state into our intimate lives as an enforcer. It’s important to note why this is. Liberal economics and ideology eviscerates local culture and economy, right down to the family level. The resulting chaos in turn generates the need for a replacement for those intermediate institutions, which ends up being the state itself. Instead of relying on taught social norms to regulate and minimize such ills as violent crime and avarice, the liberal state, which is opposed to molding people’s character in any particular direction, ends up filling the gap with punitive surveillance and carceral policies for those unguided people who end up breaking the law. Whereas people were once taught to do good for the sake of doing good, they are, under liberalism, instead reduced to the degraded standard of obeying positive law for fear of punishment. Among other things this long-term assault on culture has unsurprisingly led to epidemic levels of sexual harassment and assault, regions of private behavior that the state has a notoriously difficult time policing and delineating laws around.
While liberalism, like many other mass ideologies, claims to return people to a "state of nature" before the imposition of artificial constraints and impediments, in reality it is built around a particular anthropological theory of human beings that it seeks to bring into existence. In this case, it is an idea of humanity that defines people above all else as self-seeking autonomous individuals. Contrary to all natural evidence that considers human beings as inherently social and bonded to one another by duty and obligation, liberalism views any “non-voluntary” duty imposed on people towards each another as a form of oppression, meant to be swept away or diminished into insignificance by the force of state and market.
Under liberalism human beings are thus free to do as they wish, but without a culture to instruct them, what they "wish," Deneen argues, most often tends towards the base corporeal instincts of hedonism, titillation and distraction. It is also prioritizes the present above all else, by weakening our cultural bonds to both past and future generations. Instead of shaping individuals with higher duties or aims, liberalism actively encourages them to become primarily workers and consumers, focused above all on the satisfaction of immediate desires. This is neither the classical or religious definition of human purpose and any of the thinkers of antiquity that are generally lionized (though seldom read or understood) by modern Westerners would be horrified by this degraded image of man.
Given the limits of the natural world and the growing complexity of human societies, it is questionable whether this liberal conception of humans as greedy, atomized self-seekers is sustainable, let alone spiritually or psychologically rewarding for those indoctrinated into it. One of the fundamental tenets of liberalism is the necessity for human beings to make war against the natural world, in the name of increasing human power. Liberalism creates an alienation between man and nature that incentives exploitation in the name of maximizing the ability of the Self to satiate its ever-increasing desires. This takes the most obvious form in environmentally hazardous policies upon which modern societies have been built, but also in the more recent effort to overcome human nature through technological bioengineering and government policy. Just as cultural limits have become viewed as a form of oppression, environmental limits are too increasingly viewed as obstacles to the untrammeled and unmoulded will. Francis Bacon, a founding father of the Enlightenment literally described nature as something to be "tortured" to extract its secrets. We have taken his guidance, with results that have been mixed but may soon be lead us to our doom, if prognostications around climate change are correct.
Deneen also takes to task the education system, which he claims has been bent to the will of the liberal economic and political order. The liberal education system has ironically helped eradicate the "liberal arts" by prioritizing the increase of raw human power over any importance of shaping human beings into a particular image of character or virtue, something that has unsurprisingly given rise to such grotesque phenomena as "rape culture" among young men on college campuses. Practical education, historically known as "servile education," has been exalted, training young people above all else to be inputs in the hegemonic economic and military research system of the state and market. Those remaining in the liberal arts field must respond to a pressure to create “new knowledge” rather than instructing young generations on the value of timeless wisdom, and have increasingly done so by attacking the roots of their own profession, lacking as they do any means of innovating upon classical knowledge.
Educational stratification has also helped foster a new aristocracy, perhaps even more powerful and detached than the old one, though indoctrinated in the liberal idea that it is not an aristocracy at all and that its advantages are earned by merit. This aristocracy uses its economic power to fashion for itself institutions that liberal economic and social policy destroyed for the rest of society, including societies of mutual support and family structures (see: expensive nannies), thus tacitly admitting the necessity of these things to success and happiness. As the gap between these highly-educated elites and the increasingly desperate masses widens, the incentive to control the latter with punitive policies of surveillance and policing grows.
Is there a chance for meaningful change through technocratic management? Probably not. The supposedly apocalyptic battle between Democrats and Republicans in domestic U.S. politics is rightly characterized by Deneen for what it is: a battle between two branches of liberalism. Although "liberalism" has a popular meaning in contemporary political discourse, by the terms of its traditional definition both parties, right and left, are committedly liberal. Both favor the expansion of the market and state, in varying proportions, at the expense of local forms of governance, cultural norms and anything else that may act as an impediment to the growth of these twin Leviathans of modernity. While generally speaking progressive liberals (Democrats) and classical liberals (Republicans) have different immediate priorities when it comes to expanding individual liberation from cultural norms or expanding the all-powerful force of the liberal free market, in reality their program works hand in hand and is mutually reinforcing. Where the global economy eradicates local economies and their accompanying cultures, the state fills the void and remakes those communities in its preferred image.
Deneen's argued solution for all this is admirably modest and practical. Instead of proposing a new grand ideology, which he rightly predicts would be prone to giving birth to a tyranny even worse than liberalism, he counsels an organic recreation of culture starting at the local level. People living in local communities of mutual knowledge, dependence, support and purpose could fashion an alternative model of society that may be expanded outwards, as long as it is seen as not mortally threatening to the liberal order. Although Deneen is a social conservative and his vision would likely be conservative, I don’t see why such communities could not be inclusive of new social groups that have come into existence as one of the positive outcomes of liberal society. The alternatives to this constructive ideal would be liberalism simply collapsing wholesale and being replaced with another mass ideology like fascism or communism, or continuing to exist in some form while expanding its coercive powers over the immiserated masses to the point where it becomes merely despotism with a cynically liberal face. Unfortunately, I think that the latter scenario is quite likely and is already becoming manifest. As elite-driven technological change continues to spin out of our collective ability to control or even understand, a future of techno-feudalism looms in the horizon, sedimenting itself more into our daily reality with every passing year, a subject that the book also engages with. (Our technologies are also designed in reflection of our governing values, atomizing us and setting us into economic competition with one another in most cases.)
Though I don't agree with the entirety of Deneen’s attack on liberalism (even his concessions to its achievements seem a little grudging and pro-forma) or his Malthusian predictions of environmental limits, I found this to be a succinctly argued book. More than anything, I'm grateful for its help in clarifying what is invisible to us: the ideology that governs our lives while deeming itself simply to be "the state of nature." Liberalism stripped away all supposedly artificial human institutions and returned us to what it claimed was our true self: atomized, self-seeking and individualistic. But this framing of mankind is no more natural than any other. Like other modern ideological programs, it was a social engineering project designed to bring about a certain person, and guided by people whose beliefs are as needful of questioning or modification as anyone else’s. It used to the power of central states and markets to impose this revolutionary new vision of politics, society and economy upon the world, as part of a centuries-long process that often had to make recourse to violence and is still ongoing in many places.
All this does not mean that preliberal society was better than liberalism, let alone desirable to us today. But it does indicate that liberalism is a contingent phenomenon that is open to modification as our needs change, rather than a cosmic power governing our lives. Once we understand this, we can begin exercising genuine "liberty" by deciding, on some level, what kind of people we'd actually like to be. Whether that means continuing to embrace liberalism or attempting to return to, or create, new identities based on ideas of self-discipline, community and nature is a choice that’s up to us.
August 29, 2021
كتاب جاء في وقتِه..
December 19, 2017
Poor Francis Fukuyama. He has been a punching bag ever since he unwisely declared the End of History, more than twenty-five years ago. Fukuyama, of course, meant that the globe had, at the end of ideologies, reached an equilibrium, an even, calm sea of liberal democracy, and all that was left was cleanup. Patrick Deneen is here to kick Fukuyama some more, and to announce that not only is liberalism a defective ideology, it is doomed just as were the other, more flash-in-the pan ideologies. The systemic failure of liberalism is on the horizon, or underway, and Deneen’s project is to offer thoughts on how we got here, and what is next. Thus, "Why Liberalism Failed" fits squarely into my current interest, Reaction—the call for the creation of a new political order built on the ashes of the old.
By “liberalism,” Deneen means the philosophy of the Enlightenment, built on the core idea of maximizing human liberty, with its ultimate philosophical roots in Francis Bacon, adapted by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and mediated through John Stuart Mill. Deneen begins with his central claim—that liberalism is reaching its end, because it was a beautiful-seeming thing, built on lies. Liberalism is like the Queen in Snow White, a mortal who over time has become ugly, but who retains the outward form of beauty through a blend of careful management and acts of evil. But as with other ideologies, such as communism, it must fail, because it denies human nature, and it loses legitimacy as the resulting gaps between its claims and the reality of lived human experience become ever more visible. In the end, the Queen, and all ideologies, are exposed for what they are, and die.
The failure of this liberalism is not the failure of today’s political liberals, or what might generally be called progressives. Deneen ascribes blame for the rise and fall of liberalism equally to both progressives and to most American conservatives, what are sometimes called classical liberals. Both liberals and such conservatives pursue autonomic individualism while ignoring the deeper reality that such overemphasis on individualism is anti-human and doomed to failure. The failures of liberalism are failures of the state and the market, which are intertwined, not opposed, and the resulting plant is watered equally by conservatives and liberals. There is no Jack cutting at the base of this beanstalk; when it falls, it will be because it has rotted from within.
Deneen, therefore, calls it “Unsustainable Liberalism.” He begins with a history lesson, pointing out that the human desire for liberty far pre-dates liberalism, but that liberty from the ancient Greeks onward, up until the Enlightenment, meant ordered liberty. That is, it was the opposite of wholesale autonomy. Instead, it was the tutored choice of each person to choose virtue and self-rule, creating freedom from the tyranny of appetites in the individual and from tyranny of individuals in the polis. (This history is covered at more length, and better, in "Conserving America?", a book of essays that Deneen published in 2016.) But liberalism, heralded by Machiavelli, rejected the cultivation of virtue as the basis of good government and a good society, in favor of a “realist” understanding of people as unalterably bad, and required to be managed as such by the creation of institutions that constrained them. This was followed by Hobbes’s and Locke’s removal of “the essential supports for a training in virtue,” which “came to be viewed as sources of oppression, arbitrariness, and limitation.” And, finally, to permit maximum human flourishing, liberalism, following Francis Bacon, demanded that nature itself must be overcome, first to reliably maximize her material bounty, and later to deny even her existence so as not to limit individual choice, in both cases to maximize human power and autonomy. All this, of course, was in opposition to “the classical and Christian understanding of liberty.”
Liberalism itself tells us constantly it is a success. And it certainly is “an encompassing political ecosystem in which we have swum, unaware of its existence.” Questioning liberalism seems like questioning air. Any problems with our society, and any rejection of the premises or conclusions of liberalism, are seen as merely resulting from not enough liberalism. The response is to call for liberalism to better enforce its dictates everywhere, using a more forceful application of liberalism—Ryszard Legutko’s “coercion to freedom.”
But Deneen says liberalism’s putative success at making us happier and freer is an illusion. Rather, liberalism is caught in a downward spiral, in which the ill societal effects of unbridled autonomy require more government force, proscriptions, and surveillance, while simultaneously the same is required to achieve ever more emancipation and individual liberty. The state becomes the object of love, or at least the binding force, for an atomized and isolated population. The economics of liberal democracy create a new aristocracy of winners and an underclass of losers, with the latter only pacified by the promise of increased future consumption due to promised overall economic growth. Education that forms the human being to be a full member of society has disappeared in favor of servile education in money-making, with more money always seen as better. And that same education has indoctrinated society in a key requirement of liberalism’s perceived success—the unsustainable extraction from nature of goods intended to maximize the utility of today’s generation (and maintain the quietude of economic losers), with no thought for moderation or for future generations. Worse, nature is conquered with technology that, put in the hands of individuals rather than resource extractors, promises yet more liberation but only delivers a combination of jitters and loneliness. “Liberalism’s end game is unstainable in every respect: it cannot perpetually enforce order upon a collection of autonomous individuals increasingly shorn of constitutive social norms, nor can it provide endless material growth in a world of limits. We can either elect a future of self-limitation born of the practice and experience of self-governance in local communities, or we can back inexorably into a future in which extreme license coexists with extreme oppression.”
Deneen next turns to aspects of liberalism other than its unsustainability. First is culture, or, more precisely, “Liberalism as Anticulture.” Not all things called culture are in fact culture, which is properly viewed as “a set of generational customs, practices, and rituals that are grounded in local and particular settings.” “Pop culture” is not culture at all. Similarly, what liberalism offers as culture is instead something not grounded in nature; not grounded in time; and not grounded in place. “Whereas culture is an accumulation of local and historical experience and memory, liberal ‘culture’ is the vacuum that remains when local experience has been eviscerated, memory is lost, and every place becomes every other place.”
This anticulture is the result of two trends in liberalism—the homogenization created by market liberalism, and the destruction of local customs and practices by the overweening liberal state in the service and pursuit of emancipation, which holds that “legitimate limits upon liberty can arise only from the authority of the consent-based state.” “Liberalism makes humanity into mayflies,” rejecting the bonds of time connecting us to the past, in the form of the arts and history, and to the future, in the form of mortgaging our descendants’ patrimony by stripping the Earth. Deneen relies heavily on Tocqueville in this analysis, as do many civil institutionalist conservatives (that is, those who focus on cultural renewal through a revival of civil society outside the state), since he predicted much of the outline of modern American society. He also cites Solzhenitsyn, whose famous 1978 commencement address at Harvard University (for which he was excoriated at the time) noted this hollowing out of “every social norm and custom” as being at the heart of liberalism.
As far as emancipation, I think (though Deneen does not address this) the only emancipation worth having in America is that of African Americans, whether in the nineteenth, twentieth, or, indeed, the twenty-first centuries. The experience of black people in America is unique, and uniquely bad, and it is an actual, lived, historical experience, not some Gramscian fantasy of hegemony funneled through Foucault. All other so-called emancipations are the tools of those who would destroy us; they are grants to act in certain ways or to receive unearned benefits, given by the Leviathan state to those who either do not require or should not have such grants or benefits, at the expense of the rest of the community. Emancipation should be a dirty word and its users should be punished with a day in the stocks in the town square.
Anyway, the next two chapters attack modern technology for enabling the destructive behavior of liberalism; and for destroying the classical liberal arts, both by exalting studies that lead to success in the market over the classical “liberal arts,” the humanities, and by the destruction of what remains of the classical liberal arts by liberalism’s refashioning of them into vehicles for deconstruction and emancipation. It is this latter point, I think, that is most critical (the atomizing tendencies of technology are widely known and acknowledged, after all, even by liberals). Howsoever we got here, and whatever value they used to offer, there is no restoration of the classical liberal arts in the universities of today. We should nuke them all from orbit, refusing any taxpayer dollars to the support of anything but the servile arts. We should leave the universities to educate only in technical matters, and throw all teachers of humanities out on the street, where they can peddle their Gender Studies and Latino Studies potions to the (unemployed) gullible in dark alleys. The few professors who do offer real learning will find new employment in colleges that offer real value (of which there are still a few, like Hillsdale College). Or we can rely on our own resources to hire them directly to educate our own young. In both cases we will deny the use of common resources to poison the minds of the young. Better no humanities than what is taught today. I don’t like this conclusion (and it’s mine, not Deneen’s), since I am the child and grandchild of humanities professors, and have friends who are thus employed, but that’s the way it has to be. Dying things should be killed quickly, in this case, that they may have the chance to be reborn.
Deneen then turns to “The New Aristocracy,” in which he reinforces the point that liberalism (as shown by, among other things, the Enlightenment focus on unleashing the abilities of those most favored by talents at birth) necessarily creates a divide between the successful and the rest. This divide expands over time, as we can see in contemporary America, and is pernicious. Liberalism’s response is, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” But not all boats are lifted any more, and even if they were, the fracture of society into a class of the powerful who get more powerful and more wealthy, and a class of Morlocks who, over time, are somewhat more able to consume trinkets is not a winning strategy. We need more Burke, and less Mill.
Penultimately, Deneen turns to “The Degradation of Citizenship.” Here he specifically attacks “liberal democracy,” although Ryszard Legutko does it better. Deneen notes that those who push liberal democracy mean that democracy is good only so long as voters choose what is approved by liberalism; otherwise, it is “illiberal democracy” (a term gaining more and more currency, I have noticed). Deneen cites Jason Brennan’s "Against Democracy," which attacks democracy on this basis, demanding that more people just like Jason Brennan be given power to dictate the direction of society (thus making, oddly, Jason Brennan my ally in pursuing Reaction). Liberalism wants democracy to be limited to expressing preferences of the masses, which, if approved by their betters, can then be implemented by the mandarin administrative state. All this means that the individual human is not expected to be a citizen in any meaningful sense, so he is not—Deneen, unlike Brennan, thinks that liberalism caused this problem, and that in Tocqueville’s time the average person had more of the indicia of classical citizenship. I am not so sure this is the case, but it is Deneen’s claim.
Finally, Deneen, of course, offers, if not solutions, at least a way forward. First, though, he sees two main problems with the end of liberalism (assuming it collapses, rather than metastasizes into totalitarianism). One is that in the mind of most people, propagandized by liberalism itself, liberalism is responsible for the success of the “deepest longings of the West, political liberty and human dignity.” The rejoinder to those who reject liberalism is that anyone who rejects liberalism embraces slavery and the divine right of kings. This is of course not true, among other reasons because all the core “good things” of liberalism were not originated by liberalism, but by earlier Western Christian thought (though the pre-liberal West often failed to meet its own aspirations), and because liberalism itself increasingly replaces chattel slavery with ideological slavery and the divine right of kings with the equally, or more, tyrannical rule of the administrative state. Nonetheless, Deneen hedges here, intimating that he believes that liberalism has “achievements” and it also has “rightful demands—particularly for justice and dignity.” But he does not admit of any real achievements of liberalism, and by his own analysis, demands for real justice and dignity (as opposed to bogus, never-ending “emancipation”) are universal and far antedate liberalism, so if liberalism demands them, it is merely mimesis, not some fresh or independent way in which liberalism benefits humanity.
The other problem is more distant but more difficult (especially if Deneen is right that liberalism is doomed, whatever rejoinders it may have to criticisms of it). It is that to break the world is necessarily to create chaos, “disorder and misery,” and would probably result in liberalism’s “replacement with a new and doubtless not very different ideology. . . . A better course will consist in smaller, local forms of resistance: practices more than theories, the building of resilient new cultures against the anticulture of liberalism.” Citing (unsurprisingly) Rod Dreher’s "The Benedict Option," Deneen says “we should focus on developing practices that foster new forms of culture, household economics, and polis life.” As I have said elsewhere, to the extent such an option takes hold, it will have to fight for its life, and not with words only. Deneen nods toward this, suggesting that such “options” will be “permitted to exist so long as they are nonthreatening to the liberal order’s main business.” But he does not follow this line of thought, perhaps figuring the problem will solve itself if, indeed, liberalism is inherently unsustainable, and ultimately will lack the power to suppress new movements. I am less sanguine, but he could be right.
Overall, this book is not as good as the author’s earlier Conserving America? I think that Deneen is at his best writing essays, and Why Liberalism Failed is too much a set of essays masquerading as a book, without an adequate linkage that gives overall force. Moreover, within the essays, too many ideas are repeated with slight variation of thought and phrasing from chapter to chapter, making the chapters not adequately distinct from each other. Thus, the first chapter, “Unsustainable Liberalism” (published as a standalone essay in 2012 in the magazine "First Things"), is followed by a chapter on “Uniting Individualism and Statism,” repeating and expanding points made in the first chapter about the unity of purpose among progressive and classical liberals. Similarly, later chapters on technology and the humanities contain a much more expansive treatment of classical views of liberty than that found earlier in the book, where it would have made more sense. And variations on the point that Hobbes and Locke were wrong to think that the state of nature was one of autonomy are made too many times in too many places. Thus, I found some of the book rambling—the writing itself is clear, but there is a feeling of lack of coalescence about much of the book, perhaps because of the repetition and failure to have a clear progression.
This book does add a theme Deneen has not addressed before, and that is liberalism as exhaustive of nature, and therefore unsustainable. But that is the weakest thread of the book, for predictions of material exhaustion of nature have always been falsified, from Malthus onward, as in the famous 1980 bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich. In fact, the side effects of resource extraction (other than, perhaps, global warming) are far less than they were in past decades (in part due to the heavy hand of government), and in a possible future world of such magical-yet-feasible technology as practical fusion, asteroid mining, or molecular-scale replicators, the exhaustion of nature would disappear as a problem. Moreover, there is a key question Deneen ignores, which is whether the fantastic economic, and therefore scientific, progress of the past 200 years is the fruit of liberalism, whatever its costs may be. Certainly, gluttony in the form of resource consumption is a moral bad that causes corruption of virtue, but the reader gets the impression that Deneen emphasizes the exhaustion of nature in part to be able to bind classical liberals to progressive liberals in the downward spiral of liberalism, and thus clearly distinguish himself from classical conservatives, so the topic feels a bit shoehorned in.
As to Reaction in theory and practice, I am framing my own analysis of that tendency, to which I increasingly adhere myself. As I noted in my review of Mark Lilla’s "The Shipwrecked Mind," it is possible to divide modern Reaction into a variety of incompatible categories, bound not by the desire to return to some mythical Golden Age, which could be dismissed as mindless nostalgia, but bound by the desire to inform a new age with the lost or ignored wisdom of the past. Most American devotees of reaction, of the intellectual bent, tend toward the reactionary thought of Leo Strauss, in essence holding that the Enlightenment project is the fount of wisdom, but it all went wrong since the Constitution was written. Deneen is one of the major exponents of the opposite tack—that the Enlightenment, i.e., liberalism, is itself the problem. It may have good propagandists (it must, having been given such a propagandistic name, more successful than the failed attempt by the New Atheists to rename anti-theists “brights”), but the Enlightenment is the original sin, and Francis Bacon is the Eve of the modern age.
[Review completes as first comment.]
By “liberalism,” Deneen means the philosophy of the Enlightenment, built on the core idea of maximizing human liberty, with its ultimate philosophical roots in Francis Bacon, adapted by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and mediated through John Stuart Mill. Deneen begins with his central claim—that liberalism is reaching its end, because it was a beautiful-seeming thing, built on lies. Liberalism is like the Queen in Snow White, a mortal who over time has become ugly, but who retains the outward form of beauty through a blend of careful management and acts of evil. But as with other ideologies, such as communism, it must fail, because it denies human nature, and it loses legitimacy as the resulting gaps between its claims and the reality of lived human experience become ever more visible. In the end, the Queen, and all ideologies, are exposed for what they are, and die.
The failure of this liberalism is not the failure of today’s political liberals, or what might generally be called progressives. Deneen ascribes blame for the rise and fall of liberalism equally to both progressives and to most American conservatives, what are sometimes called classical liberals. Both liberals and such conservatives pursue autonomic individualism while ignoring the deeper reality that such overemphasis on individualism is anti-human and doomed to failure. The failures of liberalism are failures of the state and the market, which are intertwined, not opposed, and the resulting plant is watered equally by conservatives and liberals. There is no Jack cutting at the base of this beanstalk; when it falls, it will be because it has rotted from within.
Deneen, therefore, calls it “Unsustainable Liberalism.” He begins with a history lesson, pointing out that the human desire for liberty far pre-dates liberalism, but that liberty from the ancient Greeks onward, up until the Enlightenment, meant ordered liberty. That is, it was the opposite of wholesale autonomy. Instead, it was the tutored choice of each person to choose virtue and self-rule, creating freedom from the tyranny of appetites in the individual and from tyranny of individuals in the polis. (This history is covered at more length, and better, in "Conserving America?", a book of essays that Deneen published in 2016.) But liberalism, heralded by Machiavelli, rejected the cultivation of virtue as the basis of good government and a good society, in favor of a “realist” understanding of people as unalterably bad, and required to be managed as such by the creation of institutions that constrained them. This was followed by Hobbes’s and Locke’s removal of “the essential supports for a training in virtue,” which “came to be viewed as sources of oppression, arbitrariness, and limitation.” And, finally, to permit maximum human flourishing, liberalism, following Francis Bacon, demanded that nature itself must be overcome, first to reliably maximize her material bounty, and later to deny even her existence so as not to limit individual choice, in both cases to maximize human power and autonomy. All this, of course, was in opposition to “the classical and Christian understanding of liberty.”
Liberalism itself tells us constantly it is a success. And it certainly is “an encompassing political ecosystem in which we have swum, unaware of its existence.” Questioning liberalism seems like questioning air. Any problems with our society, and any rejection of the premises or conclusions of liberalism, are seen as merely resulting from not enough liberalism. The response is to call for liberalism to better enforce its dictates everywhere, using a more forceful application of liberalism—Ryszard Legutko’s “coercion to freedom.”
But Deneen says liberalism’s putative success at making us happier and freer is an illusion. Rather, liberalism is caught in a downward spiral, in which the ill societal effects of unbridled autonomy require more government force, proscriptions, and surveillance, while simultaneously the same is required to achieve ever more emancipation and individual liberty. The state becomes the object of love, or at least the binding force, for an atomized and isolated population. The economics of liberal democracy create a new aristocracy of winners and an underclass of losers, with the latter only pacified by the promise of increased future consumption due to promised overall economic growth. Education that forms the human being to be a full member of society has disappeared in favor of servile education in money-making, with more money always seen as better. And that same education has indoctrinated society in a key requirement of liberalism’s perceived success—the unsustainable extraction from nature of goods intended to maximize the utility of today’s generation (and maintain the quietude of economic losers), with no thought for moderation or for future generations. Worse, nature is conquered with technology that, put in the hands of individuals rather than resource extractors, promises yet more liberation but only delivers a combination of jitters and loneliness. “Liberalism’s end game is unstainable in every respect: it cannot perpetually enforce order upon a collection of autonomous individuals increasingly shorn of constitutive social norms, nor can it provide endless material growth in a world of limits. We can either elect a future of self-limitation born of the practice and experience of self-governance in local communities, or we can back inexorably into a future in which extreme license coexists with extreme oppression.”
