As Liberal Democracies Die, Who Will We Serve?
As a Canadian, I live and have participated in the civic life of a liberal democracy, but that very construct is showing signs of erosion. The tenets of liberal democracies that I previously knew are:
- self-government through free and fair elections
- liberty for all in the pursuit of a happy life, and
- the rule of law to provide accountability to common societal rules
Canadians elect the government of our country. The ruling party and Prime Minister are chosen by a majority of elected local representatives from a given party who get “first past the post”, elected by the people for the people. This is also why our chief leader is called the Prime Minister, or “chief servant” and why we do not vote in our federal leader. Two Houses of Parliament, a Supreme Court, Central Bank, and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms all exist to support those governing the society to enable a safe and prosperous nation. It all sounds so perfect on paper.
The Canadian Charter guarantees individual liberty for all. The acknowledgement of individuals’ rights and freedoms has brought justice to citizens who were experiencing harm, and laws have changed to protect those who were previously discriminated against. Despite these benefits, it has opened Pandora’s box to what we now see as an a reconstruction of freedom away from common good to hyper-individual liberty. In the era of what Charles Taylor calls the “autonomous self” [1], freedom mean different things to different people, and so laws build upon individual rights and freedoms that begin to pick away at the cohesion of society, calling for support for one individual or group over another. In place of the goal for the flourishing of all, rights seem to come with new demands that since I am free, ‘only I can tell the world who I am’, and you (the other) must accept me as such (give up your freedom to disagree) or I will cancel you. The virtue of tolerance trumps all else.
In Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen lays out the argument that liberalism, defined as the “broader conception upon which liberal democracies are built” [2], fails precisely because it achieves the end result it set out to gain [3]. Before sharing some new insights that help refine my thinking, I will relay some concepts which Deneen reinforces for me.
The first is this hyper-individuality, and its contribution to the undoing of the fabric of society. Referring to Socrates’ suggestion from Plato’s Republic that humans in most times and places occupy a cave, but believe it to be their complete reality, Deneen argues that these “become iron cages of our captivity” [4]. Tracking four interwoven elements of our common life: politics and government, economics, education, and science and technology, he points to “widespread anger and deepening discontent” [5]. Here, he employs the language of the autonomous self, and ties it to Liberalism’s failure:
[Liberalism] has remade the world in its image, especially through the realms of politics, economics, education, science, and technology, all aimed at achieving supreme and complete freedom through the liberation of the individual from particular places, relationships, memberships, and even identities—unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or abandoned at will. The autonomous self is thus subject to the sovereign trajectory of the very forces today that are embraced as the tools of our liberation. Yet our liberation renders us incapable of resisting these defining forces—the promise of freedom results in thralldom to inevitabilities to which we have no choice but to submit [6].
Deneen ensures that we not narrow our lens to a liberal political party platform, but to the broader, shared sense from both “the left” and “the right” political visions which lead us to the same hyper-individualistic unravelling of liberal democracy [7].
Although I did not specify the loss of Liberal Arts education in exchange for STEM under things I previously knew, I did resonate with Deneen’s chapter on this topic, and have witnessed this shift to STEM in Canadian University culture. I think Deneen hit the nail on the head by reflecting that “we only have research in the service of progress” [8]. Likewise, in thinking about how to combat it, I too hold that reconstituting liberal arts education could inspire a “renaissance” [9].
I will now share one thought that runs counter to what I previously understood.
Liberalism as anticulture [10]. Deneen argues with clarity on the connection of an individualized reframing of liberty away from shared values and morals that produce a flourishing for all people, coupled with the insatiable appetite for technological advancement and capitalistic gain that fuel our self-reliance and reinforcement of liberty through a super-shallow, individualistic frame [11]. The challenge is to provide an alternative view of liberty — anticulture. Deneen’s example from the Amish community reinforced this. By making their determinations around the adoption of any particular technological developments, and by asking “will this or want help support the fabric of our community?”, the Amish avoid the capitalistic push for serial-upgrading that creates bondage to things, fuels avarice, and diminishes our need for one another [12].
And so, I come to the question of who I will serve. As a follower of Jesus, I must wrestle with how I understand the call to follow Jesus in this context.
Looking back to our time in Washington in September 2024, it is a capitol city with what Simon Walker calls a “front stage Shaper ego” presentation of itself as powerful, ordered and in charge [13]. It was Mack McClarty who reminded us that the real work of democracy happening under the surface is represented in those who work overtime to live out a harmonious ‘beloved community’ (Martin Luther King) that never rests to bring people together and get stuff done. “The hard work of politics is not simple about winning but building a win-win” [14].
In an era of globalization, Bryant Myers points out that there is either a false dawn, a new promised land, or a complete breakdown. Quoting neoliberals like Thomas Friedman and Martin Wolf who call for a broader free market and global politics, he argues that it is essential not on that we have a moral vision (i.e. human dignity) but know who can provide it [15].
I see the challenge as sharing the good news of Jesus’ Kingdom in ways that align to the vision that is not limited by trying to restore pure ideological liberalism, but in pursuing the flourishing of all based on our created-ness, our fallenness, our redeem-ability, and our glorification, through our Triune God who has made the way through Christ Jesus. The Bible records that the world is currently “groaning” (Romans 8:22) but is still a work in progress. We can live anticulture with this message of the common image-bearing nature of all people, in pursuit of a peaceful and just society that represents the eternal Kingdom vision of a joined new heaven and new earth, that is both now and not-yet.
___________
[1] Taylor, Charles, Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 190-191.
[2] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, Paperback edition, New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2018, x.
[3] “Patrick Deneen : Why Liberalism Has Failed”, YouTube, June 14, 2023, https://youtu.be/NvdebFyU76M?si=ws9XJi_O-zCwPAPO, 3:44.
[4] Liberalism, 6.
[5] Liberalism, 6.
[6] Liberalism, 16.
[7] Liberalism, 5.
[8] Liberalism, 118.
[9] Liberalism, 127.
[10] Liberalism, 66.
[11] Liberalism, 109.
[12] Liberalism, 106.
[13] This is brilliantly argued by Simon Walker under the “Shaper Ego” which he states “exhibits a high level of trust in both himself and others on his front stage, backstage the opposite is true. There, his world is characterized by defensiveness and suspicion”. Walker, Simon P. Leading Out of Who You Are: Discovering the Secret of Undefended Leadership. Piquant Publishing, 2007, 88.
[14] Portland Seminary Washington Advance Session, Thomas F. “Mack” McLarty, September 28, 2024.
[15] Myers, Bryant L.. Engaging Globalization : The Poor, Christian Mission, and Our Hyperconnected World. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2017, 127.
About the Author
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.