The Great Experiment
“The establishment of our new Government seemed to be the last great experiment for promoting human happiness.”[1] With these words, George Washington acknowledged the imperfections of the United States’ new government while expressing his belief in its potential as one of the best systems in the world—a true experiment in governance. Before diving into Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed [2], I found it helpful to reflect on the principles of liberal democracy: what it is, how it developed, and the promises it makes. Like stretching before a run, this reflection helped me prepare, loosening preconceived notions and warming up my critical thinking muscles to engage more deeply with Deneen’s arguments. This article will begin by exploring my pre-existing understanding of liberal democracy. From there, I will examine how this knowledge interacts with Deneen’s critique, highlighting specific areas of interest in his book and offering considerations for further reflection.
My understanding of liberal democracy comes from studying thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau during my undergraduate studies. I also learned from important historical events like the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence.
In Books VII and IX of The Republic [3], Plato warned about the dangers of pure democracy. He believed that too much personal freedom could lead to disorder, arguing that society can become chaotic when people prioritize their desires over authority and the rule of law. Locke focused on individual rights to life, liberty, and property, which laid the groundwork for protecting personal freedoms. Rousseau introduced the idea of the general will and the consent of the people. He stressed that everyone has a role in governance and a voice in decision-making.
The Magna Carta brought in key ideas like the rule of law and limits on the arbitrary use of power, setting the stage for constitutional governance. Together, these concepts form the basics of liberal democracy: the rule of law, the protection of individual rights, and the practice of free and fair elections.
By looking at these ideas, we can see that liberal democracy tries to balance individual freedom with the common good, seeking to create a fair system of governance. However, Deneen reveals an unfortunate disparity between what liberal democracy claims and what it delivers.
In the introduction to his book, Why Liberalism Failed, Dr. Patrick Deneen confirms my initial understanding of Liberal Democracy. He summarized it as a philosophy conceived 500 years ago and implemented at the founding of the United States. It is the idea that right-bearing individuals could define and pursue their own vision of the good life under a limited government that protects rights and fosters liberty through free markets. Its legitimacy comes from a shared social contract supported by the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and free elections, making it a successful system.[4]
After an inspectional reading of Why Liberalism Failed, I found chapters Seven, “The Degradation of Citizenship,” and the Conclusion, “Liberty after Liberalism,” particularly interesting.
In Chapter 7, Deneen states, “The ignorance of its own history and aims—the “presentism” of liberals—is one of liberalism’s greatest defenses against the recognition that it generates a civic catastrophe that it then claims it must cure by applying more liberalism.”[5] I find this to be fascinating. He suggests that while masquerading as the hero, liberalism is the cause of the demise. Like a doctor prescribing poison or a dentist giving away candy, according to Deneen, liberalism is the culprit and goes undetected because it appears to be the solution to the decay it causes, which he refers to in the Conclusion as the “Noble Lie.”[6]
Deneen argues that the terms “Liberal” and “Democracy,” when used together, have shaped the ancient notion of democracy into its antithesis, “to one in which the people do not rule but are instead satisfied with the material and martial benefits of living in a liberal res idiotica.”[7] Deneen argues that in a liberal democracy, individuals often prioritize their own interests and desires over the community’s welfare. While liberalism may have achieved some success, he believes liberalism has ultimately failed and is contributing to societal decline. What should be done when everything starts to crumble?
In the Conclusion, Deneen suggests three initial steps:[8]
- Build on the achievements of liberalism. Don’t revert to a pre-liberal society.
- Get past Ideology and prioritize developing practices that foster new forms of culture, household economics, and public life.
- From what is learned from liberal democracy, we should develop a better theory of politics and society.
Given these suggested initial steps, Christians should be prepared to engage. Several years ago, I read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer [9], which instilled a similar sense of urgency regarding my political involvement. Schaeffer argues that Christians should actively participate in politics as a way to live out their faith and influence society according to biblical principles, echoing the thoughts of Wright and Bird in Jesus and the Powers.[10] Schaeffer wrote:
“Acts of State which contradict God’s Law are illegitimate and acts of tyranny. Tyranny is ruling without the sanction of God. To resist tyranny is to honour God. …The bottom line is that at a certain point, there is not only the right, but the duty to disobey the State.”[11]
Schaeffer argues that Christians have both the opportunity and obligation to engage politically, especially when the state contradicts God’s design. Deneen suggests that our current political situation is nearing its end, and we must prepare for a post-liberal reality.[12] To do this, Christians should help shape new theories and build a better society by cultivating strong faith communities and spiritual practices to withstand upcoming challenges, as expressed by Rod Dreher,[13] Andy Crouch,[14] and others.