Deneen next turns to aspects of liberalism other than its unsustainability. First is culture, or, more precisely, “Liberalism as Anticulture.” Not all things called culture are in fact culture, which is properly viewed as “a set of generational customs, practices, and rituals that are grounded in local and particular settings.” “Pop culture” is not culture at all. Similarly, what liberalism offers as culture is instead something not grounded in nature; not grounded in time; and not grounded in place. “Whereas culture is an accumulation of local and historical experience and memory, liberal ‘culture’ is the vacuum that remains when local experience has been eviscerated, memory is lost, and every place becomes every other place.”
This anticulture is the result of two trends in liberalism—the homogenization created by market liberalism, and the destruction of local customs and practices by the overweening liberal state in the service and pursuit of emancipation, which holds that “legitimate limits upon liberty can arise only from the authority of the consent-based state.” “Liberalism makes humanity into mayflies,” rejecting the bonds of time connecting us to the past, in the form of the arts and history, and to the future, in the form of mortgaging our descendants’ patrimony by stripping the Earth. Deneen relies heavily on Tocqueville in this analysis, as do many civil institutionalist conservatives (that is, those who focus on cultural renewal through a revival of civil society outside the state), since he predicted much of the outline of modern American society. He also cites Solzhenitsyn, whose famous 1978 commencement address at Harvard University (for which he was excoriated at the time) noted this hollowing out of “every social norm and custom” as being at the heart of liberalism.
As far as emancipation, I think (though Deneen does not address this) the only emancipation worth having in America is that of African Americans, whether in the nineteenth, twentieth, or, indeed, the twenty-first centuries. The experience of black people in America is unique, and uniquely bad, and it is an actual, lived, historical experience, not some Gramscian fantasy of hegemony funneled through Foucault. All other so-called emancipations are the tools of those who would destroy us; they are grants to act in certain ways or to receive unearned benefits, given by the Leviathan state to those who either do not require or should not have such grants or benefits, at the expense of the rest of the community. Emancipation should be a dirty word and its users should be punished with a day in the stocks in the town square.
Anyway, the next two chapters attack modern technology for enabling the destructive behavior of liberalism; and for destroying the classical liberal arts, both by exalting studies that lead to success in the market over the classical “liberal arts,” the humanities, and by the destruction of what remains of the classical liberal arts by liberalism’s refashioning of them into vehicles for deconstruction and emancipation. It is this latter point, I think, that is most critical (the atomizing tendencies of technology are widely known and acknowledged, after all, even by liberals). Howsoever we got here, and whatever value they used to offer, there is no restoration of the classical liberal arts in the universities of today. We should nuke them all from orbit, refusing any taxpayer dollars to the support of anything but the servile arts. We should leave the universities to educate only in technical matters, and throw all teachers of humanities out on the street, where they can peddle their Gender Studies and Latino Studies potions to the (unemployed) gullible in dark alleys. The few professors who do offer real learning will find new employment in colleges that offer real value (of which there are still a few, like Hillsdale College). Or we can rely on our own resources to hire them directly to educate our own young. In both cases we will deny the use of common resources to poison the minds of the young. Better no humanities than what is taught today. I don’t like this conclusion (and it’s mine, not Deneen’s), since I am the child and grandchild of humanities professors, and have friends who are thus employed, but that’s the way it has to be. Dying things should be killed quickly, in this case, that they may have the chance to be reborn.
Deneen then turns to “The New Aristocracy,” in which he reinforces the point that liberalism (as shown by, among other things, the Enlightenment focus on unleashing the abilities of those most favored by talents at birth) necessarily creates a divide between the successful and the rest. This divide expands over time, as we can see in contemporary America, and is pernicious. Liberalism’s response is, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” But not all boats are lifted any more, and even if they were, the fracture of society into a class of the powerful who get more powerful and more wealthy, and a class of Morlocks who, over time, are somewhat more able to consume trinkets is not a winning strategy. We need more Burke, and less Mill.
Penultimately, Deneen turns to “The Degradation of Citizenship.” Here he specifically attacks “liberal democracy,” although Ryszard Legutko does it better. Deneen notes that those who push liberal democracy mean that democracy is good only so long as voters choose what is approved by liberalism; otherwise, it is “illiberal democracy” (a term gaining more and more currency, I have noticed). Deneen cites Jason Brennan’s "Against Democracy," which attacks democracy on this basis, demanding that more people just like Jason Brennan be given power to dictate the direction of society (thus making, oddly, Jason Brennan my ally in pursuing Reaction). Liberalism wants democracy to be limited to expressing preferences of the masses, which, if approved by their betters, can then be implemented by the mandarin administrative state. All this means that the individual human is not expected to be a citizen in any meaningful sense, so he is not—Deneen, unlike Brennan, thinks that liberalism caused this problem, and that in Tocqueville’s time the average person had more of the indicia of classical citizenship. I am not so sure this is the case, but it is Deneen’s claim.
Finally, Deneen, of course, offers, if not solutions, at least a way forward. First, though, he sees two main problems with the end of liberalism (assuming it collapses, rather than metastasizes into totalitarianism). One is that in the mind of most people, propagandized by liberalism itself, liberalism is responsible for the success of the “deepest longings of the West, political liberty and human dignity.” The rejoinder to those who reject liberalism is that anyone who rejects liberalism embraces slavery and the divine right of kings. This is of course not true, among other reasons because all the core “good things” of liberalism were not originated by liberalism, but by earlier Western Christian thought (though the pre-liberal West often failed to meet its own aspirations), and because liberalism itself increasingly replaces chattel slavery with ideological slavery and the divine right of kings with the equally, or more, tyrannical rule of the administrative state. Nonetheless, Deneen hedges here, intimating that he believes that liberalism has “achievements” and it also has “rightful demands—particularly for justice and dignity.” But he does not admit of any real achievements of liberalism, and by his own analysis, demands for real justice and dignity (as opposed to bogus, never-ending “emancipation”) are universal and far antedate liberalism, so if liberalism demands them, it is merely mimesis, not some fresh or independent way in which liberalism benefits humanity.
The other problem is more distant but more difficult (especially if Deneen is right that liberalism is doomed, whatever rejoinders it may have to criticisms of it). It is that to break the world is necessarily to create chaos, “disorder and misery,” and would probably result in liberalism’s “replacement with a new and doubtless not very different ideology. . . . A better course will consist in smaller, local forms of resistance: practices more than theories, the building of resilient new cultures against the anticulture of liberalism.” Citing (unsurprisingly) Rod Dreher’s "The Benedict Option," Deneen says “we should focus on developing practices that foster new forms of culture, household economics, and polis life.” As I have said elsewhere, to the extent such an option takes hold, it will have to fight for its life, and not with words only. Deneen nods toward this, suggesting that such “options” will be “permitted to exist so long as they are nonthreatening to the liberal order’s main business.” But he does not follow this line of thought, perhaps figuring the problem will solve itself if, indeed, liberalism is inherently unsustainable, and ultimately will lack the power to suppress new movements. I am less sanguine, but he could be right.
Overall, this book is not as good as the author’s earlier Conserving America? I think that Deneen is at his best writing essays, and Why Liberalism Failed is too much a set of essays masquerading as a book, without an adequate linkage that gives overall force. Moreover, within the essays, too many ideas are repeated with slight variation of thought and phrasing from chapter to chapter, making the chapters not adequately distinct from each other. Thus, the first chapter, “Unsustainable Liberalism” (published as a standalone essay in 2012 in the magazine "First Things"), is followed by a chapter on “Uniting Individualism and Statism,” repeating and expanding points made in the first chapter about the unity of purpose among progressive and classical liberals. Similarly, later chapters on technology and the humanities contain a much more expansive treatment of classical views of liberty than that found earlier in the book, where it would have made more sense. And variations on the point that Hobbes and Locke were wrong to think that the state of nature was one of autonomy are made too many times in too many places. Thus, I found some of the book rambling—the writing itself is clear, but there is a feeling of lack of coalescence about much of the book, perhaps because of the repetition and failure to have a clear progression.
This book does add a theme Deneen has not addressed before, and that is liberalism as exhaustive of nature, and therefore unsustainable. But that is the weakest thread of the book, for predictions of material exhaustion of nature have always been falsified, from Malthus onward, as in the famous 1980 bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich. In fact, the side effects of resource extraction (other than, perhaps, global warming) are far less than they were in past decades (in part due to the heavy hand of government), and in a possible future world of such magical-yet-feasible technology as practical fusion, asteroid mining, or molecular-scale replicators, the exhaustion of nature would disappear as a problem. Moreover, there is a key question Deneen ignores, which is whether the fantastic economic, and therefore scientific, progress of the past 200 years is the fruit of liberalism, whatever its costs may be. Certainly, gluttony in the form of resource consumption is a moral bad that causes corruption of virtue, but the reader gets the impression that Deneen emphasizes the exhaustion of nature in part to be able to bind classical liberals to progressive liberals in the downward spiral of liberalism, and thus clearly distinguish himself from classical conservatives, so the topic feels a bit shoehorned in.
As to Reaction in theory and practice, I am framing my own analysis of that tendency, to which I increasingly adhere myself. As I noted in my review of Mark Lilla’s "The Shipwrecked Mind," it is possible to divide modern Reaction into a variety of incompatible categories, bound not by the desire to return to some mythical Golden Age, which could be dismissed as mindless nostalgia, but bound by the desire to inform a new age with the lost or ignored wisdom of the past. Most American devotees of reaction, of the intellectual bent, tend toward the reactionary thought of Leo Strauss, in essence holding that the Enlightenment project is the fount of wisdom, but it all went wrong since the Constitution was written. Deneen is one of the major exponents of the opposite tack—that the Enlightenment, i.e., liberalism, is itself the problem. It may have good propagandists (it must, having been given such a propagandistic name, more successful than the failed attempt by the New Atheists to rename anti-theists “brights”), but the Enlightenment is the original sin, and Francis Bacon is the Eve of the modern age.
[Review completes as first comment.]
October 11, 2018
I don't think I would agree with Deneen politically, but I really liked this book. It is well-written and well thought out. It's not your typical conservative screed attacking the left for its decadence and hypocrisy. No, Deneen is coming for all of it. It's quite an ambitious argument and a compelling one.
I mostly agree with his core arguments though perhaps I would also offer more counterpoints that he would offer. The argument is that the central claim of liberalism--individual autonomy and maximization of individual choice has failed or I guess it's bankrupt as a concept and has left us all alienated. Where I think we would part ways is in solutions. He wants to reimpose some sort of cultural order and more restrictions--we don't know what makes us happy and that's why we have traditions and cultures that pass down wisdom. Agreed. But who gets to decide? And what about those cultures and religions that oppressed minorities. Liberalism was good in that it pushed against those constraints. I don't think Deneen wants to reinforce them, but he does want to let local cultures thrive. I think that sounds nice in theory, but what if a local culture wants to oppress people or burn witches? Don't we need to hold on to some of liberalisms centralized powers to protect against abuses of local power.
Anyway, this is a great book that will make you think. It's a really important perspective.
I mostly agree with his core arguments though perhaps I would also offer more counterpoints that he would offer. The argument is that the central claim of liberalism--individual autonomy and maximization of individual choice has failed or I guess it's bankrupt as a concept and has left us all alienated. Where I think we would part ways is in solutions. He wants to reimpose some sort of cultural order and more restrictions--we don't know what makes us happy and that's why we have traditions and cultures that pass down wisdom. Agreed. But who gets to decide? And what about those cultures and religions that oppressed minorities. Liberalism was good in that it pushed against those constraints. I don't think Deneen wants to reinforce them, but he does want to let local cultures thrive. I think that sounds nice in theory, but what if a local culture wants to oppress people or burn witches? Don't we need to hold on to some of liberalisms centralized powers to protect against abuses of local power.
Anyway, this is a great book that will make you think. It's a really important perspective.
December 12, 2024
Like any compelling ideology, liberalism claims not to be an ideology at all, but rather a neutral and sober-minded appraisal of human nature and the origins and ends of political life. It is not we, its advocates claim, who are ideological; rather, the liberal order serves to protect us against the ravages of ideologically-driven agents within its domain. If such agents had their way, we’re told, our freedom to live, work, and believe as we choose would be undone, and our individual wills would be subjected to the arbitrary dictates purveyed by political tyranny, religious dogma, and cultural backwardness. Liberalism, then, is posited as a buffer against totalitarianism; a space of epistemological neutrality which guards the body politic from the imposition of any comprehensive value system, as such systems must always be subjective and thus at odds with the freely-chosen subjectivities of the autonomous individuals of which the liberal state is composed.
To a world mired in liberal ideology, any talk of “liberal imperialism”, “liberal statism”, or even “liberal totalitarianism” appears self-contradictory. After all, in the twentieth century we watched the European colonial empires disintegrate, leaving the liberal Wilsonian principle of national self-determination in their wake; we watched the defeat of Nazi totalitarianism and the preservation of liberal order in western Europe; and we watched the collapse of Soviet statism in 1991, leaving the world to the unchallenged political and economic values of liberalism and free-market capitalism.
But the fact that liberalism is the only prominent ideology left standing after the fiery trial of the twentieth century—the others being colonialism, fascism, and communism—does not mean, as many seem to believe, that liberalism is less of an ideology than the others. The lack of any serious challenge to the now-universal liberal orthodoxy makes its faulty assumptions about human nature and its pernicious effects on our political and economic life all the more difficult to recognize for what they are. Ideologies are at their most pervasive, most gripping, and ultimately most destructive when they recede into a type of intellectual white noise, and their assertions are taken uncritically as statements of bald fact.
Deneen invites us to view liberalism the way we once viewed fascism and communism: as a pervasive and totalizing ideological system which has turned its creators into its creatures, remaking the better part of humanity into captives of its essential and unstoppable logic. From Bacon and Machiavelli to Hayek, Krugman, and Fukuyama, the four hundred-year project of liberalism has not been a description of human nature, as advertised, but rather an imposition on it; and that project may finally be coming undone, due largely to its own ubiquitous processes. Liberalism is a Frankenstein’s monster; a technological product that has escaped from its engineers, rendering in the world a grotesque inversion of its promises.
Deneen identifies two essential myths upon which the liberal project is predicated. The first of these is the myth of the ontologically-isolated, autonomous individual: a conception of the human individual as firstly and primarily a free-choosing agent, abstracted from history, untethered to culture, nature, or community. The importance of this myth to liberal thinking is evidenced by the social contract theory of liberalism’s forefathers: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The second great myth is that of an essential antagonism between nature and culture, first articulated by Francis Bacon, who once notoriously compared the technological enterprise of mastering and exploiting nature for human material benefit in favorable terms with the usefulness of torture for compelling a witness to yield up his secrets.
In a move of profound dramatic irony, liberals of both the left and right-wing varieties who most shrilly decry the dangers of religious fundamentalism, Christian or Islamic, often cling most fervently to the saving power of a political faith whose story of human and governmental origins is, in effect, a creationist myth; a fable no more empirically credible and no less contrary to the findings of modern anthropological science than the book of Genesis. Hobbes begins his social contract theory with an image of a prehistorical humanity composed of isolated individuals who apparently dropped out of the sky; hostile to one another and to nature; each man a sovereign combatant in a war of all against all. Peace, culture, and civilization are only accomplished through the subjection of petty sovereigns to greater ones. No room is allotted here for any pre-contract culture or any innate capacity for communitarian bonding. In fact, this picture recognizes no mediating institutions whatsoever between the individual and the state.
This story, tacitly endorsed by all the social contractarians, contained the seeds of liberalism’s total transformation of human life over the subsequent three and a half centuries. The process of liberalism’s ascendancy has been the process through which the liberal state has developed the ideological concept of the atomized individual and used it as a cudgel to break apart barriers to its expanding power and influence. Liberalism asserts that individuals came together to create the liberal state to serve each person’s needs, but it may be more accurate to say that liberalism created the “individual” as we now understand the concept, and then used this invented category as a tool to accomplish its aims, fulfill its logic, and undermine its intellectual rivals.
In so doing, liberalism has, astonishingly, turned humanity into the very caricature it made of life in the state of nature. Under liberal auspices, our society has indeed become one of increasingly isolated individuals, increasingly at war with one another, and increasingly finding themselves with no mainstay of identity or public recourse but the state. Much in the same way that people joke about how governments use Orwell’s 1984 as a manual, liberalism’s answer to human nature is producing a society in which life is increasingly solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
The supposed struggle between individualism and statism, so often at the heart of our political discourse, turns out, on closer inspection, to be completely false. Statism and individualism are merely liberalism seen from two different angles. The state creates and bolsters the individual in his self-image, legal standing, and economic interactions; the individual, to strengthen and retain his individuality so conceived, demands an increasingly powerful and accessible (intrusive) state.
The liberal individual cannot be forced to rely upon people he knows for assistance, as this would create unwanted personal obligations. He can interface only with the state, because the state exists at a level of abstraction and impersonality which allows the individual to preserve his individuality. To fulfill its role, the state must provide an ever-increasing array of personal and economic choices for the atomic individual, and it accomplishes this through the Baconian domination and exploitation of nature; whether that nature take the form of natural resources or human bodies.
The worlds of classical antiquity and medieval Christendom did not conceive of liberty as autonomous free choice. Liberty, according to the classical understanding, was a state of self-rulership. Liberty was achieved when the polis or the individual mastered its own needs and desires, thus requiring no external actors to fulfill its demands. Liberty required education and self-discipline; the free citizen had to have his own personal and economic (from the Greek oikos: household) affairs in order so that he wouldn’t have to be reliant on someone else to put them in order for him. Likewise with the free state.
The education required for self-rule was provided through the study of the liberal arts, a once-central but now fading component of a proper university education. The liberal arts exposed students to the spectrum of human experience—the accumulated, experiential wisdom of mankind—and gave them the tools for navigating the vagaries of life. The liberal arts educated people in how to be human beings, and by extension, responsible citizens and stewards of liberty.
This understanding of liberty should inform our understanding of democracy. To quote Deneen’s approving interpretation of Tocqueville:
“Democracy, in his view, was defined not by rights to voting either exercised or eschewed but by the ongoing discussion and disputation and practices of self-rule in particular places with familiar people over a long period of time…Democracy is not simply the expression of self-interest but the transformation of that what might have been narrow interest into a capacious concern for the common good. This can be effected only through the practice of citizens simultaneously ruling and being ruled by themselves: democracy ’is not the laws’ creation, but the people learn to achieve it by making the laws.’”
Unsurprisingly, universities—now increasingly drawn into the surrounding liberal economic order—are abandoning the liberal arts and shifting to an emphasis on studies with “utility” and “career relevance”. In some quarters, the term “liberal arts” has become a kind of sneer. “Oh, good luck with your liberal arts degree. I’m getting an MBA like a gentleman, you peasant.” In another great irony, the modern university, which proudly trains our social elites, has made its new mission to provide the type of technocratic or career-focused education that was the bastion of the servile classes in the ancient world. Such people learned specialized skills in a particular trade because they were barred from the type of education of those who would be counted as citizens. Those were the days.
Liberalism has also changed our understanding of culture. Whereas liberalism sees culture only as an unchosen obstruction to individual autonomy—a series of inherited prejudices which distort the “original” person—the word itself comes from the same root as the word “cultivate”. The classical understanding of culture is based on the proposition that, like plants, people need to have an environment that allows them to flourish according to their nature. Culture is the soil from which a fully-realized human being can emerge. Liberalism, by forcibly extracting individuals from their cultural roots, creates a type of cultural black hole: an anticulture that swallows up the cultures in its path, leaving shallow, empty lives in its wake.
The way out of this social quandary in which we find ourselves, Deneen suggests, cannot be achieved through theory, but only through practice. At the local level, in our own small ways, we must all work to reestablish the practice of self-rule. We must relearn how to do things for ourselves, make things for ourselves, and support one another at a very personal, visceral level. To reestablish liberty, properly understood, we must reestablish personal and communal self-sufficiency.
In conclusion, I need to learn how to cook.
To a world mired in liberal ideology, any talk of “liberal imperialism”, “liberal statism”, or even “liberal totalitarianism” appears self-contradictory. After all, in the twentieth century we watched the European colonial empires disintegrate, leaving the liberal Wilsonian principle of national self-determination in their wake; we watched the defeat of Nazi totalitarianism and the preservation of liberal order in western Europe; and we watched the collapse of Soviet statism in 1991, leaving the world to the unchallenged political and economic values of liberalism and free-market capitalism.
But the fact that liberalism is the only prominent ideology left standing after the fiery trial of the twentieth century—the others being colonialism, fascism, and communism—does not mean, as many seem to believe, that liberalism is less of an ideology than the others. The lack of any serious challenge to the now-universal liberal orthodoxy makes its faulty assumptions about human nature and its pernicious effects on our political and economic life all the more difficult to recognize for what they are. Ideologies are at their most pervasive, most gripping, and ultimately most destructive when they recede into a type of intellectual white noise, and their assertions are taken uncritically as statements of bald fact.
Deneen invites us to view liberalism the way we once viewed fascism and communism: as a pervasive and totalizing ideological system which has turned its creators into its creatures, remaking the better part of humanity into captives of its essential and unstoppable logic. From Bacon and Machiavelli to Hayek, Krugman, and Fukuyama, the four hundred-year project of liberalism has not been a description of human nature, as advertised, but rather an imposition on it; and that project may finally be coming undone, due largely to its own ubiquitous processes. Liberalism is a Frankenstein’s monster; a technological product that has escaped from its engineers, rendering in the world a grotesque inversion of its promises.
Deneen identifies two essential myths upon which the liberal project is predicated. The first of these is the myth of the ontologically-isolated, autonomous individual: a conception of the human individual as firstly and primarily a free-choosing agent, abstracted from history, untethered to culture, nature, or community. The importance of this myth to liberal thinking is evidenced by the social contract theory of liberalism’s forefathers: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The second great myth is that of an essential antagonism between nature and culture, first articulated by Francis Bacon, who once notoriously compared the technological enterprise of mastering and exploiting nature for human material benefit in favorable terms with the usefulness of torture for compelling a witness to yield up his secrets.
In a move of profound dramatic irony, liberals of both the left and right-wing varieties who most shrilly decry the dangers of religious fundamentalism, Christian or Islamic, often cling most fervently to the saving power of a political faith whose story of human and governmental origins is, in effect, a creationist myth; a fable no more empirically credible and no less contrary to the findings of modern anthropological science than the book of Genesis. Hobbes begins his social contract theory with an image of a prehistorical humanity composed of isolated individuals who apparently dropped out of the sky; hostile to one another and to nature; each man a sovereign combatant in a war of all against all. Peace, culture, and civilization are only accomplished through the subjection of petty sovereigns to greater ones. No room is allotted here for any pre-contract culture or any innate capacity for communitarian bonding. In fact, this picture recognizes no mediating institutions whatsoever between the individual and the state.
This story, tacitly endorsed by all the social contractarians, contained the seeds of liberalism’s total transformation of human life over the subsequent three and a half centuries. The process of liberalism’s ascendancy has been the process through which the liberal state has developed the ideological concept of the atomized individual and used it as a cudgel to break apart barriers to its expanding power and influence. Liberalism asserts that individuals came together to create the liberal state to serve each person’s needs, but it may be more accurate to say that liberalism created the “individual” as we now understand the concept, and then used this invented category as a tool to accomplish its aims, fulfill its logic, and undermine its intellectual rivals.
In so doing, liberalism has, astonishingly, turned humanity into the very caricature it made of life in the state of nature. Under liberal auspices, our society has indeed become one of increasingly isolated individuals, increasingly at war with one another, and increasingly finding themselves with no mainstay of identity or public recourse but the state. Much in the same way that people joke about how governments use Orwell’s 1984 as a manual, liberalism’s answer to human nature is producing a society in which life is increasingly solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
The supposed struggle between individualism and statism, so often at the heart of our political discourse, turns out, on closer inspection, to be completely false. Statism and individualism are merely liberalism seen from two different angles. The state creates and bolsters the individual in his self-image, legal standing, and economic interactions; the individual, to strengthen and retain his individuality so conceived, demands an increasingly powerful and accessible (intrusive) state.
The liberal individual cannot be forced to rely upon people he knows for assistance, as this would create unwanted personal obligations. He can interface only with the state, because the state exists at a level of abstraction and impersonality which allows the individual to preserve his individuality. To fulfill its role, the state must provide an ever-increasing array of personal and economic choices for the atomic individual, and it accomplishes this through the Baconian domination and exploitation of nature; whether that nature take the form of natural resources or human bodies.
The worlds of classical antiquity and medieval Christendom did not conceive of liberty as autonomous free choice. Liberty, according to the classical understanding, was a state of self-rulership. Liberty was achieved when the polis or the individual mastered its own needs and desires, thus requiring no external actors to fulfill its demands. Liberty required education and self-discipline; the free citizen had to have his own personal and economic (from the Greek oikos: household) affairs in order so that he wouldn’t have to be reliant on someone else to put them in order for him. Likewise with the free state.
The education required for self-rule was provided through the study of the liberal arts, a once-central but now fading component of a proper university education. The liberal arts exposed students to the spectrum of human experience—the accumulated, experiential wisdom of mankind—and gave them the tools for navigating the vagaries of life. The liberal arts educated people in how to be human beings, and by extension, responsible citizens and stewards of liberty.
This understanding of liberty should inform our understanding of democracy. To quote Deneen’s approving interpretation of Tocqueville:
“Democracy, in his view, was defined not by rights to voting either exercised or eschewed but by the ongoing discussion and disputation and practices of self-rule in particular places with familiar people over a long period of time…Democracy is not simply the expression of self-interest but the transformation of that what might have been narrow interest into a capacious concern for the common good. This can be effected only through the practice of citizens simultaneously ruling and being ruled by themselves: democracy ’is not the laws’ creation, but the people learn to achieve it by making the laws.’”
