Liberalism, I Knew Very Little [Liberalisme, Saya Tahu Sangat Sedikit]
Exploring, Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick J. Deneen
Knew Very Little
I knew very little about liberal democracy. History traces its origins to 18th-century Europe during the Age of Enlightenment. This period was marked by a shift in thinking, where intellectuals began to challenge the traditional authority of monarchies and aristocracies. They emphasized principles such as liberty, equality, and the rule of law. Key historical events that contributed to the development of liberal democracy include the American Revolution (1775-1783) and the French Revolution (1789-1799). These revolutions promoted ideas of individual rights and the limitation of government power, laying the groundwork for modern liberal democracies.[1]
I have been living in the United States since 1996; therefore, I appreciate liberal democracy and what it offers. I am originally from Malaysia. Malaysia’s journey towards liberal democracy has been complex and multifaceted. Malaysia’s liberal democracy is still evolving, and the country continues to grapple with balancing traditional values and modern democratic principles. Malaysia operates under a federal constitutional monarchy with a multi-party system. While there have been improvements in media freedom and civil liberties, there are still restrictions on free speech and assembly.[2] For example, Netflix has faced censorship issues in Malaysia due to the country’s conservative stance on certain content. Netflix has removed specific shows and episodes at the request of the government. Lawmakers have raised concerns about sex scenes and LGBT representation on Netflix.
Value of Liberal Democracy
Several factors that trigger my perspective about liberal democracy and value this form of government offers:
- Liberal democracy is designed to safeguard individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. These rights are fundamental to human dignity and personal autonomy.
- In a liberal democracy, laws apply equally to all citizens and leaders. This principle ensures fairness, justice, and accountability, preventing abuse of power.
- Liberal democracy encourages a diversity of views and beliefs, allowing for peaceful coexistence and fostering a society where different opinions can be expressed and respected.
- It supports a mixed economy that balances free markets with government regulation. This approach aims to promote social justice and reduce inequality while allowing for economic innovation and growth.
However, there are criticisms and challenges associated with liberal democracy:
- The emphasis on individual rights can sometimes lead to political divisions and a focus on partisan interests.
- The diversity of views can occasionally result in social fragmentation and conflict.
- Prioritizing individual rights may come at the expense of community and collective well-being.
- Liberal democracy may not be suitable for all cultures and societies, as different regions have unique historical, cultural, and social contexts.
Understanding Liberalism
I do not have any beliefs about liberal democracy. I find it particularly challenging to connect with this text because I do not fully understand liberalism. According to Deneen, ‘Liberal anticulture rests on three pillars: first, the wholesale consequently of nature, which consequently makes nature into an independent object requiring salvation by the notional elimination of humanity; second, a new experience of time as a pastless present in which the future is a foreign land; and third, an order that renders place fungible and bereft of definitional meaning. These three cornerstones of human experience – nature, time and place – form the basis of culture, and liberalism’s success is premised upon their uprooting and replacement with facsimiles that bear the same names.’[3]
This passage is a critique of “liberal anticulture,” suggesting that it undermines and replaces traditional cultural foundations:[4]
- Nature: Liberal anticulture, according to the passage, dominates nature and views it as something separate from humanity that needs to be “saved” by eliminating human influence.
- Time: It presents time as a “pastless present,” meaning that the present is disconnected from the past, and the future is seen as unfamiliar or foreign.
- Place: It claims that place becomes fungible (interchangeable) and loses its unique, defining meaning.
These three elements—nature, time, and place—are considered the foundations of culture. The passage argues that liberalism’s success relies on replacing these traditional foundations with imitations that still carry the same names but lack their original significance.
Conclusion
According to Deneen’s super summary article,[5] Deneen argues that the success of liberalism has ironically led to its failure. He suggests that the core principles of liberalism—like individualism, free markets, and centralized power—have caused cultural decline, social fragmentation, and the erosion of traditional values and communities. By emphasizing personal freedom and economic growth, liberalism has weakened community bonds and social cohesion, creating a society that lacks shared values and purpose. In essence, Deneen believes that liberalism’s internal contradictions and unsustainable nature have ultimately led to its downfall.
[1] Wikipedia contributors. “Liberal Democracy.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, January 14, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy.
[2] Andrew James Harding, Jaclyn L Neo, Dian A H Shah, Wilson Tay Tze Vern, Malaysia: The state of liberal democracy, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 16, Issue 2, April 2018, 625-634, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy042.