I’m left wondering if the demise is as inevitable as Plato, Aristotle, and Deneen make it out to be. Are there steps toward preservation? Is course correction possible? If space allowed, I would explore these questions along with some of the other symptoms of demise Deneen suggests, like technology and the New Aristocracy.
__________________________________________
[1] Washington to Catharine Sawbridge Macaulay Graham, January 9,1790, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0363.
[2] Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018).
[3] Plato, The Republic of Plato, Translated by Allan Bloom. 2nd ed, (New York: Basic Books, 1968).
[4] Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 1-2.
[5] Ibid., 161-162.
[6] Ibid., 180.
[7] Ibid., 154. Deneen explains what he means by “res idiotica” in a recent essay: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/02/how-a-generation-lost-its-common-culture/. He states, “Ancient philosophy and practice heaped praise upon res publica—a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world’s first res idiotica—from the Greek word idiotes, meaning ‘private individual.’”
[8] Ibid., 182-183.
[9] Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005).
[10] N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2024).
[11] Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 130.
[12] Patrick Deneed, Why Liberalism Failed, 179.
[13] Rob Dreher, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian Nation, (New York: Sentinel, 2018).
[14] Andy Crouch, Culture Making, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023).
About the Author
Chad Warren
A husband, father, pastor, teacher, and student seeking to help others flourish.12 responses to “The Great Experiment”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Chad, Thank you for your insightful post. As you talk about Christians having a responsibiity to be active in politics, I was left wondering how that impacts the congregation you serve. Do you think you would get push back and if so, how would you address it? Thanks.
Diane, thank you for your question. My congregation tends to favor political activism and engagement. So, I don’t think I would get much pushback. I am more likely to get apathy which I actively seek to challenge through preaching, teaching, conversations, and example.
Hi Chad,
I enjoyed reading your post.
Based on your last paragraph, ‘I’m left wondering … What questions would you explore if you were invited for a roundtable discussion with Deneen?
Shela, if I was invited to a round table with Deneen, I would want to explore the tipping point concept. It seems that much good is accomplished through liberal democracy and that it eventually reaches a point at which it starts to regress. I would want to explore the factors that help identify the tipping point if there is one
Chad,
Great post and I am left with my own questions from your concluding paragraph. Do we as a nation even want to preserve or to correct the flaws of liberal democracy? Or do we simply want to burn it to the ground and begin anew? I would hope for the dismantling and reconstruction but I am concerned that the majority might be more in favor of a full destruction. It is almost like our nation wants to go through our own deconstruction phase, but we don’t realize that the best way to deconstruct is to do it intentionally and reconstructing along the way.
Adam, you raise some helpful questions about our current societal and political situation. I find it valuable to analyze the value of preservation vs. restarting.
Hey Chad! Love your post! Given Deneen’s critique that liberalism itself is the cause of societal decline, how do you reconcile his call to build on liberalism’s achievements with Schaeffer’s assertion that Christians must resist state actions contradicting God’s law?
Daren, Deneen’s critique, and Schaeffer’s call to action can be reconciled by recognizing their shared priority: human flourishing. Deneen highlights the achievements of liberal democracy—such as constitutional governance, the protection of individual rights, and the principle of consent—as foundations upon which to build. However, he critiques the excessive emphasis on personal autonomy and the overreach of the state, which aligns with Schaeffer’s call for Christian activism to resist policies that contradict God’s law. Together, their positions help us consider components involved in reforming liberal democracy in a way that restores balance and aligns with Biblical principles.
Great synthesis Chad. I know you said, “If space allowed…” but I am curious to know if you have any initial thoughts regarding technology and the New Aristocracy as possible COUNTER-demise instruments or strategies? Do they have much redeeming value, despite their complicit nature in the demise of democracy.
Deneen’s critique and Schaeffer’s call to action can be reconciled by recognizing their shared priority: human flourishing. Deneen highlights the achievements of liberal democracy—such as constitutional governance, the protection of individual rights, and the principle of consent—as foundations to build upon. However, he critiques the excessive emphasis on individual autonomy and the overreach of the state, which align with Schaeffer’s call for Christian activism to resist policies that contradict God’s law. Together, they advocate for reforming liberalism in a way that restores balance and aligns with higher moral principles.
Hi Chad, I appreciate your post very much. Thank you for connecting enlightenment thinkers. You wrote, “prioritize developing practices that foster new forms of culture, household economics, and public life” and it put me immediately in mind of Pastor Fuller and multicultural church. Can breaking out of homogeneity be a helpful new form of culture which could impact public life? No answer needed, just speculating with you.
Hi Chad, I’m also wondering if the fate is as inevitable as Deneen makes it out to be. Are there any problems with liberalism that couldn’t be fixed if we lived as the body of Christ? At least loneliness and the harm of others would have incredible improvement if more people were following Jesus and living as the body of Christ.