Unsurprisingly, universities—now increasingly drawn into the surrounding liberal economic order—are abandoning the liberal arts and shifting to an emphasis on studies with “utility” and “career relevance”. In some quarters, the term “liberal arts” has become a kind of sneer. “Oh, good luck with your liberal arts degree. I’m getting an MBA like a gentleman, you peasant.” In another great irony, the modern university, which proudly trains our social elites, has made its new mission to provide the type of technocratic or career-focused education that was the bastion of the servile classes in the ancient world. Such people learned specialized skills in a particular trade because they were barred from the type of education of those who would be counted as citizens. Those were the days.
Liberalism has also changed our understanding of culture. Whereas liberalism sees culture only as an unchosen obstruction to individual autonomy—a series of inherited prejudices which distort the “original” person—the word itself comes from the same root as the word “cultivate”. The classical understanding of culture is based on the proposition that, like plants, people need to have an environment that allows them to flourish according to their nature. Culture is the soil from which a fully-realized human being can emerge. Liberalism, by forcibly extracting individuals from their cultural roots, creates a type of cultural black hole: an anticulture that swallows up the cultures in its path, leaving shallow, empty lives in its wake.
The way out of this social quandary in which we find ourselves, Deneen suggests, cannot be achieved through theory, but only through practice. At the local level, in our own small ways, we must all work to reestablish the practice of self-rule. We must relearn how to do things for ourselves, make things for ourselves, and support one another at a very personal, visceral level. To reestablish liberty, properly understood, we must reestablish personal and communal self-sufficiency.
In conclusion, I need to learn how to cook.
October 13, 2021
لحد ما اكتب مراجعة بهدوء بعيد عن أيام الدراسة.. فهو كتاب رائع والنجمة الخامسة هأجلها لقراءة ثانية ��لكتاب لانه يستحق القراءة اكثر من مرة..
Wed, oct 13, 2021
Wed, oct 13, 2021
February 14, 2018
I don't know if I have it in me to turn this into a proper review, so for now I'll just leave the notes I made at various points along the way.
About a quarter of the way through:
- so far quite general, vague, repetitive -- I keep hoping these are just the preliminaries, a high-level overview to signpost where we're headed, but so far it has stayed at the political philosophy 101 level, with more assertion than argument.
- the point so far: in modern America (and similar countries), both left and right are really two sides of the same 'liberal' coin -- one more progressive, the other more classically liberal, but both operating on the same individualist, 'statist' foundations.
-- Deneen wants us to see these foundations as contingent, changable, rather than blindly taking them for granted. Individualism and statism have worked together to undermine the true foundations of social and political harmony and stability -- our traditional norms, customs and relationships, and the institutions and groupings in which they are embedded and by which they are perpetuated, from the family to civil society.
-- he believes that liberal man has been created by liberal politics -- the liberal conception of human nature (the rational, isolated self-maximiser) is not actually an accurate description of man in the state of nature or in his traditional civilised state, but becomes true when the liberal state & liberal philosophy tear him away from his community and his context.
-- he thinks we've exhausted the stock of social/political capital bequeathed to us by the pre-liberal world, and our options are either a gradual collapse into tyranny and chaos, or a voluntary move toward local, smaller-scale systems of social order? I guess the best label for his position might be 'communitarian', but it's not clear what he wants or expects at any fine level of detail.
Update, nearing the end of chapter 6:
I think I'm committed to slogging my way through, but I'm finding this a pretty frustrating book. There's (potentially) a really important case to be made here, but Deneen is not doing a good job of making it. And I know this is uncharitable, but I often feel like there is an undercurrent of 'for God's sake, let's come to our senses and go back to forcing gays into the closet and women into inescapable marriages, etc.' just below the surface.
Aside from being annoying I think this hurts the quality of the book, because if the author didn't find the old ways so emotionally/aesthetically/morally compelling for their own sakes, I think he might have done a better job of making the case that the liberal consensus is *instrumentally* bad. Which is the argument you need to make as compellingly as possible, if you want to convince people (like me) who are instinctively pretty okay with 'deracinated individualism' and 'statism', and pretty glad to be rid of many aspects of traditional morality and free from the stifling embrace of the traditional social order.
Instead, it sometimes seems like Deneen thinks he can win over his readers by repeating his basic thesis & key buzzwords 1000000000 times, and throwing in a lot of quasi-objective (but obviously intended to provoke a disgusted shake of the head) descriptions of the progressive/secular turn in public morality. In place of this, I would have much preferred a more detailed explanation of how and why liberalism is dooming our societies *in ways that some plausible alternative(s) could prevent*. So far there's been no serious attempt to outline the alternative, let alone respond to some of the obvious criticisms and doubts that it might provoke.
Update, an excerpt from chapter 6:
"Society today has been organized around the Millian principle that “everything is allowed,” at least so long as it does not result in measurable (mainly physical) harm. It is a society organized for the benefit of the strong, as Mill recognized. By contrast, a Burkean society is organized for the benefit of the ordinary—the majority who benefit from societal norms that the strong and the ordinary alike are expected to follow. A society can be shaped for the benefit of most people by emphasizing mainly informal norms and customs that secure the path to flourishing for most human beings; or it can be shaped for the benefit of the extraordinary and powerful by liberating all from the constraint of custom. Our society was once shaped on the basis of the benefit for the many ordinary; today it is shaped largely for the benefit of the few strong."
This needs support and discussion and expansion! I can see the outline of a case that could be made, but also many flaws and counterarguments that would need to be addressed. (Most obviously, what about the decidedly vulnerable and powerless people who were shackled and hurt, and absolutely prevented from flourishing, by those norms and customs? What about the cruel inequalities and injustices and harsh conditions they were used to justify? (It's one thing to point out the failings and hypocricies of the current system, another to ignore those of the past.) You don't have to accept these as fatal flaws, but you do have to acknowledge them and explain in some detail why they are a price worth paying.)
On finishing:
Deneen eventually gestures toward addressing some of my misgivings, but this doesn't amount to much. His criticisms and predictions remain rather vague, and he explicitly disclaims the role of positive theoretician offering a meaningful alternative -- though he can't help dropping some hints. This is his grand plan, as best I can piece it together:
- Form 'intentional communities' in which we foster the virtues of self-governance (in both the personal and political senses), develop good old-fashioned social bonds, and create vegetable gardens, small-scale workshops and compost heaps in order free ourselves from the dehumanising anonymity of the global marketplace.
- Indoctrinate our children into a moral code befitting our prejudices. (Probably dressed up in the authority of the Great Books of antiquity and pre-liberal Christianity.)
- Wait for the inevitable collapse of the liberal mainstream under the weight of its own contradictions.
- ??????
- Profit.
About a quarter of the way through:
- so far quite general, vague, repetitive -- I keep hoping these are just the preliminaries, a high-level overview to signpost where we're headed, but so far it has stayed at the political philosophy 101 level, with more assertion than argument.
- the point so far: in modern America (and similar countries), both left and right are really two sides of the same 'liberal' coin -- one more progressive, the other more classically liberal, but both operating on the same individualist, 'statist' foundations.
-- Deneen wants us to see these foundations as contingent, changable, rather than blindly taking them for granted. Individualism and statism have worked together to undermine the true foundations of social and political harmony and stability -- our traditional norms, customs and relationships, and the institutions and groupings in which they are embedded and by which they are perpetuated, from the family to civil society.
-- he believes that liberal man has been created by liberal politics -- the liberal conception of human nature (the rational, isolated self-maximiser) is not actually an accurate description of man in the state of nature or in his traditional civilised state, but becomes true when the liberal state & liberal philosophy tear him away from his community and his context.
-- he thinks we've exhausted the stock of social/political capital bequeathed to us by the pre-liberal world, and our options are either a gradual collapse into tyranny and chaos, or a voluntary move toward local, smaller-scale systems of social order? I guess the best label for his position might be 'communitarian', but it's not clear what he wants or expects at any fine level of detail.
Update, nearing the end of chapter 6:
I think I'm committed to slogging my way through, but I'm finding this a pretty frustrating book. There's (potentially) a really important case to be made here, but Deneen is not doing a good job of making it. And I know this is uncharitable, but I often feel like there is an undercurrent of 'for God's sake, let's come to our senses and go back to forcing gays into the closet and women into inescapable marriages, etc.' just below the surface.
Aside from being annoying I think this hurts the quality of the book, because if the author didn't find the old ways so emotionally/aesthetically/morally compelling for their own sakes, I think he might have done a better job of making the case that the liberal consensus is *instrumentally* bad. Which is the argument you need to make as compellingly as possible, if you want to convince people (like me) who are instinctively pretty okay with 'deracinated individualism' and 'statism', and pretty glad to be rid of many aspects of traditional morality and free from the stifling embrace of the traditional social order.
Instead, it sometimes seems like Deneen thinks he can win over his readers by repeating his basic thesis & key buzzwords 1000000000 times, and throwing in a lot of quasi-objective (but obviously intended to provoke a disgusted shake of the head) descriptions of the progressive/secular turn in public morality. In place of this, I would have much preferred a more detailed explanation of how and why liberalism is dooming our societies *in ways that some plausible alternative(s) could prevent*. So far there's been no serious attempt to outline the alternative, let alone respond to some of the obvious criticisms and doubts that it might provoke.
Update, an excerpt from chapter 6:
"Society today has been organized around the Millian principle that “everything is allowed,” at least so long as it does not result in measurable (mainly physical) harm. It is a society organized for the benefit of the strong, as Mill recognized. By contrast, a Burkean society is organized for the benefit of the ordinary—the majority who benefit from societal norms that the strong and the ordinary alike are expected to follow. A society can be shaped for the benefit of most people by emphasizing mainly informal norms and customs that secure the path to flourishing for most human beings; or it can be shaped for the benefit of the extraordinary and powerful by liberating all from the constraint of custom. Our society was once shaped on the basis of the benefit for the many ordinary; today it is shaped largely for the benefit of the few strong."
This needs support and discussion and expansion! I can see the outline of a case that could be made, but also many flaws and counterarguments that would need to be addressed. (Most obviously, what about the decidedly vulnerable and powerless people who were shackled and hurt, and absolutely prevented from flourishing, by those norms and customs? What about the cruel inequalities and injustices and harsh conditions they were used to justify? (It's one thing to point out the failings and hypocricies of the current system, another to ignore those of the past.) You don't have to accept these as fatal flaws, but you do have to acknowledge them and explain in some detail why they are a price worth paying.)
On finishing:
Deneen eventually gestures toward addressing some of my misgivings, but this doesn't amount to much. His criticisms and predictions remain rather vague, and he explicitly disclaims the role of positive theoretician offering a meaningful alternative -- though he can't help dropping some hints. This is his grand plan, as best I can piece it together:
- Form 'intentional communities' in which we foster the virtues of self-governance (in both the personal and political senses), develop good old-fashioned social bonds, and create vegetable gardens, small-scale workshops and compost heaps in order free ourselves from the dehumanising anonymity of the global marketplace.
- Indoctrinate our children into a moral code befitting our prejudices. (Probably dressed up in the authority of the Great Books of antiquity and pre-liberal Christianity.)
- Wait for the inevitable collapse of the liberal mainstream under the weight of its own contradictions.
- ??????
- Profit.
March 12, 2021
This book is surprisingly reactionary for being mass produced and layman oriented. Deneen’s observation that liberalism is self destructive exactly because it is actively hostile to our natures and traditions is precisely correct. Arguably this is one of the most compact overviews of reactionary/conservative thought around.
Throughout the book you can see echos of other conservative and reactionary thinkers ranging from Aristotle and Burke to Nick Land and Ted Kaczynski all in a relatively digestible package that a layman can understand. My recommendation is to give this book as a gift to family and friends as an inoffensive introduction to reactionary thought.
Note: a more detailed review will come upon a second read through
Throughout the book you can see echos of other conservative and reactionary thinkers ranging from Aristotle and Burke to Nick Land and Ted Kaczynski all in a relatively digestible package that a layman can understand. My recommendation is to give this book as a gift to family and friends as an inoffensive introduction to reactionary thought.
Note: a more detailed review will come upon a second read through
January 18, 2022
قال معظم ما يقال
بعض صفحات الكتاب العبارة فيها مفككة ولا أدري هل هذا بسبب الترجمة أم من الأصل.
ولكنه من الكتب التي استمتعت بها
بعض صفحات الكتاب العبارة فيها مفككة ولا أدري هل هذا بسبب الترجمة أم من الأصل.
ولكنه من الكتب التي استمتعت بها
January 8, 2019
Rubbish.
I can't remember where I first heard of this book, but I had it on my to-read list already when I saw it on the list of books Barack Obama read in 2018. As a proponent of liberal democracy reading a book that takes explicit aims at the foundations of all of modern Western political theory, I was not expecting to agree with everything in it off the bat. However, I figured it would give me an intellectual challenge, might sharpen my thinking, and perhaps would yield interesting insights. Instead, what I found was an angry, confused, and mean-spirited screed. Deneen does not make the case that liberalism has failed, much less explain why, and he doesn't try to present a better alternative. Sadly, the book doesn't even provide useful insight into the current malaise gripping large portions of the West. It's spuriously argued, unserious as political philosophy, and not worth your time.
Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at Notre Dame (previously Georgetown and Princeton). He is neither a conservative nor a liberal in modern American terms, but rather an arch-traditionalist, and he takes aims at all forms of progress, both social and economic. The focuses of his ire in Why Liberalism Failed are many, including markets, government, science, technology, business, law, globalization, insurance, consumerism, individualism, educational institutions, extramarital sex, birth control, multiculturalism, daycare, and the hiring of gardeners. He equates liberalism to unshackled individualism and imagines that it is at the root of all of these things. On that basis, he hates liberalism itself.
What Deneen really hates is modern society-basically everything post-Enlightenment, though especially starting with the sexual revolution. He is, first and foremost, angry about the state of the world. The book calls to mind the worst kind of hyperbolic cable news editorial, but with Trump's bleak worldview replacing the typical partisanship. Indeed, like Trump, he considers the modern right and left as two mutually reinforcing sides of the same coin, in cahoots in furthering liberalism. Also like Trump, he is prone to imagining conspiracies and assigning malicious intent to those he disagrees with. In his view, the US Constitution itself is the original sin, and incredibly, he claims the founding fathers (even Madison!) were operating in bad faith, working to foster a mistrust in the people in order to subvert their will. While the book dresses it up in professorial language ("ersatz" this and that), this is more a Trumpian rant, born of grievance and willfully blind to reality, than a serious academic work.
So if Deneen hates liberalism, markets, government, science, rights, and all forms of progress, what does he want in their place? Community, self-restraint, nature, culture. Courtship, marriage for life, and lots of babies. He implicitly harkens back to some imagined pre-liberal glory days, when people constrained themselves and didn't need laws to tell them the right thing to do. Rather than the "domination of nature" we have today, back then we lived in a "state of nature." Instead of depending on insurance companies, we depended on our communities. Instead of women's liberation, "the main practical achievement of [which] has been to move many… into the work force of market capitalism," we had traditional family structures. Instead of the "weaponized timelessness" of progressivism, we had "gratitude towards the past and obligations for the future." Instead of a society "based on rights and merit and productivity," we had a hereditary aristocracy where ordinary people flourished. Instead of intrusive government, we were able to "self-rule" and had the "capacity to govern appetite and thus achieve a truer form of liberty." We were "capable of living within natural limits, but also cultural limits, self-imposed." We practiced the "self-restraints implied by neighborliness, stewardship, thrift, temperance, generosity, care, loyalty, and love." Sure.
If you're wondering what the evidence is that this wonderful state of nature and culture existed, or that progress since the Enlightenment has made people worse off… well, you're out of luck. There is no such argument. (Actually, in the conclusion he outright states that no idyllic pre-liberal state ever existed, although he spends most of the book imagining one, and his argument requires one.) Deneen presents no evidence, only assertions, generalizations, and opinions. In doing so, he willfully ignores all the concrete good that liberal democracy has achieved in the world. He does not mention the huge gains we've seen on, for example, poverty, slavery, violence, war, child mortality, wealth, health, or human rights. He does not address data showing that people have grown happier over time and that increasing wealth within and across societies is correlated with increasing happiness. While he makes it clear that he hates modern society, it's unclear what the actual human damage is that he perceives. Nor is there any argument that you should agree with him, other than his own opinion. He offers no specifics, just the sentiment that everything is terrible.
Most damagingly, Deneen does not even make a coherent case that liberalism is the problem. Yes, he hates the individualism and licentiousness of modern times, but in falsely equating this with liberalism, he creates a straw man. I too worry that crony capitalism leads to problematic inequality; that doesn't necessitate renouncing all markets. I too feel that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior; that doesn't give me the right to tell them what to do with their bodies. I too love front porches and the feeling of neighborhood community; that doesn't imply rejecting the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This itself may sound like a straw man of Deneen's argument, but in truth there isn't much more to it than that. Opinions are followed by asserted consequences, with no logical connection. The book is a great primer on the philosophical meaning of "beg the question."
In fact, while Deneen sees liberalism as the cause for all the wrongs in the modern world, most of the novel examples badly miss the mark. Among other things, he asserts that:
* individual freedom causes statism (socialists and authoritarians should feel slighted)
* liberalism leads to government surveillance (hello, USSR!)
* liberalism drives the depletion of natural resources (facts say otherwise)
* subsistence societies are better than societies where everyone is well off but more unequal (the 217,000 people around the world who escape extreme poverty every day might take issue with that)
* free societies allocate wealth just as arbitrarily as hereditary aristocracies (so productivity & industriousness are as unfair as inheritance?)
* market capitalism reduces all but a few forms of work to drudgery and indignity (as opposed to all the creative jobs in Mao's China or feudal England?)
* "today's society produces economic winners and losers" (in contrast to which societies when? Today's authoritarian Russia? The kingdom of Saudi Arabia? The USSR? The Qing dynasty? Victorian England? The Roman Empire? Egypt's golden age?)
It's entirely fair to bemoan statism, government surveillance, or environmental degradation. However, Deneen doesn't do the work to show that these ills are caused by liberalism, and the assertion that they are flies in the face of the obvious evidence. These are facts of life across the modern world, not specifically under liberal democracy, and they are often worse under other forms of government. Many of our issues have been problems since pre-Enlightenment days.
Having thoroughly trashed liberalism, what antidote does Deneen prescribe? What would re-instill in us our lost senses of community, self-restraint, nature, and culture? There is no solution on offer. Deneen admits that socialism and fascism are worse options. He doesn't explicitly say it, but presumably he would not prefer a monarchy, dictatorship, military junta or oligarchy. In fact, Deneen says we shouldn't bother to look for a new theory or ideology as an alternative to liberalism. He suggests we need to invest in developing our culture, emphasizing household economics and local exchange, and self-governing at the local level. All of these are compatible with liberalism or other ideologies. But discarding liberalism is not likely to get us any closer to any of these goals, and even if it would, there is no way to get there from here.
I am very sympathetic to Deneen's underlying sentiment that modern society puts too much focus on individualism over community, consumerism over tradition, technology over nature. These trends can be traced to Enlightenment philosophy, and individualism is related to (though not equivalent to) liberalism. Obama wrote, "I don't agree with most of the author's conclusions, but the book offers cogent insights into the loss of meaning and community that many in the West feel, issues that liberal democracies ignore at their own peril." However, the book doesn't offer cogent insights on these points. It just screams that the feelings of loss exists. Those feelings are to be taken seriously, but this book doesn't help us to understand them or respond to them more effectively. Further, there is no reason to believe that Trump (or Brexit, or AFD, or RN) voters agree with Deneen at all about the causes. While they may share the feelings, I don't hear many calls to throw out the US Constitution, for a return to nature, or for self-restraint. Deneen's extremist view is not representative of a significant portion of the population.
We would do well to exert more self-restraint, be more polite, and put more emphasis on our family and community. Identifying liberalism, which champions freedom and human rights, as the root cause of these challenges seems wrong, and trying to move past liberalism is certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need more liberalism these days, not less. We can seek a form of liberalism that more fully embraces community, culture, and nature; there is no contradiction here. There is a valuable book to be written on how to do it. Why Liberalism Failed is not that book.
I can't remember where I first heard of this book, but I had it on my to-read list already when I saw it on the list of books Barack Obama read in 2018. As a proponent of liberal democracy reading a book that takes explicit aims at the foundations of all of modern Western political theory, I was not expecting to agree with everything in it off the bat. However, I figured it would give me an intellectual challenge, might sharpen my thinking, and perhaps would yield interesting insights. Instead, what I found was an angry, confused, and mean-spirited screed. Deneen does not make the case that liberalism has failed, much less explain why, and he doesn't try to present a better alternative. Sadly, the book doesn't even provide useful insight into the current malaise gripping large portions of the West. It's spuriously argued, unserious as political philosophy, and not worth your time.
Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at Notre Dame (previously Georgetown and Princeton). He is neither a conservative nor a liberal in modern American terms, but rather an arch-traditionalist, and he takes aims at all forms of progress, both social and economic. The focuses of his ire in Why Liberalism Failed are many, including markets, government, science, technology, business, law, globalization, insurance, consumerism, individualism, educational institutions, extramarital sex, birth control, multiculturalism, daycare, and the hiring of gardeners. He equates liberalism to unshackled individualism and imagines that it is at the root of all of these things. On that basis, he hates liberalism itself.
What Deneen really hates is modern society-basically everything post-Enlightenment, though especially starting with the sexual revolution. He is, first and foremost, angry about the state of the world. The book calls to mind the worst kind of hyperbolic cable news editorial, but with Trump's bleak worldview replacing the typical partisanship. Indeed, like Trump, he considers the modern right and left as two mutually reinforcing sides of the same coin, in cahoots in furthering liberalism. Also like Trump, he is prone to imagining conspiracies and assigning malicious intent to those he disagrees with. In his view, the US Constitution itself is the original sin, and incredibly, he claims the founding fathers (even Madison!) were operating in bad faith, working to foster a mistrust in the people in order to subvert their will. While the book dresses it up in professorial language ("ersatz" this and that), this is more a Trumpian rant, born of grievance and willfully blind to reality, than a serious academic work.
So if Deneen hates liberalism, markets, government, science, rights, and all forms of progress, what does he want in their place? Community, self-restraint, nature, culture. Courtship, marriage for life, and lots of babies. He implicitly harkens back to some imagined pre-liberal glory days, when people constrained themselves and didn't need laws to tell them the right thing to do. Rather than the "domination of nature" we have today, back then we lived in a "state of nature." Instead of depending on insurance companies, we depended on our communities. Instead of women's liberation, "the main practical achievement of [which] has been to move many… into the work force of market capitalism," we had traditional family structures. Instead of the "weaponized timelessness" of progressivism, we had "gratitude towards the past and obligations for the future." Instead of a society "based on rights and merit and productivity," we had a hereditary aristocracy where ordinary people flourished. Instead of intrusive government, we were able to "self-rule" and had the "capacity to govern appetite and thus achieve a truer form of liberty." We were "capable of living within natural limits, but also cultural limits, self-imposed." We practiced the "self-restraints implied by neighborliness, stewardship, thrift, temperance, generosity, care, loyalty, and love." Sure.
If you're wondering what the evidence is that this wonderful state of nature and culture existed, or that progress since the Enlightenment has made people worse off… well, you're out of luck. There is no such argument. (Actually, in the conclusion he outright states that no idyllic pre-liberal state ever existed, although he spends most of the book imagining one, and his argument requires one.) Deneen presents no evidence, only assertions, generalizations, and opinions. In doing so, he willfully ignores all the concrete good that liberal democracy has achieved in the world. He does not mention the huge gains we've seen on, for example, poverty, slavery, violence, war, child mortality, wealth, health, or human rights. He does not address data showing that people have grown happier over time and that increasing wealth within and across societies is correlated with increasing happiness. While he makes it clear that he hates modern society, it's unclear what the actual human damage is that he perceives. Nor is there any argument that you should agree with him, other than his own opinion. He offers no specifics, just the sentiment that everything is terrible.
Most damagingly, Deneen does not even make a coherent case that liberalism is the problem. Yes, he hates the individualism and licentiousness of modern times, but in falsely equating this with liberalism, he creates a straw man. I too worry that crony capitalism leads to problematic inequality; that doesn't necessitate renouncing all markets. I too feel that some people exhibit self-destructive behavior; that doesn't give me the right to tell them what to do with their bodies. I too love front porches and the feeling of neighborhood community; that doesn't imply rejecting the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This itself may sound like a straw man of Deneen's argument, but in truth there isn't much more to it than that. Opinions are followed by asserted consequences, with no logical connection. The book is a great primer on the philosophical meaning of "beg the question."
In fact, while Deneen sees liberalism as the cause for all the wrongs in the modern world, most of the novel examples badly miss the mark. Among other things, he asserts that:
* individual freedom causes statism (socialists and authoritarians should feel slighted)
* liberalism leads to government surveillance (hello, USSR!)
* liberalism drives the depletion of natural resources (facts say otherwise)
* subsistence societies are better than societies where everyone is well off but more unequal (the 217,000 people around the world who escape extreme poverty every day might take issue with that)
* free societies allocate wealth just as arbitrarily as hereditary aristocracies (so productivity & industriousness are as unfair as inheritance?)
* market capitalism reduces all but a few forms of work to drudgery and indignity (as opposed to all the creative jobs in Mao's China or feudal England?)
* "today's society produces economic winners and losers" (in contrast to which societies when? Today's authoritarian Russia? The kingdom of Saudi Arabia? The USSR? The Qing dynasty? Victorian England? The Roman Empire? Egypt's golden age?)
It's entirely fair to bemoan statism, government surveillance, or environmental degradation. However, Deneen doesn't do the work to show that these ills are caused by liberalism, and the assertion that they are flies in the face of the obvious evidence. These are facts of life across the modern world, not specifically under liberal democracy, and they are often worse under other forms of government. Many of our issues have been problems since pre-Enlightenment days.