[3] Deneen, Patrick J. Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. (65).
[4] Denee, 65-67.
[5] SuperSummary Editorial Team. Why Liberalism Failed Summary and Study Guide. SuperSummary, December 27, 2024. https://www.supersummary.com/why-liberalism-failed/summary/.
About the Author
Shela Sullivan
Born and raised on the vibrant Penang Island in Malaysia, I cherish the Malaysian greeting, “Mari Makan!!” which reflects the warmth of shared meals. Since 1996, I have called Oregon my home enjoying the raindrops and the serenity of its beaches. The ocean connects me to nature and energizes me. I am a Wife - Mentor - Traveling Pastor - Sourcing Manager Construction. Favorite Bible Verse: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart." ~ Psalm 37:4~ I reside with my husband, David and our fur-baby Rolo. We share passions for travelling, culture, diverse cuisines, home improvements, classic cars and humor.10 responses to “Liberalism, I Knew Very Little [Liberalisme, Saya Tahu Sangat Sedikit]”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nice reflection Shela,
I appreciated what you shared on Zoom and in your post about Netflix. I remember being in England and the programs available to me on Amazon Prime were different, I never considered what that might look like in different countries.
Here is my question for you. Upon arriving in the US (sorry as I type this I am thinking of what you told our group in DC regarding why you came to the US) what were some of the first things you noticed that our liberal democracy provides that you did not experience in Maylasia?
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your question.
Freedom of religion was the first thing I learned. Second was freedom of speech and the third was freedom to challenge authority.
Hi Shela, In reading your post I began to wonder what the world would look like if everyone experienced time as a pastless present and the future a foreign land. Can you fathom a hypothesis of what that might mean for society today and what might the implications be for learning, building, or anything?
Hi Diane,
Thank you for your question.
If everyone experienced time as a pastless present and the future as a foreign land, society might become more focused on the present moment, with less emphasis on historical context or future planning. This could lead to a more spontaneous and adaptive society but might also result in a lack of long-term goals and historical awareness.
Education might prioritize real-time problem-solving and adaptability over traditional knowledge accumulation. Hands-on, practical experiences could become more valuable than theoretical knowledge.
Buildings and cities might be designed to be more flexible and adaptable to immediate needs rather than long-term planning. here could be a stronger focus on sustainability and immediate environmental impact, as future consequences are less considered.
Society might struggle with long-term projects and investments, as the future is seen as uncertain and distant. Cultural and social norms might shift to prioritize present experiences and interactions over historical traditions and future aspirations.
Shela,
Thanks for you post. Since you do have a bit of an outsider and insider perspective, as one who has lived in different locations, do you find yourself agreeing with Deneen in regards to liberal democracies dying? If this system is dying, then should other countries, such as Malaysia continue to work towards the development of one?
Hi Adam, thank you for your questions.
Deneen suggests that liberalism has replaced traditional values with self-interest, leading to a decline in community and civic engagement. Yes, to this I agree. Freedom has been taken for granted in the US. It is replaced with men/women made philosophies for selfish reasons.
As for Malaysia, it is currently classified as a flawed democracy. Despite this, working towards the development of a more robust democratic system can still be beneficial. Strengthening democratic institutions, ensuring free and fair elections, and promoting civic engagement can help address some of the issues highlighted by Deneen.
Malaysians (non-Muslims) do not have the same freedom as Muslims to fight for liberalism. Malaysia has the syariah law. I would enjoy having further conversation with you.
Shela, thank you for sharing your experience so honestly. I’m wondering what aspects of American liberalism – or liberty, if that is easier to parse – have you found both mystifying and, well… liberating?
Thank you for your question, Debbie.
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the third is freedom to challenge authority.
Shela, I appreciate your insights into Malaysia’s evolving democracy. You offer a unique perspective on balancing traditional and modern democratic principles. How do you think Malaysia’s struggle to preserve cultural values while embracing democratic freedoms might provide a different lens through which to assess Deneen’s critique of liberalism? Are there lessons from Malaysia’s approach that could inform a more balanced or context-sensitive understanding of liberal democracy?
Hi Shela, thank you for your post.
If you could pick the best of both of your worlds (Malaysia and the US) what are some traits that of society that you would want to keep from each? Do you see any ways that they contradict each other?