Liberalism
Patrick J. Deneen finished writing, Why Liberalism Failed, three weeks before the 2016 presidential election. Although unplanned, the timing was impeccable, and in part, explains why this book has made such a big splash. This book is not about policy and whether Republicans or Democrats have the best approaches. This book speaks to the cultural moment we are experiencing right now; it attempts to answer more basic questions about the very foundations of our democratic society, our values, and the structures of our institutions.
First, there was a need to understand Deneen’s terms. With sentences like, “Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded” (p. 179), a clearer understanding of how he is using these words was essential. When Deneen speaks of Why Liberalism Failed, the liberalism he is speaking of is the modern, progressive liberalism we see today. This stands in contrast to the classical liberalism that is widely traced back to Francis Bacon, developed by John Locke (“The Father of Liberalism”), and came to fruition with the American Founding Fathers and their bold experiment. He draws a sharp distinction between the two.
Deneen stands in a long line of political philosophers, going as far back at Plato’s Republic, and joins with these thinkers and their high hopes of intelligently organizing society and its political machinations so that the citizenry will at least have a chance to live their lives with some degree of liberty and security. Deneen has great respect for the Enlightenment philosopher’s, such as Locke, Descartes, and Kant. They got a lot of things right and they all kept an eye out for power and authority that quickly devolves into tyranny. Deneen asserts that out of the three main political ideologies–liberalism, communism, and fascism–liberalism proved itself to be the clear winner (p. 5).
The classical understanding of liberalism includes principles such as an economic free market, limited but effective government, individual rights, separation of church and state, the rule of law, balance of powers, etc. Indeed, there is great appeal to all the promises that liberalism heralded since the time of the Enlightenment. Even the word liberalism comes from the Latin libertas, promising individual freedoms, dignity, and the restraint of a tyrannical state.
A criticism that many have had with this book is that he draws too harsh of a distinction between the healthy, classical liberalism that stands in the tradition of Locke and the Founding Fathers, and what is today called progressive liberalism. This criticism rings true. Deenan describes these two ideologies as though they were a completely different class of animals, when in fact they are subspecies to each other. Progressive liberalism follows chronologically and logically from the proto-liberalism Locke and his progeny elucidate. There are differences to be sure, but Deneen strains to make the point that they are completely different.
With its deep dive into political philosophy, a previous book we have read in this program that overlaps with this week’s reading is of course Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism. Both books focus on the under-girding assumptions of our political structures and traditions/values. Hicks is more explanatory, whereas Deneen takes a more polemic approach. There are also many similarities with Pluckrose and Lindsay’s Cynical Theories. However, Cynical Theories was a more recent publication and the authors focus on “being woke” whereas Deneen does not mention this development. He would not be surprised by the movement however, and would view it as yet another outcome of modern, progressive liberalism run amuck.
At times it does seem that everything is up for grabs in our global society. The foundations of democracy, so sure and strong just ten years ago, looks to be crumbling as one reads the headlines from around the world. Long held assumptions and traditions can no longer be taken for granted, for things of human origin tend to become corrupt or deteriorate. Perhaps God is shaking everything so that what remains is eternal: “once more I will not only shake the earth, but also the heavens” (Heb. 12:26). We should continue to hold loosely to the things of this world—and grab tightly to God and his eternal promises.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.