Having thoroughly trashed liberalism, what antidote does Deneen prescribe? What would re-instill in us our lost senses of community, self-restraint, nature, and culture? There is no solution on offer. Deneen admits that socialism and fascism are worse options. He doesn't explicitly say it, but presumably he would not prefer a monarchy, dictatorship, military junta or oligarchy. In fact, Deneen says we shouldn't bother to look for a new theory or ideology as an alternative to liberalism. He suggests we need to invest in developing our culture, emphasizing household economics and local exchange, and self-governing at the local level. All of these are compatible with liberalism or other ideologies. But discarding liberalism is not likely to get us any closer to any of these goals, and even if it would, there is no way to get there from here.
I am very sympathetic to Deneen's underlying sentiment that modern society puts too much focus on individualism over community, consumerism over tradition, technology over nature. These trends can be traced to Enlightenment philosophy, and individualism is related to (though not equivalent to) liberalism. Obama wrote, "I don't agree with most of the author's conclusions, but the book offers cogent insights into the loss of meaning and community that many in the West feel, issues that liberal democracies ignore at their own peril." However, the book doesn't offer cogent insights on these points. It just screams that the feelings of loss exists. Those feelings are to be taken seriously, but this book doesn't help us to understand them or respond to them more effectively. Further, there is no reason to believe that Trump (or Brexit, or AFD, or RN) voters agree with Deneen at all about the causes. While they may share the feelings, I don't hear many calls to throw out the US Constitution, for a return to nature, or for self-restraint. Deneen's extremist view is not representative of a significant portion of the population.
We would do well to exert more self-restraint, be more polite, and put more emphasis on our family and community. Identifying liberalism, which champions freedom and human rights, as the root cause of these challenges seems wrong, and trying to move past liberalism is certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We need more liberalism these days, not less. We can seek a form of liberalism that more fully embraces community, culture, and nature; there is no contradiction here. There is a valuable book to be written on how to do it. Why Liberalism Failed is not that book.
September 30, 2021
"لقد فشلت الليبرالية لأن الليبرالية قد نجحت"، هكذا يقول لنا " باتريك دينين" في أكثر من موضع من كتابه " لماذا فشلت الليبرالية"، فقد نجحت الليبرالية في تحقيق ما تم التنظير له على يد فرانسيس بيكون وهوبز، لكن هذا النجاح يحتوي بداخله على عوامل فشل الليبرالية، ففي البداية يؤكد لنا دينين أن الأيديولوجيات تفشل لسببين، أولهما التأسيس على الباطل، وثانيهما ازدياد الفجوة بين التنظير والتطبيق، سيحاجج الكتاب في إثبات فشل الليبرالية كأيديولوجيا، مخالفًا فوكوياما الذي أعدّ الليبرالية أيديولوجيا منتصرة وهي نهاية التاريخ بعد تحلل الشيوعية.
من المفارقة أن نقد دينين هو نقد باحث أكاديمي من داخل الحقل الليبرالي، فهو لا يرى إلا الليبرالية، وبالتالي لا يطرح أيديولوجيات بديلة، ولكنه يريد الإصلاح من داخل البيت الليبرالي نفسه، وفي نفس الوقت لا يرى تجاوز أمراض الليبرالية إلا بالتخلص من الليبرالية نفسها، هل هذا تناقض ..ربما، لكنه على كل حال يؤسس لفشل الليبرالية من خلال التجربة الأمريكية، فهو يدرس الليبرالية من واقع تلك التجربة، فبتصوره بشَّرت الليبرالية في مُستهَل عهدها باقتلاع طبقة أرستقراطية قديمة باسم الحرية، لكنها أظهرت بعد ذلك نوعًا جديدًا من الأرستقراطية أشد فتكًا.
يعود الكتاب إلى منصة التأسيس التي انطلقت منها الليبرالية، مبينًا كيف تطلّب صعود الليبرالية وانتصارها بذل جهود متواصلة لتقويض الفهم الكلاسيكي والمسيحي للحرية، وتحتل فكرة " الحرية" وكيفية إعادة اللييرالية تفسيرها وتعريفها مكانًا كبيرًا من فكر دينين، ومن ثم يوضح لنا كيف قامت الفلسفة الليبرالية من خلال نظرتها إلى الطبيعة، وكيف نقد ليبراليون مثل فرنسيس بيكون و هوبز نظرة أرسطو للنظام الطبيعي الذي يخضع له البشر، فقد أكَّد هؤلاء قدرة الليبرالية على السيطرة على الطبيعة عبر العلوم الطبيعية.
يرصد الكتاب المصادر الفلسفية لليبرالية الكلاسيكية، من خلال معالجة فكرة الدولة والعقد الاجتماعي، فما يريد إثباته هنا هو ظهور النزعة الليبرالية عبر الالتزام الأساس بتحرير الفرد واستخدام العلوم الطبيعية وبمساعدة ( الدولة) = كوسيلة أساسية لتحقيق التحرر العملي من قيود الطبيعة، فالفرد يخلق الدولة من خلال العقد الاجتماعي، بينما تضطلع الدولة الليبرالية بخلق الفرد من خلال توسيع مجال الحرية، ومع ذلك فإن الليبراليين المحافظين ( أصحاب الليبرالية الكلاسيكية) يعبِّرون عن عداءهم لتوسع الدولة، بينما يشجع ذلك الليبراليون التقدميون الذين ينظِّرون للدولة بوصفها الحامي المطلق للحرية الفردية .
وهنا يُصبح السؤال ملحًا أين فشلت الليبرالية؟ يوضح الكتاب ذلك من خلال استطراد كثير، من ذلك اعتباره أنَّ " الليبرالية معادية للثقافة"، فهو يرى أنّ الثقافة تقوم على ثلاث ركائز للتجربة الإنسانية وهم ( الطبيعة/ الزمان/ المكان)، فوفق تصوره الليبرالية من خلال نظرتها للطبيعة تقضي على الإنسانية، والقضاء على الزمن الماضي باعتبار الزمن حاضرًا فقط لا ماضي له، وجعل المكان قابلًا للاستبدال.
هنا جانب آخر من جوانب فشل الليبرالية كما يراه دينين وهو " التكنولوجيا وفقدان الحرية"، وكيف أدى ذلك إلى تدمير الحياة الراسخة، ويرصد ما بات معروفًا بالحتمية التكنولوجية، بمعنى أنَّ هناك حتمية للتقدم التكنولوجي التي لا يمكن لأي قدر من التحذير من مخاطرها أن يمنعها، يبدو دينين لا يستسيغ هذا المعنى مؤكدًا أن هناك نوع من السرد الهيغلي أو الدارويني يهيمن على نظرتنا إلى العالم، لكنه لا يغض الطرف عن الأثر الكارثي لها، فهو يؤكد أن ثقافتنا التكنولوجية استندت منذ البداية إلى تعريف خاطىء للحرية يقود إلى حالة من العبودية.
يحاجج الكتاب في فصل صادم بأنّ الليبرالية ضد العلوم الإنسانية؛ وذلك بسبب تقويضها للتعليم الحر، فهي تزيح شرعية العلوم الإنسانية بوصفها مصدرًا للتعليم، في الوقت نفسه تؤكّد على أنَّ العلوم والهندسة والرياضيات والاقتصاد هي الموضوعات الوحيدة التي لها ما يبرر دراستها. يضع الكتاب كذلك " ظهور الأرستقراطية الجديدة" كأحد أشكال فشل الليبرالية، حيث أظهرت مجتمعًا يُعاني من الطبقية العميقة، ويوضّح أنَّ النظام التعليمي الذي تحوّل إلى أداة لليبرالية هو الذي ساهم في ذلك مع ليبرالية لوك الاقتصادية وليبرالية نمط الحياة عند ميل.
وهكذا ظروف نجاح الليبرالية تعزز ظروف فشلها، نجحت في إقصاء طبقة لتضع بدلًا منها طبقة أخرى أشد فتكًا، وبوضوح يقول أنَّ الليبرالية هي أول نظام يضع موضع التنفيذ نسخة من " الكذبة النبيلة" التي اقترحها أفلاطون في كتابه " الجمهورية".
نجد أن الديمقراطية بوصفها أشهر شعارات الليبرالية السياسية لا تفلت أيضًا من نقد دينين، حيث أكد أنَّ الديمقراطية أداة مشرعنة مقبولة فقط مادامت ممارستها توجد داخل الافتراضات الليبرالية وتدعمها على نطاق واسع، ويتكلم عن تمثلات ذلك في التاريخ الأمريكي.
لا يُقدم دينين أيديولوجيا بديلة بعد أن أثبت فشل الليبرالية عبر صفحات كتابه مستعملًا ثقافته السياسية والفلسفية بكل مهارة، بل يُعد مثل هذا البديل نوع من المقامرة في تصوره، ومن ثم يرى أن الحل يكمن في اتخاذ خطوات أولى مؤقتة مثل البناء على إنجازات الليبرالية والتخلي عن أسباب فشلها، وتجاوز عصر الأيديولوجيا، و انتظار تولّد نظرية من واقع التجربة والممارسة أفضل للسياسة والمجتمع، بحيث تحتفظ بمفاهيم أساسية من حقبة ما قبل الليبرالية تعيد النظر في الكون والحياة.
لكن تظل هناك إشكالات حول حلول دينين، منها كيف ستسمح الليبرالية نفسها بنشوء تلك النظرية مع توحشها وتوغلها؟! وكيف لا يمكن تجاوز الليبرالية وفي نفس الوقت نعيد صياغة فلسفتها التأسيسية، فإذا تم هدم تلك الفلسفة فماذا يتبقى منها؟!.
بالنهاية الكتاب من الكتب الجيدة، فهو يُقدّم للقارىء العربي وجهًا مختلفًا من وجوه نقد الليبرالية، صحيح قد تجد شبح نقد مدرسة فرانكفورت هنا، إلا أنّه بالنهاية به كثير من الإضافات الجيدة.
من المفارقة أن نقد دينين هو نقد باحث أكاديمي من داخل الحقل الليبرالي، فهو لا يرى إلا الليبرالية، وبالتالي لا يطرح أيديولوجيات بديلة، ولكنه يريد الإصلاح من داخل البيت الليبرالي نفسه، وفي نفس الوقت لا يرى تجاوز أمراض الليبرالية إلا بالتخلص من الليبرالية نفسها، هل هذا تناقض ..ربما، لكنه على كل حال يؤسس لفشل الليبرالية من خلال التجربة الأمريكية، فهو يدرس الليبرالية من واقع تلك التجربة، فبتصوره بشَّرت الليبرالية في مُستهَل عهدها باقتلاع طبقة أرستقراطية قديمة باسم الحرية، لكنها أظهرت بعد ذلك نوعًا جديدًا من الأرستقراطية أشد فتكًا.
يعود الكتاب إلى منصة التأسيس التي انطلقت منها الليبرالية، مبينًا كيف تطلّب صعود الليبرالية وانتصارها بذل جهود متواصلة لتقويض الفهم الكلاسيكي والمسيحي للحرية، وتحتل فكرة " الحرية" وكيفية إعادة اللييرالية تفسيرها وتعريفها مكانًا كبيرًا من فكر دينين، ومن ثم يوضح لنا كيف قامت الفلسفة الليبرالية من خلال نظرتها إلى الطبيعة، وكيف نقد ليبراليون مثل فرنسيس بيكون و هوبز نظرة أرسطو للنظام الطبيعي الذي يخضع له البشر، فقد أكَّد هؤلاء قدرة الليبرالية على السيطرة على الطبيعة عبر العلوم الطبيعية.
يرصد الكتاب المصادر الفلسفية لليبرالية الكلاسيكية، من خلال معالجة فكرة الدولة والعقد الاجتماعي، فما يريد إثباته هنا هو ظهور النزعة الليبرالية عبر الالتزام الأساس بتحرير الفرد واستخدام العلوم الطبيعية وبمساعدة ( الدولة) = كوسيلة أساسية لتحقيق التحرر العملي من قيود الطبيعة، فالفرد يخلق الدولة من خلال العقد الاجتماعي، بينما تضطلع الدولة الليبرالية بخلق الفرد من خلال توسيع مجال الحرية، ومع ذلك فإن الليبراليين المحافظين ( أصحاب الليبرالية الكلاسيكية) يعبِّرون عن عداءهم لتوسع الدولة، بينما يشجع ذلك الليبراليون التقدميون الذين ينظِّرون للدولة بوصفها الحامي المطلق للحرية الفردية .
وهنا يُصبح السؤال ملحًا أين فشلت الليبرالية؟ يوضح الكتاب ذلك من خلال استطراد كثير، من ذلك اعتباره أنَّ " الليبرالية معادية للثقافة"، فهو يرى أنّ الثقافة تقوم على ثلاث ركائز للتجربة الإنسانية وهم ( الطبيعة/ الزمان/ المكان)، فوفق تصوره الليبرالية من خلال نظرتها للطبيعة تقضي على الإنسانية، والقضاء على الزمن الماضي باعتبار الزمن حاضرًا فقط لا ماضي له، وجعل المكان قابلًا للاستبدال.
هنا جانب آخر من جوانب فشل الليبرالية كما يراه دينين وهو " التكنولوجيا وفقدان الحرية"، وكيف أدى ذلك إلى تدمير الحياة الراسخة، ويرصد ما بات معروفًا بالحتمية التكنولوجية، بمعنى أنَّ هناك حتمية للتقدم التكنولوجي التي لا يمكن لأي قدر من التحذير من مخاطرها أن يمنعها، يبدو دينين لا يستسيغ هذا المعنى مؤكدًا أن هناك نوع من السرد الهيغلي أو الدارويني يهيمن على نظرتنا إلى العالم، لكنه لا يغض الطرف عن الأثر الكارثي لها، فهو يؤكد أن ثقافتنا التكنولوجية استندت منذ البداية إلى تعريف خاطىء للحرية يقود إلى حالة من العبودية.
يحاجج الكتاب في فصل صادم بأنّ الليبرالية ضد العلوم الإنسانية؛ وذلك بسبب تقويضها للتعليم الحر، فهي تزيح شرعية العلوم الإنسانية بوصفها مصدرًا للتعليم، في الوقت نفسه تؤكّد على أنَّ العلوم والهندسة والرياضيات والاقتصاد هي الموضوعات الوحيدة التي لها ما يبرر دراستها. يضع الكتاب كذلك " ظهور الأرستقراطية الجديدة" كأحد أشكال فشل الليبرالية، حيث أظهرت مجتمعًا يُعاني من الطبقية العميقة، ويوضّح أنَّ النظام التعليمي الذي تحوّل إلى أداة لليبرالية هو الذي ساهم في ذلك مع ليبرالية لوك الاقتصادية وليبرالية نمط الحياة عند ميل.
وهكذا ظروف نجاح الليبرالية تعزز ظروف فشلها، نجحت في إقصاء طبقة لتضع بدلًا منها طبقة أخرى أشد فتكًا، وبوضوح يقول أنَّ الليبرالية هي أول نظام يضع موضع التنفيذ نسخة من " الكذبة النبيلة" التي اقترحها أفلاطون في كتابه " الجمهورية".
نجد أن الديمقراطية بوصفها أشهر شعارات الليبرالية السياسية لا تفلت أيضًا من نقد دينين، حيث أكد أنَّ الديمقراطية أداة مشرعنة مقبولة فقط مادامت ممارستها توجد داخل الافتراضات الليبرالية وتدعمها على نطاق واسع، ويتكلم عن تمثلات ذلك في التاريخ الأمريكي.
لا يُقدم دينين أيديولوجيا بديلة بعد أن أثبت فشل الليبرالية عبر صفحات كتابه مستعملًا ثقافته السياسية والفلسفية بكل مهارة، بل يُعد مثل هذا البديل نوع من المقامرة في تصوره، ومن ثم يرى أن الحل يكمن في اتخاذ خطوات أولى مؤقتة مثل البناء على إنجازات الليبرالية والتخلي عن أسباب فشلها، وتجاوز عصر الأيديولوجيا، و انتظار تولّد نظرية من واقع التجربة والممارسة أفضل للسياسة والمجتمع، بحيث تحتفظ بمفاهيم أساسية من حقبة ما قبل الليبرالية تعيد النظر في الكون والحياة.
لكن تظل هناك إشكالات حول حلول دينين، منها كيف ستسمح الليبرالية نفسها بنشوء تلك النظرية مع توحشها وتوغلها؟! وكيف لا يمكن تجاوز الليبرالية وفي نفس الوقت نعيد صياغة فلسفتها التأسيسية، فإذا تم هدم تلك الفلسفة فماذا يتبقى منها؟!.
بالنهاية الكتاب من الكتب الجيدة، فهو يُقدّم للقارىء العربي وجهًا مختلفًا من وجوه نقد الليبرالية، صحيح قد تجد شبح نقد مدرسة فرانكفورت هنا، إلا أنّه بالنهاية به كثير من الإضافات الجيدة.
May 3, 2020
We should be clear because Deneen's sensationalist title is a little misleading. It is not referring to liberals, liberal America, or Democrats (the American liberal political party) as we usually talk about them. Rather, Deneen is referring to, in the longer view, liberalism as a mode of society as opposed to classical ancient society, feudalism and feudal aristocracy, and socialism. Deneen is trying to take down both classical liberalism which he equates with conservatism today and progressive liberalism which he equates with contemporary liberalism.
Once we have that clarity, it is an okay book. Taking the longer view is appreciated. From thirty thousand feet, he is onto something that conservatives and liberals are two sides of the same coin. There is definite merit to his arguments. The thing is we have just heard these cords before from other musicians. Nothing groundbreaking here. We've heard these criticism for decades now. In fact, if we mentally replaced ever instance of the word 'liberalism' throughout the book with 'capitalism' and 'bourgeoisie society' we'd have a fairly commonplace B- or C+ work in critical theory.
Deneen suggests that we should go back to liberal education as practiced in the long Western tradition. The problem is that was predicated upon a life of leisure. All societies hitherto were founded upon a strata of indentured labor from slaves to serfs to peasants to immigrants and third world labor upon which those leisure classes rested. We cannot just go back to practicing classic liberal education as they did in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the religious tradition while we are still in the midst of replacing the economic structure that had in previous societies propped up those leisure classes and carried them on their shoulders.
Elsewhere Deneen calls for a return to the household and the local economy. It's not that no one has had these thoughts before. Rather, they are impractical to the point of utopianism. The conditions of late stage capitalism, including international finance and global markets, have been built upon the local economies of the past. The local economies still exist; new generations of mom and pop stores spring up where they can. They are just not competitive on a serious scale. Walmart disrupted the local mom and pop stores on Main Streets across America three decades ago. Then, Amazon and major online retail disrupted Walmart and the big box store business model. These more competitive layers rest on top of local businesses and keep them in check from going to scale. As a result, local businesses remain niche and on the fringes of America's and the world's economies. Although he is coming from a different tradition, at best, Deneen's argument seems to mirror and update those once made by the Utopian Socialists.
It's easy to criticize. It's much harder to come up with solutions and to implement those solutions. The problem is that Deneen is trying to take down both classical liberalism which he equates with conservatism today and progressive liberalism which he equates with contemporary liberalism. Once he's done sweeping aside the vast majority of positions in practice today in one long dismissive gesture, there is nothing realistic for him to advocate for in their stead.
Once we have that clarity, it is an okay book. Taking the longer view is appreciated. From thirty thousand feet, he is onto something that conservatives and liberals are two sides of the same coin. There is definite merit to his arguments. The thing is we have just heard these cords before from other musicians. Nothing groundbreaking here. We've heard these criticism for decades now. In fact, if we mentally replaced ever instance of the word 'liberalism' throughout the book with 'capitalism' and 'bourgeoisie society' we'd have a fairly commonplace B- or C+ work in critical theory.
Deneen suggests that we should go back to liberal education as practiced in the long Western tradition. The problem is that was predicated upon a life of leisure. All societies hitherto were founded upon a strata of indentured labor from slaves to serfs to peasants to immigrants and third world labor upon which those leisure classes rested. We cannot just go back to practicing classic liberal education as they did in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the religious tradition while we are still in the midst of replacing the economic structure that had in previous societies propped up those leisure classes and carried them on their shoulders.
Elsewhere Deneen calls for a return to the household and the local economy. It's not that no one has had these thoughts before. Rather, they are impractical to the point of utopianism. The conditions of late stage capitalism, including international finance and global markets, have been built upon the local economies of the past. The local economies still exist; new generations of mom and pop stores spring up where they can. They are just not competitive on a serious scale. Walmart disrupted the local mom and pop stores on Main Streets across America three decades ago. Then, Amazon and major online retail disrupted Walmart and the big box store business model. These more competitive layers rest on top of local businesses and keep them in check from going to scale. As a result, local businesses remain niche and on the fringes of America's and the world's economies. Although he is coming from a different tradition, at best, Deneen's argument seems to mirror and update those once made by the Utopian Socialists.
It's easy to criticize. It's much harder to come up with solutions and to implement those solutions. The problem is that Deneen is trying to take down both classical liberalism which he equates with conservatism today and progressive liberalism which he equates with contemporary liberalism. Once he's done sweeping aside the vast majority of positions in practice today in one long dismissive gesture, there is nothing realistic for him to advocate for in their stead.
March 10, 2025
A catastrophizing straw man manifesto but an interesting perspective.
Very important here to clarify the use of the word “liberalism” for this book. This book is a scathing criticism of liberalism defined as the departure from monarchy and feudalism and into the age of free market liberalism, right to property, equality before the law, civil liberties and individualism. “Liberalism” in this book is not used as a criticism against modern day “liberals” rather it encompasses the entire political American spectrum where the left and right are merely a progressive and neoliberal branches of the same system. And it is this classical definition of liberalism that the author attacks, catastrophizes and makes one long straw man argument about over the length of the entire book. This book had some good, some weird and some downright nonsense that I’m going to get into but I overall found it a worthwhile read.
Liberalism failed because liberalism succeeded.
The author says stuff like this constantly, confusing vagueness for profundity and that’s kind of the issue with this entire book: it’s mostly just a bloviating manifesto from a cranky and disenchanted academic that loves to use the word “deracinate” a whole lot for some reason. The main argument of this book is that liberalism has bred its own demise by creating a state of isolated individuals who toil and consume and are completely disenfranchised from their communities and government. I think this overall conclusion is in many ways accurate and pertinent and at the same time also over reaching. My main issue is that the author takes everything to the worst possible straw man conclusions with lots of speculation and then makes sweeping claims.
The good of this book is the argument that liberalism is hung by its own petard. Both American political parties are two sides of the same liberal coin advancing both statism and individualism destroying culture and community and creating an “anti-culture” of consumerism. Because of this corrosion, people turn to one of two options: the state via social democracy or toward the individual via free market libertarianism. It’s also ultimately a smokescreen as both parties advance statism, war, globalized hegemonic economic control with an increasing state and private surveillance state. I think most of this is true to varying degrees but this author directly states that liberalism has failed on all levels and is on the verge of collapse without really providing evidence. This entire book is rhetorical conjecture and according to the author all colleges are just anarchist liberal art rape culture and all communites are destroyed and under constant state surveillance. None of these things are really generalizable and make poor anecdotes on which to base an entire book.
I like how he talks about how the idea of a constitutional republic was itself a new form of technology and the operating system for later technology to be created which spawned the more consumer driven, globalized and individualistic silos we now found ourselves. The liberal republic itself was the precursor for the future technology in which we are now snared, in this way liberalism hung itself in a sense.
He offers a near nonsensical polemic against modern liberal arts about how it betrayed the founding father’s intent of a virtue/religious based search for knowledge. He then goes on a tirade against postmodernism and wraps up suggesting that somehow the 2008 financial crisis can be blamed on the current failing liberal arts program. It’s all a bunch of nonsense and poorly argued. If I had a dime for every academic I read who blames the fall of modern society on postmodernism I’d be a rich man. I’m sick and tired of an argument that is purely academic in nature and doesn’t really affect the real world.
The main problem with this book is the author places everything bad about western culture under the umbrella of “liberalism” and has the audacity and smugness to predict that it will all come crumbling down soon. Even worse is that arguing along these lines actually opens people up to considering more autocratic and authoritarian options, something we're clearly with struggling right now in 2023. In a way, this book is bit bit reckless and irresponsible. The problem is that the world’s problems are MUCH more complex than just blaming a single cultural and economic system. The apparent and dubious decline of the US and “liberalism” is very clearly multifactorial and deserves a more nuanced discussion rather than the blunt polemic the author offers here. Policy does matter and changing monetary, fiscal and social policy can have a lasting impact on real people right at this moment. I remain unconvinced that it’s impossible to use the current tools of liberalism to make a difference. I do, however, highly endorse the author’s ultimate prescription for our ails which is local community engagement although this certainly doesn't replace "liberalism so I feel the author offers no real solutions for us.
At any rate, I’m very conflicted about this book but I am happy I read it. I found it thought-provoking and worth the read.
Very important here to clarify the use of the word “liberalism” for this book. This book is a scathing criticism of liberalism defined as the departure from monarchy and feudalism and into the age of free market liberalism, right to property, equality before the law, civil liberties and individualism. “Liberalism” in this book is not used as a criticism against modern day “liberals” rather it encompasses the entire political American spectrum where the left and right are merely a progressive and neoliberal branches of the same system. And it is this classical definition of liberalism that the author attacks, catastrophizes and makes one long straw man argument about over the length of the entire book. This book had some good, some weird and some downright nonsense that I’m going to get into but I overall found it a worthwhile read.
Liberalism failed because liberalism succeeded.
The author says stuff like this constantly, confusing vagueness for profundity and that’s kind of the issue with this entire book: it’s mostly just a bloviating manifesto from a cranky and disenchanted academic that loves to use the word “deracinate” a whole lot for some reason. The main argument of this book is that liberalism has bred its own demise by creating a state of isolated individuals who toil and consume and are completely disenfranchised from their communities and government. I think this overall conclusion is in many ways accurate and pertinent and at the same time also over reaching. My main issue is that the author takes everything to the worst possible straw man conclusions with lots of speculation and then makes sweeping claims.
