The Problem with Liberty and Rugged Individualism
Start. Stop. But wait, there’s another question. What about this or that? Articulating my thoughts about liberal democracy proved challenging as I ventured down several rabbit trails. In this blog, I’ll share my initial views on liberal democracy and how they evolved after reading Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed.
“We have frequently printed the word Democracy. Yet I cannot too often repeat that it is a word the real gist of which still sleeps, quite unawaken’d” – Walt Whitman[1]
A few months ago, I had a debate with my State Senator about voting methods. He dismissed ranked choice voting, thinking it would edge him out. I asked, “Isn’t that what democracy is about?” He replied, “We’re a republic, not a democracy.” Admittedly, I was stumped and not prepared for his response. This moment brought to light how the meanings of words have become distorted over time. My Generation X understanding of political terms, gender, and other cultural concepts often causes me to revisit dictionaries. While this shift in language can be frustrating and time-consuming, I believe it is especially relevant because it will impact the future of artificial intelligence, where language plays a key role in computer coding.
Initial Perspectives on Liberal Democracy
I grew up in the early 1970s in a lower-middle-class, single-parent home, where survival—paying bills, securing food, and making ends meet—was the top priority. My experience mirrored many in my community, where we shared resources and helped one another out of necessity. Although this was during America’s economic golden age[2], the benefits hardly extended to families like mine. Our values emphasized helping marginalized people, showing respect, and working hard to achieve what little we could. The government, I was taught, should protect us from external threats, such as military invasions. One family story that stuck with me was when my mother’s school was closed unexpectedly one afternoon due to fears of a nuclear strike during the Bay of Pigs crisis.
Reflections After Reading Patrick Deneen’s Book
Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed challenged my understanding of liberal democracy. He argues that “Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded.”[3] The word “liberal” comes from the Latin for “free,” as in free from slavery or tether to another, but Deneen suggests that liberalism’s emphasis on liberty and freedom has led to social fragmentation. The focus on individualism has weakened communal ties. Rather than depending on each other and considering the greater good, we now depend on market forces that have eroded family values and contributed to global capitalism’s rise, which has widened the wealth gap.
Deneen’s perspective, which I agree with, was eye-opening. While American Democrats tend to champion a “live and let live” philosophy, Republicans often advocate for strong individualism and traditional values, which Deneen categorizes as liberal. This shift in terminology caused me to pause and question my understanding of political labels. It also made me reflect on how both parties, despite their ideological differences, share the same language and liberal roots, prioritizing individualism over community. Reinforced by movies of the Old West, author David Brooks said Republicans in the U.S. “generally admire John Wayne-style heroes who are rugged, individualistic and brave and who celebrate their core themes of freedom, individualism, opportunity, and moral clarity.”[4]
One insight that resonated with me is that liberal democracy has created a culture of consumption rather than critical thinking. The rise of STEM education has pushed students to focus on technological progress and new knowledge, such as the rush toward artificial intelligence, rather than classical philosophies prioritizing deep thinking about the human experience. Universities now encourage disrupting old ideas in favor of new methods that further commodify humanity, which should have us questioning what it means to be human.
In conclusion, reading Deneen’s critique of liberal democracy forced me to confront how shifting definitions shaped my beliefs about individualism, freedom, and community. While I recognize the merit of his arguments, I’m left grappling with how to reconcile liberal values with the need for societal cohesion in a world that continues to evolve rapidly.
[1] Whitman, Walt. Democratic Vistas. Legare Street Press, 1871.
[2] “GDP – Gross Domestic Product 1975 | Countryeconomy.Com.” Accessed January 10, 2025. https://countryeconomy.com/gdp?year=1975.
[3] Deneen, Patrick J., James Davison Hunter, and John M. Owen. Why Liberalism Failed. Paperback edition. New Haven London: Yale University Press, 2018. p. 179
[4] Brooks, David. “The Long Voyage Home.” The New York Times, May 4, 2009, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html.
About the Author
Jennifer Eckert
Fundraising director, people connector, believer in second chances, fights poverty, supports justice reform, lives a life integrated with Matthew 25.8 responses to “The Problem with Liberty and Rugged Individualism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for your post Jennifer. Your comment about creating “consumption” rather than “critical thinking” was eye opening and revealing to me. How can we foster critical thinking in our homes and communities?
Hi Ryan,
I think part of the solution rests in having more dialogue in homes, churches, and communities about things we don’t fully understand. I mentioned having to go back to my dictionary because definitions have morphed over time into new meanings culturally.
Do you remember those old bumper stickers that said, “Question Authority?” I would almost say we need to encourage critical thinking by encouraging people to ask questions. Cultivating an environment where people can be curious and feel safe asking questions can lead to more learning and greater trust. It also encourages people to be civically involved in things that matter to everyone.
Hi Jennifer,
A takeaway for me was also recognizing that both US political parties come have the same liberal roots.
I appreciate that you are considering how to reconcile liberal values with societal cohesion. Do you have any ideas or things you hope to implement in your own work?
Thanks Kari. I think diplomacy is a key ingredient alongside curiosity. What I am learning more often as I ask people how they came to believe a certain way about a particular topic (always careful not to broad brush their ideology, but keep it narrow) is they struggle to articulate their opinions beyond shallow means. So many people live in the “what I need or think now” mode without thinking down the line. Many never consider how things may play out over time.
By asking what they believe and how they arrived at that opinion has been a good conversation starter and sometimes even a good trust builder. Being curious in them is a good safe practice.
Hi Jennifer. You raise some great thoughts. How might society balance fostering individual freedoms with rebuilding communal ties, particularly in policy making to overcome to this fragmentation?
A quick answer to your question leads me to think about the “return to the office” policies going into place across the country. For some, it will upend their routines, while others will benefit from being in a group setting. I suppose the individual freedom in that is the choice to stay or leave that employer, based upon one’s family needs. Good question!
Very helpful post Jennifer. You write, “I’m left grappling with how to reconcile liberal values with the need for societal cohesion in a world that continues to evolve rapidly.”
Are you suggesting that the evolution of the world automatically assumes we don’t have cohesion? If we were to be able to be more in community, just off the top of your head, what might contribute to that scenario, rather then the likely one we’re facing now?
Hi Debbie,
If I understand your question, I believe the public narrative certainly cultivates the perception that we lack cohesion. I frequently hear statements like “We’re more divided than ever.” While I think we are divided in many ways, we also have unity in ways that are not part of the national public relations messaging.
What would help is for leaders with microphones, in front of television cameras, etc., to speak about how we are more alike than unalike (thanks, Maya Angelou). Another angle to bring greater unity is to get involved. Be in community with people more often so trust and understanding can build. When we live in relative isolation and are reliant upon TV to be our companion, we are getting only one stream of information, and usually, it’s not the most productive one.