The good of this book is the argument that liberalism is hung by its own petard. Both American political parties are two sides of the same liberal coin advancing both statism and individualism destroying culture and community and creating an “anti-culture” of consumerism. Because of this corrosion, people turn to one of two options: the state via social democracy or toward the individual via free market libertarianism. It’s also ultimately a smokescreen as both parties advance statism, war, globalized hegemonic economic control with an increasing state and private surveillance state. I think most of this is true to varying degrees but this author directly states that liberalism has failed on all levels and is on the verge of collapse without really providing evidence. This entire book is rhetorical conjecture and according to the author all colleges are just anarchist liberal art rape culture and all communites are destroyed and under constant state surveillance. None of these things are really generalizable and make poor anecdotes on which to base an entire book.
I like how he talks about how the idea of a constitutional republic was itself a new form of technology and the operating system for later technology to be created which spawned the more consumer driven, globalized and individualistic silos we now found ourselves. The liberal republic itself was the precursor for the future technology in which we are now snared, in this way liberalism hung itself in a sense.
He offers a near nonsensical polemic against modern liberal arts about how it betrayed the founding father’s intent of a virtue/religious based search for knowledge. He then goes on a tirade against postmodernism and wraps up suggesting that somehow the 2008 financial crisis can be blamed on the current failing liberal arts program. It’s all a bunch of nonsense and poorly argued. If I had a dime for every academic I read who blames the fall of modern society on postmodernism I’d be a rich man. I’m sick and tired of an argument that is purely academic in nature and doesn’t really affect the real world.
The main problem with this book is the author places everything bad about western culture under the umbrella of “liberalism” and has the audacity and smugness to predict that it will all come crumbling down soon. Even worse is that arguing along these lines actually opens people up to considering more autocratic and authoritarian options, something we're clearly with struggling right now in 2023. In a way, this book is bit bit reckless and irresponsible. The problem is that the world’s problems are MUCH more complex than just blaming a single cultural and economic system. The apparent and dubious decline of the US and “liberalism” is very clearly multifactorial and deserves a more nuanced discussion rather than the blunt polemic the author offers here. Policy does matter and changing monetary, fiscal and social policy can have a lasting impact on real people right at this moment. I remain unconvinced that it’s impossible to use the current tools of liberalism to make a difference. I do, however, highly endorse the author’s ultimate prescription for our ails which is local community engagement although this certainly doesn't replace "liberalism so I feel the author offers no real solutions for us.
At any rate, I’m very conflicted about this book but I am happy I read it. I found it thought-provoking and worth the read.
October 7, 2018
Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick J. Deneen, is an interesting examination of what the author describes as the decline of Liberalism. Liberalism is the final of the three competing ideologies of the twentieth century - Fascism and Marxism being the competitors. Liberalism survived the struggle, and has since become the dominant political theory in much of the world. Much has been trumpeted about the "end of history" and the beginning of an age of Liberalism, but recent events have shown this rosy picture is not what it seems. Voters across the Western world have ushered in a new wave of Populism, based off of elements of anti-politics, rhetoric of traditionalism, and regressive policies. These populist regimes seem to skew toward authoritarianism, with examples prominent in Poland, Hungary and Turkey, just to name a few. Even the US and UK, two of the stalwart pillars of the Liberal Age, seem to be retreating inward, with the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote, respectively.
Deneen writes not about these topics, but more generally about the hubris of Liberalism and Liberal democracy. Deneen posits that Liberalism is collapsing under the weight of its own success, and this collapse shows the flaws inherent in the ideology. Increasingly, peoples across the world are experiencing increasing levels of inequality, and are watching as a new type of aristocracy arises, educated in elite schools and trained to build and develop their own individual wealth. Increasingly, culture in many places is becoming homogeneous, as Deneen argues Liberalism degrades traditional forms of locality and culture, and erodes the traditional Democratic principle of the polis. In its place arises a culture based off of mastery of nature, presentism as a view of time, and the erosion of a rooted place for individuals. Liberalism has thrived off of the domination of nature as both a concept and a potential threat to human progress. It has also uprooted the traditional sense of time as cyclical; instead many fail to perceive life beyond their own selves, and encounter difficulties in planning for the next generation. It has also uprooted our sense of place, as the traditional boundaries of home and market have continued to grow to globalist proportions.
Deneen also sees the erosion of the traditional Liberal Arts in favour of STEM style education. This focus continues the trend toward dominating nature, but also to rising levels of inequality, as a select number of individuals excel and come to dominate the domains of science, technology, politics and economics. Deneen describes these individuals as the "new aristocracy", and couples this with rising levels of technological pervasiveness and surveillance. These trends erode an important aspect of Liberalism: liberty.
Deneen sees this erosion of Liberalism and its principles as a result of Liberalism's contradicting principles. The pursuit of individualism often requires the expansion of the state. How can one be truly free without a police force to protect those freedoms from others who would take advantage? How can one interact with a global market with a strong regulatory framework and bureaucracy to ensure the market is stable for investments? Questions like this arise, and do form a backbone to this book - Deneen sees the contradictions of Liberalism and how these contradictions seemingly lead to a loss of faith in the ideology as a whole.
All in all, an interesting read. Many authors are quoted in this text, from Hobbes, Locke and Paine, to more obscure authors, like Dewey for example. Deneen has taken a wide approach and examined literature and theory from many prominent and obscure sources. Great for building a reading list! He also offers some potential solutions; the author believes that the achievements of Liberalism must be acknowledged, and that we cannot go back to a system of governance common in the past. Instead we must build on Liberalism and eventually create a new ideology. Deneen sees this ideology as forming out of a citizenry very dedicated to its sphere, and ready to engage, learn and thrive in the public and political realm. This can be done by developing news avenues for cultural achievement, and through education. A new theory needs to enshrine Liberal principles, such as freedom, liberty and justice, but also seek to move away from its failures, namely inequality, aristocracy, and overzealous applications of ideology.
A fine read on the Liberalism and its potential decay. Deneen's examination is fresh, theoretical, and solutions focused. This is a mature and ideologically focused book, and I can say I would highly recommend it to those looking for a strong read on the subject of democratic decay that is not highly stylized or focused too much on current events. This book is in for the long haul. A worthy read.
Deneen writes not about these topics, but more generally about the hubris of Liberalism and Liberal democracy. Deneen posits that Liberalism is collapsing under the weight of its own success, and this collapse shows the flaws inherent in the ideology. Increasingly, peoples across the world are experiencing increasing levels of inequality, and are watching as a new type of aristocracy arises, educated in elite schools and trained to build and develop their own individual wealth. Increasingly, culture in many places is becoming homogeneous, as Deneen argues Liberalism degrades traditional forms of locality and culture, and erodes the traditional Democratic principle of the polis. In its place arises a culture based off of mastery of nature, presentism as a view of time, and the erosion of a rooted place for individuals. Liberalism has thrived off of the domination of nature as both a concept and a potential threat to human progress. It has also uprooted the traditional sense of time as cyclical; instead many fail to perceive life beyond their own selves, and encounter difficulties in planning for the next generation. It has also uprooted our sense of place, as the traditional boundaries of home and market have continued to grow to globalist proportions.
Deneen also sees the erosion of the traditional Liberal Arts in favour of STEM style education. This focus continues the trend toward dominating nature, but also to rising levels of inequality, as a select number of individuals excel and come to dominate the domains of science, technology, politics and economics. Deneen describes these individuals as the "new aristocracy", and couples this with rising levels of technological pervasiveness and surveillance. These trends erode an important aspect of Liberalism: liberty.
Deneen sees this erosion of Liberalism and its principles as a result of Liberalism's contradicting principles. The pursuit of individualism often requires the expansion of the state. How can one be truly free without a police force to protect those freedoms from others who would take advantage? How can one interact with a global market with a strong regulatory framework and bureaucracy to ensure the market is stable for investments? Questions like this arise, and do form a backbone to this book - Deneen sees the contradictions of Liberalism and how these contradictions seemingly lead to a loss of faith in the ideology as a whole.
All in all, an interesting read. Many authors are quoted in this text, from Hobbes, Locke and Paine, to more obscure authors, like Dewey for example. Deneen has taken a wide approach and examined literature and theory from many prominent and obscure sources. Great for building a reading list! He also offers some potential solutions; the author believes that the achievements of Liberalism must be acknowledged, and that we cannot go back to a system of governance common in the past. Instead we must build on Liberalism and eventually create a new ideology. Deneen sees this ideology as forming out of a citizenry very dedicated to its sphere, and ready to engage, learn and thrive in the public and political realm. This can be done by developing news avenues for cultural achievement, and through education. A new theory needs to enshrine Liberal principles, such as freedom, liberty and justice, but also seek to move away from its failures, namely inequality, aristocracy, and overzealous applications of ideology.
A fine read on the Liberalism and its potential decay. Deneen's examination is fresh, theoretical, and solutions focused. This is a mature and ideologically focused book, and I can say I would highly recommend it to those looking for a strong read on the subject of democratic decay that is not highly stylized or focused too much on current events. This book is in for the long haul. A worthy read.
April 3, 2018
Deneen does a good job of getting his point across by developing a simple formula that he uses throughout the book. For every statement he makes about liberalism's failure, he applies that formula, so the book is quite repetitive, which is part of what makes his argument so easy to understand. Not that I agree with many of his points, but he did make me think.
It's not within Deneen's stated scope of the book to provide detailed solutions. Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the almost utter lack of proposed solutions here. If he hadn't explicitly stated such wasn't his goal, I would've rated Why Liberalism Failed 2 stars instead of 3.
It's also disappointing that his broadly stated, vague suggestions for fixing the problem, that is, finding a successor to the political ideology of liberalism, seem to call for: a return to primacy of teaching the Western Canon in institutions of higher learning; an increased emphasis on teaching religion, especially the variety of Protestant Christianity practiced in America; and a greater emphasis on teaching character, morals, and value. In other words, in Chapters 5 & 6, Deneen seems to be advocating a return to 1950s, '60s, and 80s-era White male dominance and all it believes. Of course that could just be me reading into his argument, but since he doesn't do a better job of suggesting concrete reforms, that's the risk he runs.
Still, kudos to Deneen for this thoughtful, thought-provoking, and easily readable treatise. I hope that younger folks with brighter minds and far more time and energy than I have to devote to such pursuits will read it and be inspired to come up with a better, fairer, more effective ideology and political system based on it before America collapses utterly and irrevocably.
If you're considering reading this book, I feel it's important for you to understand a key part of Deneen's argument. By "liberalism", he does NOT mean the left-leaning policies of American Democrats. He defines it as the ideology underpinning our entire political system. He believes and clearly, repeatedly states, that both Democrats/Liberals (Progressive Liberals) and Republicans/Conservatives (Classical Liberals) are liberalists and seek to achieve the same goals using different means & language.
Since I don't agree that liberalism has failed, (yet!), I think a better title would be How Liberalism Fails. But hey, Deneen didn't ask me.
It's not within Deneen's stated scope of the book to provide detailed solutions. Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the almost utter lack of proposed solutions here. If he hadn't explicitly stated such wasn't his goal, I would've rated Why Liberalism Failed 2 stars instead of 3.
It's also disappointing that his broadly stated, vague suggestions for fixing the problem, that is, finding a successor to the political ideology of liberalism, seem to call for: a return to primacy of teaching the Western Canon in institutions of higher learning; an increased emphasis on teaching religion, especially the variety of Protestant Christianity practiced in America; and a greater emphasis on teaching character, morals, and value. In other words, in Chapters 5 & 6, Deneen seems to be advocating a return to 1950s, '60s, and 80s-era White male dominance and all it believes. Of course that could just be me reading into his argument, but since he doesn't do a better job of suggesting concrete reforms, that's the risk he runs.
Still, kudos to Deneen for this thoughtful, thought-provoking, and easily readable treatise. I hope that younger folks with brighter minds and far more time and energy than I have to devote to such pursuits will read it and be inspired to come up with a better, fairer, more effective ideology and political system based on it before America collapses utterly and irrevocably.
If you're considering reading this book, I feel it's important for you to understand a key part of Deneen's argument. By "liberalism", he does NOT mean the left-leaning policies of American Democrats. He defines it as the ideology underpinning our entire political system. He believes and clearly, repeatedly states, that both Democrats/Liberals (Progressive Liberals) and Republicans/Conservatives (Classical Liberals) are liberalists and seek to achieve the same goals using different means & language.
Since I don't agree that liberalism has failed, (yet!), I think a better title would be How Liberalism Fails. But hey, Deneen didn't ask me.
February 23, 2023
For anyone raised on standard conservatism of social values, military interventions, and free-market capitalism, Patrick J. Deneen must be a shock, since in this book he fully renounces two of the three standards. He is unequivocal that global warming is real and poised to shatter our civilization. Whole pages of this book would be comfortable in a Jacobin essay. That said, few leftists today will like his embrace of social conservatism, and his scathing attack on the Left of all stripes, from neo-liberal corporatists to fourth wave feminists. Indeed, he sees them as fully complicit in the very inequality they say they oppose while still practicing snobbery and exclusion on par with French nobles in the days of the Bourbons. He shoots both ways, and as such friends will be few and yet it makes his commentary if not original, then at least scathing, piercing, and a variety of other synonyms for things that draw blood and lead to feuds.
Deneen’s thesis is that the liberal order has succeeded to the point where its contradictions and limitations are manifest and devouring the corpse. The result is an impoverished emotional and physical landscape, or as Tennessee Williams said, most American cities are Cleveland. Being born in New Orleans, I grew up in a world where culture meant something unique. Having been so far to 40 out of 50 states, I can see what he means. The breakdown of community means culture is incomprehensible, and so we have become a population of drifters. People from New Orleans stay in New Orleans, although even this city is becoming more like the rest.
Of the books limitations, there are a few. Deneen, while having some original thoughts on the Founders, downplays their republicanism in relation to the emerging liberal order of the time. One never gets a sense for why liberalism spread and was so successful. Deneen says that tale has been told already, but a recap and his thoughts would have been helpful. Lastly, liberalism is too monolithic in these pages. To be fair, Deneen is discussing where liberalism ended up and why, but in discussing thinkers (save for Alexis de Tocqueville) they all appear to be of the same stripe. A chapter on differences in liberal thought, while still making the case for overall continuity, would have limited the polemical tone of the book and made it a classic.
Overall, this is a thoughtful and challenging book. All liberals should read it if they hope to prevent the bleeding.
Deneen’s thesis is that the liberal order has succeeded to the point where its contradictions and limitations are manifest and devouring the corpse. The result is an impoverished emotional and physical landscape, or as Tennessee Williams said, most American cities are Cleveland. Being born in New Orleans, I grew up in a world where culture meant something unique. Having been so far to 40 out of 50 states, I can see what he means. The breakdown of community means culture is incomprehensible, and so we have become a population of drifters. People from New Orleans stay in New Orleans, although even this city is becoming more like the rest.
Of the books limitations, there are a few. Deneen, while having some original thoughts on the Founders, downplays their republicanism in relation to the emerging liberal order of the time. One never gets a sense for why liberalism spread and was so successful. Deneen says that tale has been told already, but a recap and his thoughts would have been helpful. Lastly, liberalism is too monolithic in these pages. To be fair, Deneen is discussing where liberalism ended up and why, but in discussing thinkers (save for Alexis de Tocqueville) they all appear to be of the same stripe. A chapter on differences in liberal thought, while still making the case for overall continuity, would have limited the polemical tone of the book and made it a classic.
Overall, this is a thoughtful and challenging book. All liberals should read it if they hope to prevent the bleeding.
February 28, 2021
This book is an easy read. The prose flows well and the arguments are constructed through lots of repetition. It is hard to miss the points of the author.
What is attempted in this book is grandiose. It is to convince the reader that all the modern ills of the world stem not from neoliberalism, progressivism or any other -ism that can be traced back a few decades or a century, but from design flaws deep within liberalism itself. "Which liberalism?", you may wonder. The very liberalism that is at the base of all western modern democratic countries. It should be mentioned at this point that, although this book attacks the Liberal world order it mostly describes modern America and is written very much from a contemporary American conservative perspective.
The arguments used are a mixture of traditionally socialist anti-capitalist points (alienation, atomisation, loss of community, consumerism, the self-interest of the elites, GDP-growth-worship), a large dose of reactionary conservatism (cultural pessimism, moral panic, disregarding progress, the importance of virtue), and a pinch of environmentalism (acknowledgement and fear of climate change). At its most interesting, the book brings all of these together and urges swift action for the sake of the future. Yet, when it comes down to telling us how, the way forward, according to the author, is, essentially, becoming virtuous communitarian Christians who read the Great Books of the western canon.
You might think I am exaggerating. Well... No. I really am not. The Catholicism of the author severely restricts his horizon and his political imagination. The final chapter of the book reads like a manifesto that calls good people to action. It encourages the formation of a post-liberal political paradigm. Yet, given how things have been presented up to that point, the author seems to wish much more for a pre-liberal world where his values would go uncontested.
Nonetheless, this book is an interesting window into the mind of a sophisticated conservative thinker who isn't afraid to criticize the market as much as he does the state. This is a refreshing approach that is worth anyone's time. Especially since the text is very accessible. That said, his grand theory, which equates rampant capitalism, technocratic managerial statism and excessive individualism with liberalism, is, however, so grand that it implodes under its own weight.
What is attempted in this book is grandiose. It is to convince the reader that all the modern ills of the world stem not from neoliberalism, progressivism or any other -ism that can be traced back a few decades or a century, but from design flaws deep within liberalism itself. "Which liberalism?", you may wonder. The very liberalism that is at the base of all western modern democratic countries. It should be mentioned at this point that, although this book attacks the Liberal world order it mostly describes modern America and is written very much from a contemporary American conservative perspective.
The arguments used are a mixture of traditionally socialist anti-capitalist points (alienation, atomisation, loss of community, consumerism, the self-interest of the elites, GDP-growth-worship), a large dose of reactionary conservatism (cultural pessimism, moral panic, disregarding progress, the importance of virtue), and a pinch of environmentalism (acknowledgement and fear of climate change). At its most interesting, the book brings all of these together and urges swift action for the sake of the future. Yet, when it comes down to telling us how, the way forward, according to the author, is, essentially, becoming virtuous communitarian Christians who read the Great Books of the western canon.
You might think I am exaggerating. Well... No. I really am not. The Catholicism of the author severely restricts his horizon and his political imagination. The final chapter of the book reads like a manifesto that calls good people to action. It encourages the formation of a post-liberal political paradigm. Yet, given how things have been presented up to that point, the author seems to wish much more for a pre-liberal world where his values would go uncontested.
Nonetheless, this book is an interesting window into the mind of a sophisticated conservative thinker who isn't afraid to criticize the market as much as he does the state. This is a refreshing approach that is worth anyone's time. Especially since the text is very accessible. That said, his grand theory, which equates rampant capitalism, technocratic managerial statism and excessive individualism with liberalism, is, however, so grand that it implodes under its own weight.
Read
November 13, 2024I stumbled back to this book when — oddly, I guess — I was searching for a blood bank after moving to a new state (see a comment, below).
I was annoyed that I hadn’t written a real review. I certainly meant to; this was a profoundly thought-provoking book. But as the first response to my initial review hints, Deneen’s solution to the problems he illuminates was, in my opinion, farcical. My frustration with the latter portions of the book led me to abandon it.
To confirm my understanding of the book, I turned to a mechanism I’ve been using more and more: AI. Go ahead and laugh. 😜 But here’s that discussion, unedited, and I challenge anyone who has read the book to disagree with the bot’s response:
One example of this trend I had spotted had to do with blood donations (ergo why I returned to these ideas once I started looking for a place to donate blood after moving). Once upon a time, blood banks were required to be local affairs; blood couldn’t easily be stored or transported. My original donations were at San Francisco’s Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, which had been the first community blood bank in the U.S., a pioneer in the endeavor. During the time I was a donor, it expanded to be a regional organization, Blood Centers of the Pacific. That was understandable, right? By 1997, a lot had been learned about storing blood as well as separating it into different “blood products” that met different needs.
The same year Deneen’s book was published, I suddenly was receiving text messages and emails from an organization called Vitalant, the result of a merger between my blood bank and other regional ones. It didn’t take long to discover Vitalant had a for-profit subsidiary, although now — six years later — I can’t find evidence of it. But I still find it discomfiting that one subsidiary is located in the Cayman Islands.
And even if they’re ultimately benevolent in intent and operation, Deneen’s critique still applies: there is no longer a civic organization located in San Francisco responding to this “market”: the response has been outsourced, and a fundamental change has occurred.
Another, more abstract example also helps understanding the problem.
Think of local and regional environmental disasters, in the form of floods, snowstorms, etc. Today, those are responded to almost universally by government agencies hiring a lot of specialized corporations.
Once, neighbors helping neighbors would evolve into community-based institutions. People knew which neighbors were at risk, and would help even at risk to themselves, because it was the right thing to do.
Well, that was the ideal situation, right? But real life is more complicated. For example, socioeconomic divisions often meant that some folks got assistance, while others… not so much. The left typically responded by incorporating the response into the government’s portfolio. The government would follow a rule-based approach, which increased equitable access even as it created inefficiencies. The right countered by having the government outsource much of that to private companies in an attempt at efficiency.
But the upshot is that both the government and the corporations would refuse to send employees into the riskiest situation. And local knowledge of local needs disappeared into impersonal databases.
So one can envision a situation where in a severe snowstorm, once a group of neighbors would know someone who was dangerously isolated and go “above and beyond” in making sure they were safe. Perhaps they needed insulin or something. Now, a database have been set up that might or might not have the needed information, and maybe a very well-equipped team will get to them. Or maybe not; maybe the risks will be evaluated as too high, and the potential victim will have to wait until the evaluation is changed.
That’s a lot of hypotheticals, but the gist is that neither the governmental nor the market-based “solution” is rooted in personalized understanding and response. The trend is towards a less-human world, and I don’t think the society implied is healthy enough to be humane.
Deneen’s critique is well-worth reading, although you’ll be forgiven if you skip the latter portions of the book.
━ ━ ❦ ❦ ━ ━
FWIW, below is what was my original “review” for many years. I especially like the Federalist’s essay, although the NY Times paywall prevents me from revisiting their contributions.
From the Federalist:
NY Times: If Liberalism Is Dead, What Comes Next?
NY Times Op-Ed by David Brooks: How Democracies Perish
NY Times Op-Ed by Ross Douthat: Is There Life After Liberalism?
National Review: Saving Liberty from Liberalism
The Federalist: To Understand Why Liberalism Is Failing On Right And Left, Read Patrick Deneen’s Latest
The Wall Street Journal: A Radical Critique of Modernity in ‘Why Liberalism Failed’
I was annoyed that I hadn’t written a real review. I certainly meant to; this was a profoundly thought-provoking book. But as the first response to my initial review hints, Deneen’s solution to the problems he illuminates was, in my opinion, farcical. My frustration with the latter portions of the book led me to abandon it.
To confirm my understanding of the book, I turned to a mechanism I’ve been using more and more: AI. Go ahead and laugh. 😜 But here’s that discussion, unedited, and I challenge anyone who has read the book to disagree with the bot’s response:
Me: Can you summarize the critique of liberalism in Patrick Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed”?And, yeah, this dialog encapsulates the essence of my takeaway from Deneen’s book. Unlike Deneen, I don’t see any plausible reversal of these trends. And the predatory nature of corporate capitalism will eventually lead it to prevail — well, it really already has, really, ever since Reagan.
ChatGPT: In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen critiques liberalism by arguing that, despite its promises of freedom and prosperity, it has led to social fragmentation, political polarization, and environmental degradation. Deneen sees the roots of these problems in liberalism's emphasis on individual autonomy, which, he argues, has undermined traditional social bonds and institutions.
Deneen contends that both major political ideologies (progressive and conservative) are grounded in liberal thought, which prioritizes individual rights over communal responsibilities. This focus, he argues, encourages individuals to pursue self-interest and personal choice, often at the expense of the common good. As a result, communities and traditional social structures have weakened, leaving people more isolated and dependent on centralized government and market forces to meet basic needs.
Economically, Deneen criticizes liberalism's prioritization of economic growth and technological advancement, which he believes has led to unsustainable practices and a commodification of nearly every aspect of life. This, he argues, not only damages the environment but also alienates individuals from meaningful work and a sense of place and purpose.
Ultimately, Deneen believes liberalism’s own principles are the cause of its failures. Rather than delivering on its promise of freedom, he argues that it has produced individuals who are less free, more controlled by consumer culture, and more reliant on the state. He calls for a return to localism, a revival of community-oriented living, and a re-engagement with civic and cultural traditions that prioritize the common good.
Me: Would you say that his focus on the left was that the government has co-opted the efforts of a localized community to resolve its problems?
ChatGPT: Yes, that's a fair interpretation of Deneen's critique of the left in Why Liberalism Failed. He argues that the progressive side of liberalism, with its focus on expanding governmental power to address social issues, has eroded the autonomy and agency of local communities. In his view, the centralized state has taken over many roles that communities once fulfilled themselves, such as providing mutual aid, enforcing norms, and fostering civic responsibility.
Deneen suggests that when the government steps in to manage social welfare, education, and even morality, it can weaken the social bonds that naturally emerge in close-knit communities. This governmental intervention, he argues, promotes a reliance on centralized institutions rather than local, community-driven solutions. Deneen believes that this shift disempowers individuals and communities, making them more dependent on the state and less capable of self-governance.
By co-opting the efforts of localized communities, the government effectively replaces them with a one-size-fits-all approach that can be alienating and impersonal. For Deneen, this undermines the core of what he considers a healthy society: small, self-sustaining communities where people feel a sense of belonging and shared purpose. Thus, he sees the left’s emphasis on centralized solutions as paradoxically creating greater disempowerment, contrary to the left's own ideals of empowerment and equality.
Me: And is it correct to infer that he believes market-based incentives hand over control to corporations in a similar way, creating similar problems?
ChatGPT: Yes, that’s correct. Deneen argues that market-based incentives, like government intervention, shift power away from individuals and local communities but into the hands of corporations and market forces. He sees this dynamic as the other side of liberalism’s coin: while government centralizes social and political power, the free-market side of liberalism centralizes economic power in the hands of large corporations. Both forces, he argues, weaken local communities and individual autonomy, creating similar patterns of dependence and disempowerment.
Deneen argues that liberalism’s focus on maximizing choice and economic growth has led to the rise of corporate monopolies that dominate markets, exploit natural resources, and commodify social life. By prioritizing consumer freedom and market-driven solutions, he believes liberalism has eroded traditional cultural and moral constraints that once guided responsible behavior. Corporations, driven by profit incentives, often disregard the well-being of local communities, exploit labor, and contribute to environmental degradation.
In Deneen’s view, this concentration of economic power in corporations results in a culture that values consumer identity over civic or communal identity. People become “consumers” rather than citizens, focused on individual purchasing power rather than mutual responsibility. Just as government centralization undercuts community agency, corporate dominance, fueled by market incentives, does the same by replacing local economies and values with standardized, often impersonal, consumer markets.
One example of this trend I had spotted had to do with blood donations (ergo why I returned to these ideas once I started looking for a place to donate blood after moving). Once upon a time, blood banks were required to be local affairs; blood couldn’t easily be stored or transported. My original donations were at San Francisco’s Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, which had been the first community blood bank in the U.S., a pioneer in the endeavor. During the time I was a donor, it expanded to be a regional organization, Blood Centers of the Pacific. That was understandable, right? By 1997, a lot had been learned about storing blood as well as separating it into different “blood products” that met different needs.
The same year Deneen’s book was published, I suddenly was receiving text messages and emails from an organization called Vitalant, the result of a merger between my blood bank and other regional ones. It didn’t take long to discover Vitalant had a for-profit subsidiary, although now — six years later — I can’t find evidence of it. But I still find it discomfiting that one subsidiary is located in the Cayman Islands.
And even if they’re ultimately benevolent in intent and operation, Deneen’s critique still applies: there is no longer a civic organization located in San Francisco responding to this “market”: the response has been outsourced, and a fundamental change has occurred.
Another, more abstract example also helps understanding the problem.
Think of local and regional environmental disasters, in the form of floods, snowstorms, etc. Today, those are responded to almost universally by government agencies hiring a lot of specialized corporations.
Once, neighbors helping neighbors would evolve into community-based institutions. People knew which neighbors were at risk, and would help even at risk to themselves, because it was the right thing to do.
Well, that was the ideal situation, right? But real life is more complicated. For example, socioeconomic divisions often meant that some folks got assistance, while others… not so much. The left typically responded by incorporating the response into the government’s portfolio. The government would follow a rule-based approach, which increased equitable access even as it created inefficiencies. The right countered by having the government outsource much of that to private companies in an attempt at efficiency.
But the upshot is that both the government and the corporations would refuse to send employees into the riskiest situation. And local knowledge of local needs disappeared into impersonal databases.
So one can envision a situation where in a severe snowstorm, once a group of neighbors would know someone who was dangerously isolated and go “above and beyond” in making sure they were safe. Perhaps they needed insulin or something. Now, a database have been set up that might or might not have the needed information, and maybe a very well-equipped team will get to them. Or maybe not; maybe the risks will be evaluated as too high, and the potential victim will have to wait until the evaluation is changed.
That’s a lot of hypotheticals, but the gist is that neither the governmental nor the market-based “solution” is rooted in personalized understanding and response. The trend is towards a less-human world, and I don’t think the society implied is healthy enough to be humane.
Deneen’s critique is well-worth reading, although you’ll be forgiven if you skip the latter portions of the book.
━ ━ ❦ ❦ ━ ━
FWIW, below is what was my original “review” for many years. I especially like the Federalist’s essay, although the NY Times paywall prevents me from revisiting their contributions.
From the Federalist:
[N]either side desires genuine federalism and localism, or a flourishing of real diversity and community. One will destroy communities on behalf of global economic efficiency, the other on behalf of social justice.and
This callous materialism calls to mind a prisoner in a G. K. Chesterton story: “He had ample walking space, ample air, ample and even filling food. The only objection was that he had nothing to walk toward, nothing to feast about, and no reason whatever for drawing the breath of life.”━ ━ ❦ ❦ ━ ━
NY Times: If Liberalism Is Dead, What Comes Next?
NY Times Op-Ed by David Brooks: How Democracies Perish
NY Times Op-Ed by Ross Douthat: Is There Life After Liberalism?
National Review: Saving Liberty from Liberalism
The Federalist: To Understand Why Liberalism Is Failing On Right And Left, Read Patrick Deneen’s Latest
The Wall Street Journal: A Radical Critique of Modernity in ‘Why Liberalism Failed’
March 5, 2025
The feebleness of the author’s argument against liberalism is a testament to liberalism’s merits. Since writing this book, Deneen has gone all in on theocracy. He is an author best avoided, tho the weak-minded may find him agreeable.
May 8, 2018
A shallow and poorly-argued attempt at a tour-de-force of 500 years of philosophical and political history. Its selective story-telling is well-calculated to tickle the ears of modern discontents, but it is nevertheless rhetorically tendentious (count how many times he employs the words "deracinated," "disembedded" and "valorize"), and surprisingly ill-substantiated.
Ultimately, this comes across more as a "5 Minute Philosophy" kind-of-a-book rather than a serious political or philosophical critique of "liberalism."
Ultimately, this comes across more as a "5 Minute Philosophy" kind-of-a-book rather than a serious political or philosophical critique of "liberalism."
March 22, 2021
Review to follow
June 1, 2019
I've giving this book a decent rating not because I agree that liberalism failed (although I do think it has problems) but because it is a mostly thoughtful challenge to liberal ideas that should be answered with equal thoughtfulness. Deneen argues, in short, that liberalism has failed because of how wildly it has succeeded.
Here's what that means: Deneen defines liberalism as a highly individualistic intellectual and political tradition that asserts individual rights and autonomy and choice against the community, tradition, and really any other entity that human beings do not freely choose to be part of. He also identifies a "liberal anthropology," namely the Hobbesian idea that human beings are essentially individualistic but that they form societies and states to better protect their individual rights. For Deneen, this is a massive misreading of reality: people do not choose do be social, they are social and familial, and there was no individualized state of nature from which they decided to form states and societies. Deneen argues that the liberal project has been less about protecting the weak than guaranteeing the right of the strong minority or individual to do what he wants in trade, politics, and thought. This hardcore individualism, which has versions on both sides of the political spectrum, has evolved (or devolved) in the late 20th and early 21st centuries where so many aspects of traditional life hav been upset, overthrown, or denounced as backwards that we are starting to see serious backlash. Liberalism is failing as society becomes more unequal, more isolated, more selfish, less communal, and more coarse. Deneen sees the Republicans and Democrats as servants of different versions of liberalism: the Dems with their desire to undo or denounce traditional constraints on human behavior (think norms about sex and marriage, for example), the GOP with its free market fundamentalism, both with their general globalization and free trad commitments.
Ok, that's basically the argument. I think Deneen is on to something. Liberalism cannot be simply a radical project to defend the individual, and the individual cannot be conceived as entirely asocial and self-contained. Liberals should rethink their relationship to tradition, nation, religion, etc; we don't have to be hostile and dismissive of these things, and being that way undermines us politically. But to me, it seems strange to blame liberalism for many of the ills of our political and economic system. First off, things just aren't that bad. You don't have to be a full-on Pinker-ite to see that the average person lives a healthier, more peaceful, and more prosperous life in the world and in the United States. Deneen is strangely mum on progress in race, gender, homosexuality, etc; for all of these groups life chances and basic rights/dignity have seen enormous gains just in the last half-century. I would say these changes have a lot to do with liberalism: the assertion that the rights and dignity of the individual trump customary or communal ways of being and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights no matter how unpopular it is. I can't help but think Deneen left out these topics because they don't fit his declension narrative; he skips right to liberalism as identity politics, which fits his story.
It is also weird to blame liberalism for things like growing economic inequality. Which liberalism? The liberalism of FDR, Truman, and LBJ, who passed the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great society programs that made a middle class lifestyle possible for unprecedented numbers of Americans? Or the free market fundamentalism of the Neo-classical liberals, who argued for the evisceration of government constraints on market activity, labor rights, etc? To me it makes a heck of a lot more sense to blame the latter, although the latter's adherents can be found in both parties (GOP more). When modern conservatism was in large part a reaction to the New Deal, Deneen's argument has huge problems.
That's really my biggest beef with this argument: it isn't historical enough. Cause and effect are assigned to ideas without people behind them, and those ideas don't really change. There may be a number of essentially liberal ideas, but there are so many ways to interpret and enact those ideas, and for Deneen to just gloss over so much of the history of interpretation and re-interpretation makes for a weak argument. For instance, following Richard Hofstadter here, we should be able to see that FDR broke radically from the American liberal political tradition and redefined liberalism from the protection of individual rights to the government-backed project to provide a minimal standard of living to all people in order to empower them to be liberalism's imagined individual economic and political actors. This type of progressive liberalism dominated American politics at least until the 1960s, but again, nothing on FDR in here. Also, I should add, this liberalism was deeply pragmatic and balanced the community and the individual far better than Deneen gives credit for.
Lastly, Deneen's tone gets a bit nasty at times. It is unfortunate that he coined the term "liberal-ocrat," which evokes mindlessness and dogmatism in his opponents. Parts of the book feel ranty and screedy, although others are very enlightening and challenging. He also doesn't bother with any kind of replacement system to liberalism. He mostly inserts slogans here: he wants ground-up, communally based solutions and ways of life to emerge and receive more respect and autonomy from government. He wants to restore traditional structures like the family and to put dampers on globalization's disruption of traditional life. Of course, he suggests no ideas on how to do this. He also doesn't recognize that these quaint little folkways and traditions that he loves are often abusive, tribal, racist, etc etc. I just can't get over that the word race barely appears in this book, and I don't even like critical race ideas.
This is a fairly effective critique of liberalism, although one that I think is fairly easily answerable. A tougher critique of liberalism, I think, comes from Richard Reeves' book Dream Hoarders, which shows how upper MC people are locking out working class people from advancement in a number of ways. The upper MC in the US is well educated and liberal, but he shows that they are betraying liberal ideals of equality and opportunity through things like zoning regulation, preventing cheaper housing from being built in their towns, and rigging the college admissions game. Reeves' critique is clearly from a liberal perspective, but it is grounded and social science and it offers a way out. Again, it isn't an essential liberalism that's the problem, it is finding ways to enact and balance certain core ideas in an ever-changing context.
Here's what that means: Deneen defines liberalism as a highly individualistic intellectual and political tradition that asserts individual rights and autonomy and choice against the community, tradition, and really any other entity that human beings do not freely choose to be part of. He also identifies a "liberal anthropology," namely the Hobbesian idea that human beings are essentially individualistic but that they form societies and states to better protect their individual rights. For Deneen, this is a massive misreading of reality: people do not choose do be social, they are social and familial, and there was no individualized state of nature from which they decided to form states and societies. Deneen argues that the liberal project has been less about protecting the weak than guaranteeing the right of the strong minority or individual to do what he wants in trade, politics, and thought. This hardcore individualism, which has versions on both sides of the political spectrum, has evolved (or devolved) in the late 20th and early 21st centuries where so many aspects of traditional life hav been upset, overthrown, or denounced as backwards that we are starting to see serious backlash. Liberalism is failing as society becomes more unequal, more isolated, more selfish, less communal, and more coarse. Deneen sees the Republicans and Democrats as servants of different versions of liberalism: the Dems with their desire to undo or denounce traditional constraints on human behavior (think norms about sex and marriage, for example), the GOP with its free market fundamentalism, both with their general globalization and free trad commitments.
Ok, that's basically the argument. I think Deneen is on to something. Liberalism cannot be simply a radical project to defend the individual, and the individual cannot be conceived as entirely asocial and self-contained. Liberals should rethink their relationship to tradition, nation, religion, etc; we don't have to be hostile and dismissive of these things, and being that way undermines us politically. But to me, it seems strange to blame liberalism for many of the ills of our political and economic system. First off, things just aren't that bad. You don't have to be a full-on Pinker-ite to see that the average person lives a healthier, more peaceful, and more prosperous life in the world and in the United States. Deneen is strangely mum on progress in race, gender, homosexuality, etc; for all of these groups life chances and basic rights/dignity have seen enormous gains just in the last half-century. I would say these changes have a lot to do with liberalism: the assertion that the rights and dignity of the individual trump customary or communal ways of being and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights no matter how unpopular it is. I can't help but think Deneen left out these topics because they don't fit his declension narrative; he skips right to liberalism as identity politics, which fits his story.
It is also weird to blame liberalism for things like growing economic inequality. Which liberalism? The liberalism of FDR, Truman, and LBJ, who passed the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great society programs that made a middle class lifestyle possible for unprecedented numbers of Americans? Or the free market fundamentalism of the Neo-classical liberals, who argued for the evisceration of government constraints on market activity, labor rights, etc? To me it makes a heck of a lot more sense to blame the latter, although the latter's adherents can be found in both parties (GOP more). When modern conservatism was in large part a reaction to the New Deal, Deneen's argument has huge problems.
That's really my biggest beef with this argument: it isn't historical enough. Cause and effect are assigned to ideas without people behind them, and those ideas don't really change. There may be a number of essentially liberal ideas, but there are so many ways to interpret and enact those ideas, and for Deneen to just gloss over so much of the history of interpretation and re-interpretation makes for a weak argument. For instance, following Richard Hofstadter here, we should be able to see that FDR broke radically from the American liberal political tradition and redefined liberalism from the protection of individual rights to the government-backed project to provide a minimal standard of living to all people in order to empower them to be liberalism's imagined individual economic and political actors. This type of progressive liberalism dominated American politics at least until the 1960s, but again, nothing on FDR in here. Also, I should add, this liberalism was deeply pragmatic and balanced the community and the individual far better than Deneen gives credit for.
Lastly, Deneen's tone gets a bit nasty at times. It is unfortunate that he coined the term "liberal-ocrat," which evokes mindlessness and dogmatism in his opponents. Parts of the book feel ranty and screedy, although others are very enlightening and challenging. He also doesn't bother with any kind of replacement system to liberalism. He mostly inserts slogans here: he wants ground-up, communally based solutions and ways of life to emerge and receive more respect and autonomy from government. He wants to restore traditional structures like the family and to put dampers on globalization's disruption of traditional life. Of course, he suggests no ideas on how to do this. He also doesn't recognize that these quaint little folkways and traditions that he loves are often abusive, tribal, racist, etc etc. I just can't get over that the word race barely appears in this book, and I don't even like critical race ideas.
This is a fairly effective critique of liberalism, although one that I think is fairly easily answerable. A tougher critique of liberalism, I think, comes from Richard Reeves' book Dream Hoarders, which shows how upper MC people are locking out working class people from advancement in a number of ways. The upper MC in the US is well educated and liberal, but he shows that they are betraying liberal ideals of equality and opportunity through things like zoning regulation, preventing cheaper housing from being built in their towns, and rigging the college admissions game. Reeves' critique is clearly from a liberal perspective, but it is grounded and social science and it offers a way out. Again, it isn't an essential liberalism that's the problem, it is finding ways to enact and balance certain core ideas in an ever-changing context.
May 24, 2022
This is a fantastic book. Brilliant. Just really, really good. If one’s been immersed in conservative thought for years, perhaps the project Patrick Deneen engages in here isn’t quite as mind-blowing as it was for me; nonetheless, the robustness and clarity of his critique should wow anyone.
This book is also devastatingly bleak. I realized the sadness and listlessness I’m feeling today might be in part due to the book. His diagnosis of the modern liberal world is accurate to the point of being painful to read. The thrust of Deneen’s critique is that liberalism has succeeded only too well. The democratic republics of the world, with their fervent belief in liberty as understood as complete unfettered freedom of the individual to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t hurt others, have in the final analysis become commodified, consumeristic, deracinated, atomized, lonely, impersonal, wastelands of hyper-exploitation.
It’s hard to write about this book precisely because it is so good, so thorough, and so expansive. It’s chock-full of invigorating and original analysis. I’ve ordered his earlier book “Democratic Faith.” Let’s start with the most straight-forwardly commendable aspect of WLF: it’s beautifully written. Deneen’s a fantastic writer. Fluid, coherent, with a wonderful vocabulary; clear, powerful. Just a magnificently written book. Challenging ideas go down a lot easier and are more edifying when they’re written by one this talented in the craft of writing.
Deneen’s thesis hinges on how the modern notion of liberalism (17th century and on) differs from the definition and practice of liberty instantiated in Antiquity and Chistendom. Whereas the modern notion of liberalism, starting with Hobbes and Locke, sees the individual as one who should always be enhancing his freedom from any restraints, the Ancients’ notion of liberty, and the one to which Deneen is more sympathetic due its ameliorating properties for today’s decadence (a word Deneed conspicuously omits, likely because of its loaded connotations), meant discipline, virtue, the study of restraint and good living, moral philosophy, etc. Whereas modern liberalism sees humans born free and everywhere put in chains (thus the State [Leviathan] is summoned to secure our innate right to be free), the Ancients did not conclude we were born free. We needed culture, we needed traditions, we needed the study of virtue and the good life, in short, we needed embeddedness in a community of shared and mutually reinforcing restraints, obligations, commitments, practices, and beliefs to become fully human: “For all their [classical and Christian texts] many differences, they all agree that liberty is not a condition into which we are naturally born but one which we achieve through habituation, training, and education--particularly the discipline of self-command.”
This is brilliant stuff. We, the modern liberals, the “free” subjects, rarely think in these terms or in terms of nourishing these modes of being in order to create better lives. But we should. As we should nourish honesty, honor, self-discipline, respect for oneself, respect for others, stewardship of the Earth, maintenance of community bonds, etc.
The book gets better and better as it progresses; deeper; richer; more robust and coherent in its critique of liberalism. Deneen expands his critique of liberalism into many aspects of society and the many ways in which the technology of liberalism controls our lives. As our ever-increasing demand for freedoms increases, into the realm of sexuality, gender, self-identification, etc., so too must the State become stronger, more comprehensive, and more invasive in its ability to monitor and surveille us so that marginalized groups, niche identities, and all forms and techniques of being are protected. In other words, the State must suppress our thinking and actions so others do not see their quest for freedom of identity infringed upon. Everything in this book is more timely in 2022 than it was in 2018. The stakes Deneen elucidates are even clearer now than then.
Liberalism, or neoliberalism, which really just means capital and liberal technologies of political economy supercharged in a field without resistance or leverage being exercised by the State (a fully-funded subsidiary of the power of capital and its liberal technologies of expansion) or workers; or, if balance of class forces isn’t the idiom by which you analyze social organization (and it certainly isn’t Deneen’s), then simply the citizenry has no means of resistance or leverage. So here’s the thing. Deneen isn’t a Marxist, but I suspect that he has a grudging respect for a Marxist analysis of social organization. As Deneen picks up speed in the latter half of the book, much of the social organization that comes under withering critique from a Marxist perspective--winners and losers and the meritocracy that creates them; the monetization, commodification, privatization, financialization of everything under the sun, the destruction of community, indeed the fact that “all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”--comes in for the same withering critique by Deneen, albeit not from a balance of class forces logic. No matter. Deneen is talking about the same problems, the same deleterious outcomes brought about by the same technologies of social organization: centralization, commodification, exploitation, anti-democracy, professionalization, and bureaucratization.
This is very, very interesting material. Extremely generative. I’d never heard of Deneen until I read a spectacular article by him in Compact Magazine (online). The magazine’s project, in not so many words, is to unite everyday-Americans populists who heretofore identified with both left and right sides of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, Compact is a fascinating project. Deneen’s book is both an exponent and surely an inspiration for the commitments being expressed there.
This book is also devastatingly bleak. I realized the sadness and listlessness I’m feeling today might be in part due to the book. His diagnosis of the modern liberal world is accurate to the point of being painful to read. The thrust of Deneen’s critique is that liberalism has succeeded only too well. The democratic republics of the world, with their fervent belief in liberty as understood as complete unfettered freedom of the individual to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t hurt others, have in the final analysis become commodified, consumeristic, deracinated, atomized, lonely, impersonal, wastelands of hyper-exploitation.
It’s hard to write about this book precisely because it is so good, so thorough, and so expansive. It’s chock-full of invigorating and original analysis. I’ve ordered his earlier book “Democratic Faith.” Let’s start with the most straight-forwardly commendable aspect of WLF: it’s beautifully written. Deneen’s a fantastic writer. Fluid, coherent, with a wonderful vocabulary; clear, powerful. Just a magnificently written book. Challenging ideas go down a lot easier and are more edifying when they’re written by one this talented in the craft of writing.
Deneen’s thesis hinges on how the modern notion of liberalism (17th century and on) differs from the definition and practice of liberty instantiated in Antiquity and Chistendom. Whereas the modern notion of liberalism, starting with Hobbes and Locke, sees the individual as one who should always be enhancing his freedom from any restraints, the Ancients’ notion of liberty, and the one to which Deneen is more sympathetic due its ameliorating properties for today’s decadence (a word Deneed conspicuously omits, likely because of its loaded connotations), meant discipline, virtue, the study of restraint and good living, moral philosophy, etc. Whereas modern liberalism sees humans born free and everywhere put in chains (thus the State [Leviathan] is summoned to secure our innate right to be free), the Ancients did not conclude we were born free. We needed culture, we needed traditions, we needed the study of virtue and the good life, in short, we needed embeddedness in a community of shared and mutually reinforcing restraints, obligations, commitments, practices, and beliefs to become fully human: “For all their [classical and Christian texts] many differences, they all agree that liberty is not a condition into which we are naturally born but one which we achieve through habituation, training, and education--particularly the discipline of self-command.”
This is brilliant stuff. We, the modern liberals, the “free” subjects, rarely think in these terms or in terms of nourishing these modes of being in order to create better lives. But we should. As we should nourish honesty, honor, self-discipline, respect for oneself, respect for others, stewardship of the Earth, maintenance of community bonds, etc.
The book gets better and better as it progresses; deeper; richer; more robust and coherent in its critique of liberalism. Deneen expands his critique of liberalism into many aspects of society and the many ways in which the technology of liberalism controls our lives. As our ever-increasing demand for freedoms increases, into the realm of sexuality, gender, self-identification, etc., so too must the State become stronger, more comprehensive, and more invasive in its ability to monitor and surveille us so that marginalized groups, niche identities, and all forms and techniques of being are protected. In other words, the State must suppress our thinking and actions so others do not see their quest for freedom of identity infringed upon. Everything in this book is more timely in 2022 than it was in 2018. The stakes Deneen elucidates are even clearer now than then.
Liberalism, or neoliberalism, which really just means capital and liberal technologies of political economy supercharged in a field without resistance or leverage being exercised by the State (a fully-funded subsidiary of the power of capital and its liberal technologies of expansion) or workers; or, if balance of class forces isn’t the idiom by which you analyze social organization (and it certainly isn’t Deneen’s), then simply the citizenry has no means of resistance or leverage. So here’s the thing. Deneen isn’t a Marxist, but I suspect that he has a grudging respect for a Marxist analysis of social organization. As Deneen picks up speed in the latter half of the book, much of the social organization that comes under withering critique from a Marxist perspective--winners and losers and the meritocracy that creates them; the monetization, commodification, privatization, financialization of everything under the sun, the destruction of community, indeed the fact that “all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”--comes in for the same withering critique by Deneen, albeit not from a balance of class forces logic. No matter. Deneen is talking about the same problems, the same deleterious outcomes brought about by the same technologies of social organization: centralization, commodification, exploitation, anti-democracy, professionalization, and bureaucratization.
This is very, very interesting material. Extremely generative. I’d never heard of Deneen until I read a spectacular article by him in Compact Magazine (online). The magazine’s project, in not so many words, is to unite everyday-Americans populists who heretofore identified with both left and right sides of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, Compact is a fascinating project. Deneen’s book is both an exponent and surely an inspiration for the commitments being expressed there.
August 31, 2022
Hate-read je pre mňa nový žáner a zodpovedali tomu aj tie dumky, čo som pri čítaní mal - jednak ma kniha z princípu vytáčala (lebo som biasnutý na opačnú stranu než autor) a jednak som nevedel, ako ju ohodnotiť (lebo som biasnutý na opačnú stranu než autor).
Dumky som nasledovne zvečnil aj na messengeri:
"lebo no, týpo autor tak zas troška moc splietal také moralistické reči a plakal za kresťansko-antickým pestovaním cností a pridal k tomu pár strán o progresívnych univerzitách, ktoré svojou fejkovou "diverzitou" spôsobujú monokultúrność a utláčajú humanitné vedy (toto tam ozaj bolo takto napísané a to som vôbec nepochopil)
...
"a teda taký som že ako mám tú knišku hodnotiť, lebo jednak som biased ale šak review je môj takže to sa neráta, ale že aj cením tú ekonomickú kritiku ale tá zvyšná mi lezie na nervy celkom dos��"
Pri najlepšej vôli to vyšlo na 2/5. Aj to bolo miestami fajn (to vtedy, keď som súhlasil), aj to bolo väčšinou nedobré (to keď som nesúhlasil).
Aj som si ku koncu myslel, že to vytiahne aspoň na 3 hviezdy, ale potom som si spomenul na perly ducha ako: "Naša spoločnosť bola kedysi formovaná pre dobro mnohých obyčajných ľudí." Alebo na rozsiahle citovanie "esejistu, spisovateľa a farmára Wendella Berryho", ktorý by zaviedol povinné čítanie Biblie na školách. A nebola by to kniha z redakcie Postoju, keby sa aspoň raz neobjavil citát Roda Dehrera.
Takže tak - nič moc, ale aspoň môžem niekoľko najbližších rokov hovoriť, že čítam aj čosi mimo mojej bubliny.
Dumky som nasledovne zvečnil aj na messengeri:
"lebo no, týpo autor tak zas troška moc splietal také moralistické reči a plakal za kresťansko-antickým pestovaním cností a pridal k tomu pár strán o progresívnych univerzitách, ktoré svojou fejkovou "diverzitou" spôsobujú monokultúrność a utláčajú humanitné vedy (toto tam ozaj bolo takto napísané a to som vôbec nepochopil)
...
"a teda taký som že ako mám tú knišku hodnotiť, lebo jednak som biased ale šak review je môj takže to sa neráta, ale že aj cením tú ekonomickú kritiku ale tá zvyšná mi lezie na nervy celkom dos��"
Pri najlepšej vôli to vyšlo na 2/5. Aj to bolo miestami fajn (to vtedy, keď som súhlasil), aj to bolo väčšinou nedobré (to keď som nesúhlasil).
Aj som si ku koncu myslel, že to vytiahne aspoň na 3 hviezdy, ale potom som si spomenul na perly ducha ako: "Naša spoločnosť bola kedysi formovaná pre dobro mnohých obyčajných ľudí." Alebo na rozsiahle citovanie "esejistu, spisovateľa a farmára Wendella Berryho", ktorý by zaviedol povinné čítanie Biblie na školách. A nebola by to kniha z redakcie Postoju, keby sa aspoň raz neobjavil citát Roda Dehrera.
Takže tak - nič moc, ale aspoň môžem niekoľko najbližších rokov hovoriť, že čítam aj čosi mimo mojej bubliny.
July 28, 2018
So this is my favorite manifesto and everyone ought to read it, particularly my fellow young Catholics who are confronted with the simultaneous decay of western civilization and the institutional church as we know it. This book shows what went wrong, and how, and why. I do not exaggerate in saying I see the world quite differently after having read this books. I have notes and underlinings on nearly every page.
September 5, 2021
يشرِّح باتريك دينين في هذا الكتاب ( لماذا فشلت الليبرالية ) المراحل التاريخية التي مرت بها الليبرالية حتى وصلت إلى ذروة نجاحها بسقوط الأيديولوجيات السياسية المنافسة ولكن هذا الناجح لم يكن نجاح كامل الاوصاف , فنجاح الليبرالية رافقه و نتج عنه أيضاً العديد من المشاكل , فهو يقول ان هذا النظام الحديث دمر النسيج الاجتماعي وفكك الاسر وخلق خيبة امل منتشرة بصورة واسعة في كل نواح المجتمع , و يحاول الكاتب في هذا الكتاب , ان يقدم الحلول التي يمكن ان تعيد الدفة الى المجرى الملائم , المجرى الذي لا تكون فيه الثقافة المحلية و الامور الانسانية هي العدو الاكبر للتقدم والتكنولوجيا , و يتحدث الكاتب أيضاً في هذا الكتاب عن عيوب الحرية المطلقة و كيف ساعدت هذه الحرية المطلقة على استشراء الليبرالية , و ينوه الى ان الليبرالية في مرحلة من المراحل سوف تبدأ بمعاداة الديمقراطية و ذلك من اجل سلب العامة الحق الاخير الذي ترك لهم , وهو حق التوهم بأنهم يستطيعون ان يختاروا حكامهم , ولكن ما البديل لكل هذا ؟ لا احد يعلم حقيقية , فاليسار يشبه اليمين فيما يخص الليبرالية , والافكار البديلة اليوم ليست سوى افكار اقصائية او ديكاتورية .
الكتاب مميز جداً وفي تشخيص للعديد من مشاكل العصر و توصيف لها و هو من افضل الكتب التي مرت بي هذه السنة وانصح بشدة الاطلاع عليه , تقيمي للكتاب 5/5
مقتطفات من كتاب لماذا فشلت الليبرالية للكاتب باتريك دينين
----------------------------
يَعتقدُ قرابةُ 70 في المائة من الشعب الأمريكي في الوقت الحالي أن بلادهم تسير في الاتجاه الخاطئ، كما يعتقد نصف سكان البلاد أن أفضل أيام بلادهم قد ولَّت إلى غير رجعة. يَعتقد معظم هؤلاء المواطنين أن أطفالهم سيكونون أقل ازدهارا، وأنه سوف تُتاح لهم فُرص أقل من تلك التي أُتيحت للأجيال السابقة
--------------------------------
إن الانتخابات، التي كان يُنظر إليها في يوم من الأيام باعتبارها احتفالات عامة مُنظمة تنظيما جيدا تستهدف إضفاء الشرعية على الديموقراطية الليبرالية، تُعتبر بنحوٍ متزايد دليلا على نظام مزوَّر مُحكم وفاسد
--------------------
على النقيض من الأنظمة الاستبدادية على نحو واضح والتي نشأت من أجل النهوض بأيديولوجيات الفاشية والشيوعية، فإن الليبرالية أقل أيديولوجية بنحو واضح وتعيد تشكيل العالم على صورتها بنحو خفي فقط
-------------------
على النقيض من الأيديولوجيات المنافسة الأكثر قسوة، فإن الليبرالية أكثر مكرا ودهاء: فهي كأيديولوجيا تتظاهر بالحياد، ولا تدّعي أي تفضيل، وتُنكر أي نية لتشكيل النفوس تحت لواء حكمها. هي تتزلَّف من خلال الدعوة إلى الحريات السهلة، والإلهاء، والإغواء بالحرية، والملذات، والثروة
--------------
العولمة عملية حتمية لا فكاك منها، ولا يمكن لأيّ فرد أو أي أمة إيقاف دوران عجلاتها. وأيا كان رأينا في التكامل الاقتصادي، والتوحيد القياسي والتجانس، فلا جدوى من التفكير في بدائل
---------------
نحن ميريتوقراطيون بسبب غريزة حُب البقاء على قيد الحياة. إذا لم نتسابق إلى القمة بعينها فإن الخيار الوحيد الذي يتبقى أمامنا هو قاع بلا قرار من الفشل. لا يمكن أن يفي مجرد العمل الجاد والحصول على تقديرات لائقة بالغرض المطلوب
----------------
إن الشخص الوحيد الذي يمكننا الاعتماد عليه هو أنفسنا. بناء على ذلك، فإن الطريقة الوحيدة التي يمكننا بها أن نتجنب الفشل، والرفض، والاستسلام في نهاية المطاف للعالم الفوضوي الذي يحيط بنا، هو أن تكون لدينا الوسائل الضمان المالي للاعتماد على أنفسنا فقط
---------------------------
يُعتبر عالمنا المُشبَّع بالكربون هو الصداعَ الناجم عن احتفالاتنا الصاخبة طوال 150 عاما التي اعتقدنا خلالها، وحتى النهاية، أننا قد حققنا حلم التحرر من قيود الطبيعة. ولانزال نعتنق وجهة النظر غير المتماسكة التي ترى أن العلم يمكنه أن يحررنا من أيّ حدود بينما يحل المشكلات المصاحبة لهذا المشروع.
--------------------------------
كم منا يستطيع الجلوس على مدى ساعة مستغرقا في قراءة كتاب أو مجرد التفكير أو التأمل من دون اشتياق المدمن إلى مجرد جرعة من الهاتف الخلوي، ذلك الاشتهاء الذي لن يسمح لنا بالتفكير أو التركيز أو التأمل حتى نحصل على جرعتنا؟ هذه التقنية نفسها التي من المفترض أن تربط بيننا على نطاق أوسع وبنحو حميم تجعلنا أكثر وحدة وأكثر تباعدا
---------------------------------
إن ما يُفترَض أنه يسمح لنا بتحويل عالمنا إنما يحولنا نحن أنفسنا عوضا عن ذلك إلى مخلوقات أخرى لم يمنحها كثيرون منا، إن لم يكن معظمنا الموافقة على هذا التحويل
-------------------------------
الخطوة الأكثر تحديا والتي يجب أن نتخذها هي رفض الاعتقاد أن أمراض المجتمع الليبرالي يمكن إصلاحها من خلال تحقيق الليبرالية. السبيل الوحيد للتحرر من الحتميات والقوى التي لا يمكن التحكم فيها والتي تفرضها الليبرالية هي التحرر من الليبرالية نفسها
-------------------------------
ما نحتاج إليه الآن ليس هو تحسينَ فلسفتنا بدرجة أكبر، بل مرة أخرى، بذل مزيد من الإجلال لأنفسنا. انطلاقا من الرعاية لذواتٍ جديدة وأفضل، تكون مهتمة بنحو كبير بمصائر ذوات أخرى - من خلال غرس ثقافات مجتمع، ورعاية، وتضحية بالنفس، وديموقراطية صغيرة النطاق – يمكن أن تنشأ ممارسة أفضل، وربما منها، في نهاية المطاف، تنبثق نظرية أفضل من مشروع الليبرالية الآخذ في الفشل.
----------------------------------
إن تفكك الروابط الاجتماعية في كل جانب من جوانب الحياة على وجه التقريب - سواء من النواحي الأسرية، وحسن الجوار، ومجتمعيا، ودينيا، وحتى وطنيا - يعكس المنطق المتطور لليبرالية وهو مصدر نهمها الأكثر عمقا
-------------------------------
لقد نجحت مسيرة الليبرالية المنتصرة في الاستنزاف الآني للموارد الاجتماعية والطبيعية التي لم تخلقها الليبرالية وليس في مقدورها استعاضتها، ولكن هذه الموارد نجحت في دعم الليبرالية حتى عندما أدى تقدمها إلى تآكل أساسها غير المعترف به.
------------------------------
حيث إن أطفال كل شخص هم بطبيعتهم يتمتعون بالحرية نفسها مثلهم مثل أبيهم، أو أي من أسلافه في أي وقت مضى، وفي أثناء تمتعهم بتلك الحرية يختارون المجتمع الذي سينضمون إليه بأنفسهم، وأي دولة سيضعون أنفسهم تحت لوائها.
------------------------
الليبرالية تُعلّم الناس أيضا كيفية تجنب الالتزامات وتبني علاقات وروابط أكثر مرونة. ليس فقط كل العلاقات السياسية والاقتصادية تُرى على أنها قابلة للاستبدال وتخضع لإعادة تعريف مستمرة، بل كل العلاقات - مع المكان، مع الحي، مع الأمة، مع الأسرة، ومع الدين. تشجع الليبرالية على عقد علاقات فضفاضة
-------------------------
وحيث تتداعى سلطة الأعراف الاجتماعية، فإنها تُستشعر على نحو متزايد بوصفها مخلفات، وتعسفية، وقمعية، ما يحفز دعوات للدولة أن تعمل بنحوٍ فاعل لاستئصال شأفتها.
----------------------------
في هذا العالم يُستبدَل بمشاعر الامتنان للماضي والالتزامات المطلوبة تجاه المستقبل مسعى يكاد يكون كونيا نحو الإشباع الفوري: الثقافة، عوضا عن نقلها حكمة الماضي وتجاربه من أجل غرس فضائل ضبط النفس ودماثة الخلق، تصبح مرادفا للإثارة الحسية، والفظاظة الغريزية، والإلهاء، وكلها موجهة نحو تشجيع الاستهلاك، والشهوة، والانسلاخ. كنتيجةٍ تكون سلوكيات تعظيم الذات السطحية، والمدمرة اجتماعيا، طاغية على المجتمع.
--------------------------------
تُستبدَل ترتيبات مختلفة تضمن استقلال الأفراد، سواء كانوا متزوجين أو لا، بعرف الزواج المستقر مدى الحياة. ينظر إلى الأبناء بنحوٍ متزايد على أنهم قيد على الحرية الفردية، ما يساهم في التزام الليبرالية بتيسير الإجهاض عند الطلب، بينما ينخفض معدل المواليد بنحوٍ عام في جميع أنحاء العالم المتقدم
-------------------------------
في قلب النظرية والتطبيق الليبرالي يكمن الدور البارز للدولة بوصفها مندوبا للفردية. يولّد بدوره هذا التحرير بذاته دائرة التعزيز الذاتي لليبرالية، حيث ينتهي الفرد المُنتزع على نحو متزايد بتعزيز سلطة الدولة التي هي خالقة لهذه الدائرة. من منظور الليبرالية فإنها حلقة فاضلة، ولكنها من وجهة نظر ازدهار البشرية أحد أعمق مصادر أمراض الليبرالية
------------------------------------
لقد تضافر كلٌّ من الفردية والدولتية بقوة ضد بقايا مجتمعات ما قبل الليبرالية، وكثيرا المجتمعات غير الليبرالية، وهما محرَّكتان من قبل فلسفة وممارسة مميزة عن الفردية الدولتية. ويتضافرون في حركة كمَّشة لتدمير بقايا الممارسات التقليدية والفضائل التي يحتقرها كلاهما
-----------------------------
على الرغم من أن الليبراليين المحافظين يدَّعون ليس فقط حماية السوق الحرة بل قيم الأسرة والفدرالية أيضا، فإن الجزء الوحيد من أجندة المحافظين التي نُفِّذت بنحوٍ مستمر وناجح في أثناء صعودهم السياسي الأخير هو الليبرالية الاقتصادية، بما في ذلك إلغاء القيود التنظيمية، والعولمة، وحماية عدم المساواة والتفاوتات الاقتصادية بالغة الضخامة. وبينما يدَّعِي الليبراليون التقدميون أنهم يقدمون إحساسا مشتركا بالمصير والتكاتف الوطني اللذين يجب أن يقللا من تقدُّم اقتصاد فردي ويقللا من عدم المساواة في الدخل، فإن الجزء الوحيد من الأجندة السياسية لليسار الذي قد حقَّق النصر هو مشروع الاستقلال الشخصي وخاصة الاستقلال الجنسي. هل هو محض مصادفة أن كلا الحزبين، على الرغم من ادعاءاتهما بأنهما يخوضان معركة حياة أو موت سياسية، يدفعان بنحوٍ مشترك بأسباب الاستقلالية الليبرالية وعدم المساواة
-------------------------
إن التوسُّعَ المزدوجَ للدولةِ والاستقلال الشخصي يرتكز بنحوٍ كبير على إضعاف بل وفقدان ثقافات معينة في نهاية المطاف، واستبدالها ليس بثقافة ليبرالية واحدة بل بنزعة مناهضة للثقافة متغلغلة وشاملة
------------------------------
الاشخاص غير المهذبين بحسب أرسطو في استهلاك كل من الطعام والجنس هم أكثر المخلوقات فسادا ويستهلكون حرفيا الآخرين من البشر لإخماد شهواتهم الوضيعة وغير المُروضة. بعيدا عن فهمها باعتبارها مناقضات للطبيعة البشرية، فإن العادات والأخلاق كانت تُفهم بوصفها مشتقة من الطبيعة البشرية، ومحكومة من قبلها، وضرورية لتحقيقها. يتمثل الطموح الأساسي لليبرالية في تحرير مثل هذه الشهوات من القيود المصطنعة للثقافة - إما لتحريرها تماما باعتباره شرطا لحريتنا، وإما، حيثما تتطلب كوابح، لوضعها قيد الحكم المنتظم والمتجانس للقانون المعلن عِوضا عن الإملاءات المتقلبة ونزوات الثقافات المختلفة
------------------------------
لقد شعر بالقلق بوجهٍ خاص إزاء عدم قدرة شعب ديموقراطي ليبرالي على رؤية حياتهم وأفعالهم الخاصة كجزء من سلسلة متصلة من الزمن، ومن ثم النظر بعين الاعتبار إلى الآثار طويلة الأجل لأعمالهم ومآثرهم كجزء من مجتمع بشري طويل الأجل
-----------------
وتعتبر الثقافة في أفضل حالاتها ميراثا ملموسا عن الماضي، وهو ميراث على كل منا التزام أن يحيطه بمسؤوليات الأمانة. إنه في حد ذاته تعليم بالأبعاد الكاملة للزمنية البشرية، والمقصود منه أن يحد من ميلنا إلى العيش في الوقت الحاضر، مع ما يصاحب ذلك من نزعات النكران وعدم المسؤولية التي يشجعها مثل هذا التضييق للزمن. إن الثقافة المحفوظة في مواريث البشر المتميزة - الفنون، والأدب، والموسيقى، والعمارة، والتاريخ، والقانون، والدين - توسِّع آفاق التجربة الإنسانية للزمن، جاعلة الماضي والمستقبل كليهما حاضرا لمخلوقات لا تضطلع بتجربة سوى اللحظة الراهنة بخلاف ذلك
------------------
الترتيبات التي تشمل الزَّواج، وهيكل الأُسرة، وتقسيمات العمل والسلطة، والمسؤولية عن تعليم الأطفال والشباب. توجد هذه الترتيبات، جزئيا، للحد من تفجر ومخاطر الجنس - للحفاظ على طاقته وجماله ومتعته؛ ولتوضيح والحفاظ على قوته للربط ليس فقط بين الزوج والزوجة أحدهما مع الآخر، ولكن للآباء والأمهات مع الأطفال، والأُسر مع المجتمع، والمجتمع مع الطبيعة؛ ليُضمَنَ، بأقصى درجة ممكنة، أن يكون ورثة الجنسانية، عند بلوغهم سِن الرشد، جديرين بها
-------------------
الأُسرة هي نبع العادات والممارسات الثقافية التي تعزز الحِكمة، والبصيرة، والمعرفة المحلية التي يزدهر من خلالها البشر وينجحون معا، ويطالبون عن حق بالدور الأساسي في تعليم وتربية أطفال مجتمع معين.
-------------------
في الوقت الذي يتجادل فيه الفاعلون السياسيون الرئيسون لدينا بشأن ما إذا كانت الدولة الليبرالية أو السوق هي التي تحمي المواطن الليبرالي بنحوٍ أفضل، فإنهما يتعاونان في نزع أحشاء الثقافات الحقيقية. يعزز كلٌّ من الهياكل القانونية الليبرالية ونظام السوق بنحوٍ متبادل تفكيكَ التنوع الثقافي لمصلحة ثقافة أحادية قانونية واقتصادية - أو، بنحوٍ أكثر صحة، مناهضة أحادية للثقافة يصبح الأفراد، المحررون والمزاحون من تواريخ وممارسات معينة، قابلين للاستبدال داخل نظام سياسي-اقتصادي والذي يتطلب أجزاء قابلة للاستبدال كونيا
-------------------
أصبحت القواعد والثقافات المحلية القائمة منذ وقت طويل والتي كانت تحكم السلوك من خلال التعليم وتهذيب الأعراف والسلوكيات والأخلاق يُنظر إليها بمنزلة قيود قمعية على الحرية الفردية. وقد رُفعت هذه الأشكال من السيطرة باسم التحرير، ما يؤدي إلى إساءة استخدام تلك الحريات بنحوٍ منتظم، والتي نشأت أساسا بسبب عدم وجود أيِّ مجموعة من الممارسات أو العادات التي تحدد قيود السلوكيات، لاسيما في المجال المشحون للتفاعل الجنسي
--------------------
إن تفكيك الثقافة هو في الوقت نفسه الشرط الأساسي لتحرير الفرد المنتَزَع، ومن أجل سوق متغلغل وشامل، ومن أجل تمكين الدولة
-----------------------
الثقافة هي أكبر تهديد لخلق الفرد الليبرالي، وكان الطموح الرئيس والإنجاز المتزايد لليبرالية هو إعادة تشكيل عالم منظم حول الحرب الإنسانية ضد الطبيعة، وفقدان الذاكرة المتفشي حول الماضي ومشاعر عدم الاكتراث تجاه المستقبل، والإهمال الكامل تجاه تحويل الأماكن إلى بقاع تستحق المحبة والعيش فيها لأجيال
-------------------------
التعرض المستمر للإنترنت يُعيد كتابة وصلاتنا العصبية مما يجعلنا متعطشين بشدة إلى تغييرات متكررة في الصور والمحتوى، وأقلَّ قدرة من أسلافنا على الإحاطة والتركيز
--------------------------
الكتاب مميز جداً وفي تشخيص للعديد من مشاكل العصر و توصيف لها و هو من افضل الكتب التي مرت بي هذه السنة وانصح بشدة الاطلاع عليه , تقيمي للكتاب 5/5
مقتطفات من كتاب لماذا فشلت الليبرالية للكاتب باتريك دينين
----------------------------
يَعتقدُ قرابةُ 70 في المائة من الشعب الأمريكي في الوقت الحالي أن بلادهم تسير في الاتجاه الخاطئ، كما يعتقد نصف سكان البلاد أن أفضل أيام بلادهم قد ولَّت إلى غير رجعة. يَعتقد معظم هؤلاء المواطنين أن أطفالهم سيكونون أقل ازدهارا، وأنه سوف تُتاح لهم فُرص أقل من تلك التي أُتيحت للأجيال السابقة
--------------------------------
إن الانتخابات، التي كان يُنظر إليها في يوم من الأيام باعتبارها احتفالات عامة مُنظمة تنظيما جيدا تستهدف إضفاء الشرعية على الديموقراطية الليبرالية، تُعتبر بنحوٍ متزايد دليلا على نظام مزوَّر مُحكم وفاسد
--------------------
على النقيض من الأنظمة الاستبدادية على نحو واضح والتي نشأت من أجل النهوض بأيديولوجيات الفاشية والشيوعية، فإن الليبرالية أقل أيديولوجية بنحو واضح وتعيد تشكيل العالم على صورتها بنحو خفي فقط
-------------------
على النقيض من الأيديولوجيات المنافسة الأكثر قسوة، فإن الليبرالية أكثر مكرا ودهاء: فهي كأيديولوجيا تتظاهر بالحياد، ولا تدّعي أي تفضيل، وتُنكر أي نية لتشكيل النفوس تحت لواء حكمها. هي تتزلَّف من خلال الدعوة إلى الحريات السهلة، والإلهاء، والإغواء بالحرية، والملذات، والثروة
--------------
العولمة عملية حتمية لا فكاك منها، ولا يمكن لأيّ فرد أو أي أمة إيقاف دوران عجلاتها. وأيا كان رأينا في التكامل الاقتصادي، والتوحيد القياسي والتجانس، فلا جدوى من التفكير في بدائل
---------------
نحن ميريتوقراطيون بسبب غريزة حُب البقاء على قيد الحياة. إذا لم نتسابق إلى القمة بعينها فإن الخيار الوحيد الذي يتبقى أمامنا هو قاع بلا قرار من الفشل. لا يمكن أن يفي مجرد العمل الجاد والحصول على تقديرات لائقة بالغرض المطلوب
----------------
إن الشخص الوحيد الذي يمكننا الاعتماد عليه هو أنفسنا. بناء على ذلك، فإن الطريقة الوحيدة التي يمكننا بها أن نتجنب الفشل، والرفض، والاستسلام في نهاية المطاف للعالم الفوضوي الذي يحيط بنا، هو أن تكون لدينا الوسائل الضمان المالي للاعتماد على أنفسنا فقط
---------------------------
يُعتبر عالمنا المُشبَّع بالكربون هو الصداعَ الناجم عن احتفالاتنا الصاخبة طوال 150 عاما التي اعتقدنا خلالها، وحتى النهاية، أننا قد حققنا حلم التحرر من قيود الطبيعة. ولانزال نعتنق وجهة النظر غير المتماسكة التي ترى أن العلم يمكنه أن يحررنا من أيّ حدود بينما يحل المشكلات المصاحبة لهذا المشروع.
--------------------------------
كم منا يستطيع الجلوس على مدى ساعة مستغرقا في قراءة كتاب أو مجرد التفكير أو التأمل من دون اشتياق المدمن إلى مجرد جرعة من الهاتف الخلوي، ذلك الاشتهاء الذي لن يسمح لنا بالتفكير أو التركيز أو التأمل حتى نحصل على جرعتنا؟ هذه التقنية نفسها التي من المفترض أن تربط بيننا على نطاق أوسع وبنحو حميم تجعلنا أكثر وحدة وأكثر تباعدا
---------------------------------
إن ما يُفترَض أنه يسمح لنا بتحويل عالمنا إنما يحولنا نحن أنفسنا عوضا عن ذلك إلى مخلوقات أخرى لم يمنحها كثيرون منا، إن لم يكن معظمنا الموافقة على هذا التحويل
-------------------------------
الخطوة الأكثر تحديا والتي يجب أن نتخذها هي رفض الاعتقاد أن أمراض المجتمع الليبرالي يمكن إصلاحها من خلال تحقيق الليبرالية. السبيل الوحيد للتحرر من الحتميات والقوى التي لا يمكن التحكم فيها والتي تفرضها الليبرالية هي التحرر من الليبرالية نفسها
-------------------------------
ما نحتاج إليه الآن ليس هو تحسينَ فلسفتنا بدرجة أكبر، بل مرة أخرى، بذل مزيد من الإجلال لأنفسنا. انطلاقا من الرعاية لذواتٍ جديدة وأفضل، تكون مهتمة بنحو كبير بمصائر ذوات أخرى - من خلال غرس ثقافات مجتمع، ورعاية، وتضحية بالنفس، وديموقراطية صغيرة النطاق – يمكن أن تنشأ ممارسة أفضل، وربما منها، في نهاية المطاف، تنبثق نظرية أفضل من مشروع الليبرالية الآخذ في الفشل.
----------------------------------
إن تفكك الروابط الاجتماعية في كل جانب من جوانب الحياة على وجه التقريب - سواء من النواحي الأسرية، وحسن الجوار، ومجتمعيا، ودينيا، وحتى وطنيا - يعكس المنطق المتطور لليبرالية وهو مصدر نهمها الأكثر عمقا
-------------------------------
لقد نجحت مسيرة الليبرالية المنتصرة في الاستنزاف الآني للموارد الاجتماعية والطبيعية التي لم تخلقها الليبرالية وليس في مقدورها استعاضتها، ولكن هذه الموارد نجحت في دعم الليبرالية حتى عندما أدى تقدمها إلى تآكل أساسها غير المعترف به.
------------------------------
حيث إن أطفال كل شخص هم بطبيعتهم يتمتعون بالحرية نفسها مثلهم مثل أبيهم، أو أي من أسلافه في أي وقت مضى، وفي أثناء تمتعهم بتلك الحرية يختارون المجتمع الذي سينضمون إليه بأنفسهم، وأي دولة سيضعون أنفسهم تحت لوائها.
------------------------
الليبرالية تُعلّم الناس أيضا كيفية تجنب الالتزامات وتبني علاقات وروابط أكثر مرونة. ليس فقط كل العلاقات السياسية والاقتصادية تُرى على أنها قابلة للاستبدال وتخضع لإعادة تعريف مستمرة، بل كل العلاقات - مع المكان، مع الحي، مع الأمة، مع الأسرة، ومع الدين. تشجع الليبرالية على عقد علاقات فضفاضة
-------------------------
وحيث تتداعى سلطة الأعراف الاجتماعية، فإنها تُستشعر على نحو متزايد بوصفها مخلفات، وتعسفية، وقمعية، ما يحفز دعوات للدولة أن تعمل بنحوٍ فاعل لاستئصال شأفتها.
----------------------------
في هذا العالم يُستبدَل بمشاعر الامتنان للماضي والالتزامات المطلوبة تجاه المستقبل مسعى يكاد يكون كونيا نحو الإشباع الفوري: الثقافة، عوضا عن نقلها حكمة الماضي وتجاربه من أجل غرس فضائل ضبط النفس ودماثة الخلق، تصبح مرادفا للإثارة الحسية، والفظاظة الغريزية، والإلهاء، وكلها موجهة نحو تشجيع الاستهلاك، والشهوة، والانسلاخ. كنتيجةٍ تكون سلوكيات تعظيم الذات السطحية، والمدمرة اجتماعيا، طاغية على المجتمع.
--------------------------------
تُستبدَل ترتيبات مختلفة تضمن استقلال الأفراد، سواء كانوا متزوجين أو لا، بعرف الزواج المستقر مدى الحياة. ينظر إلى الأبناء بنحوٍ متزايد على أنهم قيد على الحرية الفردية، ما يساهم في التزام الليبرالية بتيسير الإجهاض عند الطلب، بينما ينخفض معدل المواليد بنحوٍ عام في جميع أنحاء العالم المتقدم
-------------------------------
في قلب النظرية والتطبيق الليبرالي يكمن الدور البارز للدولة بوصفها مندوبا للفردية. يولّد بدوره هذا التحرير بذاته دائرة التعزيز الذاتي لليبرالية، حيث ينتهي الفرد المُنتزع على نحو متزايد بتعزيز سلطة الدولة التي هي خالقة لهذه الدائرة. من منظور الليبرالية فإنها حلقة فاضلة، ولكنها من وجهة نظر ازدهار البشرية أحد أعمق مصادر أمراض الليبرالية
------------------------------------
لقد تضافر كلٌّ من الفردية والدولتية بقوة ضد بقايا مجتمعات ما قبل الليبرالية، وكثيرا المجتمعات غير الليبرالية، وهما محرَّكتان من قبل فلسفة وممارسة مميزة عن الفردية الدولتية. ويتضافرون في حركة كمَّشة لتدمير بقايا الممارسات التقليدية والفضائل التي يحتقرها كلاهما
-----------------------------
على الرغم من أن الليبراليين المحافظين يدَّعون ليس فقط حماية السوق الحرة بل قيم الأسرة والفدرالية أيضا، فإن الجزء الوحيد من أجندة المحافظين التي نُفِّذت بنحوٍ مستمر وناجح في أثناء صعودهم السياسي الأخير هو الليبرالية الاقتصادية، بما في ذلك إلغاء القيود التنظيمية، والعولمة، وحماية عدم المساواة والتفاوتات الاقتصادية بالغة الضخامة. وبينما يدَّعِي الليبراليون التقدميون أنهم يقدمون إحساسا مشتركا بالمصير والتكاتف الوطني اللذين يجب أن يقللا من تقدُّم اقتصاد فردي ويقللا من عدم المساواة في الدخل، فإن الجزء الوحيد من الأجندة السياسية لليسار الذي قد حقَّق النصر هو مشروع الاستقلال الشخصي وخاصة الاستقلال الجنسي. هل هو محض مصادفة أن كلا الحزبين، على الرغم من ادعاءاتهما بأنهما يخوضان معركة حياة أو موت سياسية، يدفعان بنحوٍ مشترك بأسباب الاستقلالية الليبرالية وعدم المساواة
-------------------------
إن التوسُّعَ المزدوجَ للدولةِ والاستقلال الشخصي يرتكز بنحوٍ كبير على إضعاف بل وفقدان ثقافات معينة في نهاية المطاف، واستبدالها ليس بثقافة ليبرالية واحدة بل بنزعة مناهضة للثقافة متغلغلة وشاملة
------------------------------
الاشخاص غير المهذبين بحسب أرسطو في استهلاك كل من الطعام والجنس هم أكثر المخلوقات فسادا ويستهلكون حرفيا الآخرين من البشر لإخماد شهواتهم الوضيعة وغير المُروضة. بعيدا عن فهمها باعتبارها مناقضات للطبيعة البشرية، فإن العادات والأخلاق كانت تُفهم بوصفها مشتقة من الطبيعة البشرية، ومحكومة من قبلها، وضرورية لتحقيقها. يتمثل الطموح الأساسي لليبرالية في تحرير مثل هذه الشهوات من القيود المصطنعة للثقافة - إما لتحريرها تماما باعتباره شرطا لحريتنا، وإما، حيثما تتطلب كوابح، لوضعها قيد الحكم المنتظم والمتجانس للقانون المعلن عِوضا عن الإملاءات المتقلبة ونزوات الثقافات المختلفة
------------------------------
لقد شعر بالقلق بوجهٍ خاص إزاء عدم قدرة شعب ديموقراطي ليبرالي على رؤية حياتهم وأفعالهم الخاصة كجزء من سلسلة متصلة من الزمن، ومن ثم النظر بعين الاعتبار إلى الآثار طويلة الأجل لأعمالهم ومآثرهم كجزء من مجتمع بشري طويل الأجل
-----------------
وتعتبر الثقافة في أفضل حالاتها ميراثا ملموسا عن الماضي، وهو ميراث على كل منا التزام أن يحيطه بمسؤوليات الأمانة. إنه في حد ذاته تعليم بالأبعاد الكاملة للزمنية البشرية، والمقصود منه أن يحد من ميلنا إلى العيش في الوقت الحاضر، مع ما يصاحب ذلك من نزعات النكران وعدم المسؤولية التي يشجعها مثل هذا التضييق للزمن. إن الثقافة المحفوظة في مواريث البشر المتميزة - الفنون، والأدب، والموسيقى، والعمارة، والتاريخ، والقانون، والدين - توسِّع آفاق التجربة الإنسانية للزمن، جاعلة الماضي والمستقبل كليهما حاضرا لمخلوقات لا تضطلع بتجربة سوى اللحظة الراهنة بخلاف ذلك
------------------
الترتيبات التي تشمل الزَّواج، وهيكل الأُسرة، وتقسيمات العمل والسلطة، والمسؤولية عن تعليم الأطفال والشباب. توجد هذه الترتيبات، جزئيا، للحد من تفجر ومخاطر الجنس - للحفاظ على طاقته وجماله ومتعته؛ ولتوضيح والحفاظ على قوته للربط ليس فقط بين الزوج والزوجة أحدهما مع الآخر، ولكن للآباء والأمهات مع الأطفال، والأُسر مع المجتمع، والمجتمع مع الطبيعة؛ ليُضمَنَ، بأقصى درجة ممكنة، أن يكون ورثة الجنسانية، عند بلوغهم سِن الرشد، جديرين بها
-------------------
الأُسرة هي نبع العادات والممارسات الثقافية التي تعزز الحِكمة، والبصيرة، والمعرفة المحلية التي يزدهر من خلالها البشر وينجحون معا، ويطالبون عن حق بالدور الأساسي في تعليم وتربية أطفال مجتمع معين.
-------------------
في الوقت الذي يتجادل فيه الفاعلون السياسيون الرئيسون لدينا بشأن ما إذا كانت الدولة الليبرالية أو السوق هي التي تحمي المواطن الليبرالي بنحوٍ أفضل، فإنهما يتعاونان في نزع أحشاء الثقافات الحقيقية. يعزز كلٌّ من الهياكل القانونية الليبرالية ونظام السوق بنحوٍ متبادل تفكيكَ التنوع الثقافي لمصلحة ثقافة أحادية قانونية واقتصادية - أو، بنحوٍ أكثر صحة، مناهضة أحادية للثقافة يصبح الأفراد، المحررون والمزاحون من تواريخ وممارسات معينة، قابلين للاستبدال داخل نظام سياسي-اقتصادي والذي يتطلب أجزاء قابلة للاستبدال كونيا
-------------------
أصبحت القواعد والثقافات المحلية القائمة منذ وقت طويل والتي كانت تحكم السلوك من خلال التعليم وتهذيب الأعراف والسلوكيات والأخلاق يُنظر إليها بمنزلة قيود قمعية على الحرية الفردية. وقد رُفعت هذه الأشكال من السيطرة باسم التحرير، ما يؤدي إلى إساءة استخدام تلك الحريات بنحوٍ منتظم، والتي نشأت أساسا بسبب عدم وجود أيِّ مجموعة من الممارسات أو العادات التي تحدد قيود السلوكيات، لاسيما في المجال المشحون للتفاعل الجنسي
--------------------
إن تفكيك الثقافة هو في الوقت نفسه الشرط الأساسي لتحرير الفرد المنتَزَع، ومن أجل سوق متغلغل وشامل، ومن أجل تمكين الدولة
-----------------------
الثقافة هي أكبر تهديد لخلق الفرد الليبرالي، وكان الطموح الرئيس والإنجاز المتزايد لليبرالية هو إعادة تشكيل عالم منظم حول الحرب الإنسانية ضد الطبيعة، وفقدان الذاكرة المتفشي حول الماضي ومشاعر عدم الاكتراث تجاه المستقبل، والإهمال الكامل تجاه تحويل الأماكن إلى بقاع تستحق المحبة والعيش فيها لأجيال
-------------------------
التعرض المستمر للإنترنت يُعيد كتابة وصلاتنا العصبية مما يجعلنا متعطشين بشدة إلى تغييرات متكررة في الصور والمحتوى، وأقلَّ قدرة من أسلافنا على الإحاطة والتركيز
--------------------------
November 26, 2023
It's difficult to know where to begin in evaluating this book. The thesis is deeply flawed. The premise is deeply flawed. The analysis is deeply flawed. And the proposed solutions are deeply flawed.
Deneen's assertion, that liberalism has indeed "failed", seems to rest almost entirely on the ill effects of consumerism, environmental problems, and the decline of family, religion, and other institutions. These he lays at the feet of liberalism, and, like a 22-year-old reply guy, makes no real attempt to weigh the progress of the past several centuries against the problems that exist today, instead opting to use the existence of those problems as evidence of failure. But what does he mean by liberalism? He criticizes democratic values, but assures us he doesn't mean liberal democracy. He criticizes commercialism, but he assures us he doesn't mean capitalism. He criticizes Enlightenment values, but so also claims he doesn't mean civil liberties or human rights. In the end, the closest sense he conveys of what he means is not actually liberalism, but the far narrower concept of "individualism": centering the freedom of the individual over the community or state.
Deneen's ideas for what to do about the "failure" of liberalism and the problems that exist are vague gestures about reinvigorating community life and traditionalist culture, utterly bereft of specifics (a recurring theme throughout). Upon finishing "Why Liberalism Failed", I was left with the sense that this is a book about nothing, built on nothing, which argues for nothing. 1.5/5
Deneen's assertion, that liberalism has indeed "failed", seems to rest almost entirely on the ill effects of consumerism, environmental problems, and the decline of family, religion, and other institutions. These he lays at the feet of liberalism, and, like a 22-year-old reply guy, makes no real attempt to weigh the progress of the past several centuries against the problems that exist today, instead opting to use the existence of those problems as evidence of failure. But what does he mean by liberalism? He criticizes democratic values, but assures us he doesn't mean liberal democracy. He criticizes commercialism, but he assures us he doesn't mean capitalism. He criticizes Enlightenment values, but so also claims he doesn't mean civil liberties or human rights. In the end, the closest sense he conveys of what he means is not actually liberalism, but the far narrower concept of "individualism": centering the freedom of the individual over the community or state.
Deneen's ideas for what to do about the "failure" of liberalism and the problems that exist are vague gestures about reinvigorating community life and traditionalist culture, utterly bereft of specifics (a recurring theme throughout). Upon finishing "Why Liberalism Failed", I was left with the sense that this is a book about nothing, built on nothing, which argues for nothing. 1.5/5
January 27, 2025
I'm not really interested in writing an extensive review/critique of Deneen—many others have done so satisfactorily, and though I'm interested in politics (specifically, recovering classical political thought and Burkean conservatism), I'm not a major poli-sci geek and feel somewhat unqualified to do so. But here are a few random observations:
- Overall, I agree with more than I disagree. In fact, most of Deneen's critiques are basically spot-on. The problem is, I don't think he rightly places the blame (or, at least, the brunt of it) on classical liberalism. It's like the Romanist criticisms of the Reformation for birthing secular modernity—great analysis of the problem, but a clearly agenda-driven, dishonest, and cherry-picked diagnosis of its root. I just don't like singling out particular individuals and movements to simplistically blame for very deep and complex issues. It's a cheap intellectual move that gets a lot of attention but is rarely of much substance.
- I say this even though I'm no big fan of classical liberalism. I don't think John Locke's influence was largely for the better, I believe social-contract theory is a complete mirage, and that the idea of "natural rights" is tenuous at best. But I would align myself with the "West Coast Straussians" (see, I know some nerdy poli-sci terms!) and say that classical liberalism and progressivism are not at all the same thing. They don't even have the same origin; the latter is birthed from American pragmatism and social Darwinism (later to be injected with Marx). The way those two camps view the world is fundamentally opposed, and (for example) Locke and Burke disagree on probably 20% of everything while they both disagree with close to 100% of progressivism. I'd rather throw my hat in with the classical liberals any day.
- Unlike many conservatives, I want to be able to level some fair criticisms of capitalism and the moral effects it can have on a citizenry. Wendell Berry (who is arguably the Patron Saint of this book) does so pretty well without being a socialist. But Deneen's dislike of capitalism irks me because what alternative is there that isn't either tyrannical or ineffective? Even the social safety-net countries of Scandinavia have highly unregulated economies which leads to their flourishing. I'm no Randian, but capitalism is a net good.
- Deneen's reading of the American Founders is, in my opinion, embarrassingly wrong. It's not just that he sees them as pure Enlightenment men who threw their hat in completely with Locke (Russell Kirk refutes that well), but I think he fundamentally twists and misconstrues so many of their quotes that it's not even funny.
- That all sounds like a withering takedown, but like I said earlier, I found myself nodding in agreement far more times than not. Deneen is a very astute critic of modern decadence, and he illuminates very well the untenable project of secular modernity as applied to where we find ourselves in 21st-century America. He's an idiosyncratic thinker, and he's off on many things. But overall, I think postliberalism is a fairly venerable movement that just needs to be a bit less idealistic and more willing to work within the status quo to create the kind of communities which it believes are the solution.
- Finally—will there ever be another book that is simultaneously endorsed by Barack Obama, Cornel West, columnists for the likes of the Atlantic and NY Times.......and oh, by the way, Rod Dreher? That's pretty remarkable and almost comical.
- Overall, I agree with more than I disagree. In fact, most of Deneen's critiques are basically spot-on. The problem is, I don't think he rightly places the blame (or, at least, the brunt of it) on classical liberalism. It's like the Romanist criticisms of the Reformation for birthing secular modernity—great analysis of the problem, but a clearly agenda-driven, dishonest, and cherry-picked diagnosis of its root. I just don't like singling out particular individuals and movements to simplistically blame for very deep and complex issues. It's a cheap intellectual move that gets a lot of attention but is rarely of much substance.
- I say this even though I'm no big fan of classical liberalism. I don't think John Locke's influence was largely for the better, I believe social-contract theory is a complete mirage, and that the idea of "natural rights" is tenuous at best. But I would align myself with the "West Coast Straussians" (see, I know some nerdy poli-sci terms!) and say that classical liberalism and progressivism are not at all the same thing. They don't even have the same origin; the latter is birthed from American pragmatism and social Darwinism (later to be injected with Marx). The way those two camps view the world is fundamentally opposed, and (for example) Locke and Burke disagree on probably 20% of everything while they both disagree with close to 100% of progressivism. I'd rather throw my hat in with the classical liberals any day.
- Unlike many conservatives, I want to be able to level some fair criticisms of capitalism and the moral effects it can have on a citizenry. Wendell Berry (who is arguably the Patron Saint of this book) does so pretty well without being a socialist. But Deneen's dislike of capitalism irks me because what alternative is there that isn't either tyrannical or ineffective? Even the social safety-net countries of Scandinavia have highly unregulated economies which leads to their flourishing. I'm no Randian, but capitalism is a net good.
- Deneen's reading of the American Founders is, in my opinion, embarrassingly wrong. It's not just that he sees them as pure Enlightenment men who threw their hat in completely with Locke (Russell Kirk refutes that well), but I think he fundamentally twists and misconstrues so many of their quotes that it's not even funny.
- That all sounds like a withering takedown, but like I said earlier, I found myself nodding in agreement far more times than not. Deneen is a very astute critic of modern decadence, and he illuminates very well the untenable project of secular modernity as applied to where we find ourselves in 21st-century America. He's an idiosyncratic thinker, and he's off on many things. But overall, I think postliberalism is a fairly venerable movement that just needs to be a bit less idealistic and more willing to work within the status quo to create the kind of communities which it believes are the solution.
- Finally—will there ever be another book that is simultaneously endorsed by Barack Obama, Cornel West, columnists for the likes of the Atlantic and NY Times.......and oh, by the way, Rod Dreher? That's pretty remarkable and almost comical.
July 21, 2018
I'm not sure what book other people (who seemed to think highly of this book) read, because I came away pretty unimpressed. A few thoughts:
1. The central argument (liberalism undermines the institutions that helped support functioning liberal democracy!) is a standard one from conservative and communitarian critics of liberalism. I don't find this argument especially impressive even when it has been advanced by better, more careful thinkers than Deneen (such as MacIntyre or Sandel, neither of whom even get mentioned in the body of this text, even when they obviously should.). Deneen introduces a few new twists (e.g., in his claims about the specific ways that liberalism ruins people, and in his general anti-politics and anti-political philosophy orientation), but I generally found that the genuinely novel parts of his argument were the least persuasive.
2. The book's picture of classical liberalism and progressive liberalism is pretty tendentious. Deneen repeatedly claiming that liberals are all secretly committed to a "false anthropology" of humanity ala Hobbes (with his "state of nature" of vicious individuals) doesn't make this true. It's not even really true of Locke or Mill (both of whom Deneen likes to opine about, but neither of whose arguments he bothers addressing). It *certainly* isn't true of Rawls, who Deneen doesn't even seem to understand, based on his brief mention of the original position. Some of this is just the nature of the beast (critics of liberalism often like to freak out about state of nature scenarios), but Deneen's presentation is lacking on a number of accounts. In particular, his distinction between classical and progressive liberalism is pretty bad (it barely mentions property rights!), and he does a disservice to the best thinkers in both traditions (along with Mill and Rawls, Adam Smith comes to mind on the left, and Popper and Hayek on the right) who might be best positioned to answer some of his worries.
3. In a deeper sense, the book is pretty anti-intellectual, and in particular, anti-political philosophy (in the sense of "it's against people reflecting carefully on their norms of governance"). There's lots of citations of pop science books (the internet ruins your brain!), along with some favorites of the conservative blogosphere (the Federalist papers, de Tocqueville, a few brief mentions of people like Fukuyama). For a book that concludes that we need to basically abandon political philosophy in favor of lived communities, it spends almost *no* time carefully considering the actual argument advanced by *any* contemporary liberals or political philosophers, of any political stripe. Deneen's book certainly won't provide any reassurance for liberal readers (like me) who sometimes worry that right-wing communitarians and conservatives are just looking for excuses to roll back the clock to 1700.
4. The worst part, by far, is when you get glimpses of Deneen's own positive vision for politics. The examples he gives of community-destroying interventions by liberal gov't/society (the Civil War! College campuses in the 1960s! Mortgage lending) are *without exception* those aimed at protecting racial minorities from powerful, local white elites. Since Deneen's book *literally* concludes that we should abandon the liberal project of philosophically thinking about individual's rights vis-a-vis their community, this is extremely worrisome. I found some of his arguments here to be *truly* bizarre (such as his claim that, since culture was created by humans and can be changed by humans, humans, therefore "consent" to the norms of the culture they find themselves inhabiting).
5. There are all sorts of smaller problems here, too, many of which seem to reflect Deneen's repeating of "common sense" ideas on the right (especially ideas about the left) that are simply wrong. Deneen's focus on disorder/virtue seems odd in an era when crime rates have been falling for two decades, and his claim that "rape culture" is a product of liberalism is simply wrong. He's also weirdly fixated on sexual morality (and gay marriage laws), which seems to me like a singularly unpromising thing for communitarians to focus on (same-sex marriage undermines community? Really?). There's also his conflation of progressive liberalism with transhumanism, his claim that progressives only care about "biological" categories of diversity, his claim that liberalism produces a "monoculture," and his claim that it is the "losers" who've rebelled against liberalism (when in fact, the median voter for right-wing populism tends to richer/more powerful than the median voter for center-left liberal parties). When he talks about "alternatives" to liberalism, he brings up Jewish and Christian communities but (bizarrely, given the *actual* nature of actually existing, religiously inspired non-liberal regimes), doesn't even mention Islam. Again, all of this seems to be a combination of two things: (a) the standard communitarian/conservative arguments against liberalism don't work and (b) Deneen's contributions here undercut the anti-liberal cause, to the extent that is possible.
1. The central argument (liberalism undermines the institutions that helped support functioning liberal democracy!) is a standard one from conservative and communitarian critics of liberalism. I don't find this argument especially impressive even when it has been advanced by better, more careful thinkers than Deneen (such as MacIntyre or Sandel, neither of whom even get mentioned in the body of this text, even when they obviously should.). Deneen introduces a few new twists (e.g., in his claims about the specific ways that liberalism ruins people, and in his general anti-politics and anti-political philosophy orientation), but I generally found that the genuinely novel parts of his argument were the least persuasive.
2. The book's picture of classical liberalism and progressive liberalism is pretty tendentious. Deneen repeatedly claiming that liberals are all secretly committed to a "false anthropology" of humanity ala Hobbes (with his "state of nature" of vicious individuals) doesn't make this true. It's not even really true of Locke or Mill (both of whom Deneen likes to opine about, but neither of whose arguments he bothers addressing). It *certainly* isn't true of Rawls, who Deneen doesn't even seem to understand, based on his brief mention of the original position. Some of this is just the nature of the beast (critics of liberalism often like to freak out about state of nature scenarios), but Deneen's presentation is lacking on a number of accounts. In particular, his distinction between classical and progressive liberalism is pretty bad (it barely mentions property rights!), and he does a disservice to the best thinkers in both traditions (along with Mill and Rawls, Adam Smith comes to mind on the left, and Popper and Hayek on the right) who might be best positioned to answer some of his worries.
3. In a deeper sense, the book is pretty anti-intellectual, and in particular, anti-political philosophy (in the sense of "it's against people reflecting carefully on their norms of governance"). There's lots of citations of pop science books (the internet ruins your brain!), along with some favorites of the conservative blogosphere (the Federalist papers, de Tocqueville, a few brief mentions of people like Fukuyama). For a book that concludes that we need to basically abandon political philosophy in favor of lived communities, it spends almost *no* time carefully considering the actual argument advanced by *any* contemporary liberals or political philosophers, of any political stripe. Deneen's book certainly won't provide any reassurance for liberal readers (like me) who sometimes worry that right-wing communitarians and conservatives are just looking for excuses to roll back the clock to 1700.
4. The worst part, by far, is when you get glimpses of Deneen's own positive vision for politics. The examples he gives of community-destroying interventions by liberal gov't/society (the Civil War! College campuses in the 1960s! Mortgage lending) are *without exception* those aimed at protecting racial minorities from powerful, local white elites. Since Deneen's book *literally* concludes that we should abandon the liberal project of philosophically thinking about individual's rights vis-a-vis their community, this is extremely worrisome. I found some of his arguments here to be *truly* bizarre (such as his claim that, since culture was created by humans and can be changed by humans, humans, therefore "consent" to the norms of the culture they find themselves inhabiting).
5. There are all sorts of smaller problems here, too, many of which seem to reflect Deneen's repeating of "common sense" ideas on the right (especially ideas about the left) that are simply wrong. Deneen's focus on disorder/virtue seems odd in an era when crime rates have been falling for two decades, and his claim that "rape culture" is a product of liberalism is simply wrong. He's also weirdly fixated on sexual morality (and gay marriage laws), which seems to me like a singularly unpromising thing for communitarians to focus on (same-sex marriage undermines community? Really?). There's also his conflation of progressive liberalism with transhumanism, his claim that progressives only care about "biological" categories of diversity, his claim that liberalism produces a "monoculture," and his claim that it is the "losers" who've rebelled against liberalism (when in fact, the median voter for right-wing populism tends to richer/more powerful than the median voter for center-left liberal parties). When he talks about "alternatives" to liberalism, he brings up Jewish and Christian communities but (bizarrely, given the *actual* nature of actually existing, religiously inspired non-liberal regimes), doesn't even mention Islam. Again, all of this seems to be a combination of two things: (a) the standard communitarian/conservative arguments against liberalism don't work and (b) Deneen's contributions here undercut the anti-liberal cause, to the extent that is possible.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 566 reviews