The Price of Independence
I confess that when I read the title of this week’s book– Why Liberalism Failed– I jumped to the conclusion that this was going to be a discussion about why the political party on the left has failed.
That would be confusing to me because, in my current context, “liberal” describes people who have a focus on helping other people and making sure that those in the margins do not fall through the cracks. While there is a long way to go, it appears that the liberal policies of the current (soon-to-be past) administration have borne out the efficacy of that focus. “So,” I wondered, as I read the title, “How could liberalism have failed?”
I also thought that “liberal” was the opposite of “conservative.” To understand what I mean by that, we need to look at my beliefs about conservatism:
Like liberals, conservatives ultimately aim for the common good but do so through a more narrowly focused view of the law. They believe that less government involvement is better for the nation. They believe that market forces are more likely to provide the common good through a financial trickle-down mechanism.
(Source – 1)
Liberals believe that this trickle-down mechanism doesn’t work (which has been proven over and over again since Reagan’s presidency; see the graph above) because people are too narrowly focused on their own good instead of the common good. As a result of these policies, the wage gap has increased. So, liberals put into place more institutions that are intended to prevent people from falling through the cracks created by trickle-down economics. These institutions do solve some problems but also inherently have their own issues.
In other words, my initial thoughts about liberalism were that it has less focus on personal financial gain and more focus on the common good, in general. Why? The evidence of my eyes, personally and in the national news.
Individualism
What I have discovered in reading Deneen’s book is that his definition of liberalism refers primarily to a sense of liberty. How is that liberty achieved? He explains: “At the heart of liberal theory and practice is the preeminent role of the state as agent of individualism” (2).
We clearly see this focus on individual liberty in the text of our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (3)
Deneen’s Core Argument
Deneen explains that historically (during pre-Christian antiquity, particularly ancient Greece), there was a reciprocal arrangement between the individual’s agreement to self-governance through virtue, and institutional self-governance through achieving the common good. (4)
Three Key Shifts
Deneen’s core argument about how liberalism, as he defines it, came to dominate Western thought and politics involves three “revolutions.” He identifies three key shifts in thinking that laid the groundwork for liberalism’s rise (5):
- Rejection of “the high”: As just stated, classical and Christian thought emphasized striving for virtue and the common good (the “high”). Liberalism shifted the focus to the “low” – the reliable pursuit of individual self-interest. This meant that politics was no longer about cultivating virtuous citizens but about managing individual desires and preventing conflict.
- Reframing virtue as oppression: Classical and Christian traditions saw virtue, self-limitation, and self-rule as essential for human flourishing. Liberalism reframed these as sources of oppression, limiting individual freedom and autonomy.
- Embracing human control: Francis Bacon championed the idea that humans could conquer nature and fulfill their desires through science and technology. This overturned the Stoic and Christian emphasis on acceptance and limits, fueling the belief in limitless human potential and progress.
Redefining Liberty
Building on these revolutions, liberalism redefined liberty as:
- Freedom from authority: Liberation from traditional sources of authority, like the church or aristocracy.
- Emancipation from tradition: Breaking free from the constraints of culture, customs, and inherited norms.
- Dominion over nature: Expanding human power over the natural world through scientific and technological advancement.
Undermining Classical and Christian Liberty
Deneen argues that liberalism’s triumph required actively dismantling the older understanding of liberty. This involved:
- Challenging the “common good”: Shifting focus from collective well-being to individual rights and self-interest.
- Discrediting tradition: Portraying customs and norms as arbitrary and oppressive, hindering individual expression.
- Elevating the individual: Placing the autonomous individual at the center, detached from family, community, and inherited obligations.
The Role of the State
In this new order, the state became the primary provider of individual rights and liberties, protecting individuals from the perceived tyranny of tradition and community. In essence, Deneen argues that liberalism’s success involved a fundamental reorientation of Western thought:
- From virtue to self-interest: Shifting the focus from the common good to individual desires.
- From limits to limitless potential: Embracing the idea of human mastery over nature and circumstance.
- From community to the individual: Prioritizing individual autonomy over social bonds and obligations.
This transformation, Deneen suggests, has ultimately led to the social and political problems we face today, as the pursuit of individual liberation has undermined the very foundations of a flourishing society and created the opportunities for autocracy that are running rampant today.
Broader Conversations: Liberalism, Faith, and the Common Good
In his classic book, The Great Transformation, Karl Polanyi describes how a self-regulating market is inherently dangerous to society. It serves the individuals in power at the expense of those with little or no power.
During the Industrial Revolution, the commodification of land, labor, and money (“fictitious commodities”) caused significant disruption to the fabric of society–the loss of community and the common good–and threatened that society by detaching economic activity from its social context.
Polanyi explains that, in order to protect the common good, “Social history in the nineteenth century was thus the result of a double movement: the extension of the market organization in respect to genuine commodities was accompanied by its restriction in respect to fictitious ones” (6). Such restrictions are anathema to individual liberty (liberalism).
In their book, Jesus and the Powers, Wright and Bird look at liberalism and Christianity. They posit that love of neighbor “requires us permitting and even celebrating the freedom of others to find happiness, fulfilment, flourishing, purpose and meaning in ways that we might disagree with or disapprove of… Liberalism means liberty to love despite our differences. Liberalism prefers generosity over conformity. Liberalism chooses to find goodness in others” (7).
I don’t think they view “liberalism” in quite the same way as Deneen. While Wright and Bird value individual liberty, they emphasize that true freedom is found in Christ and expressed through loving service to others, a view that ultimately aligns with Deneen’s call for a renewed focus on virtue and the common good.
In God’s Politics, Jim Wallis explains, “If there were ever candidates running with a strong set of personal moral values and a commitment to social justice and peace, they could build many bridges to the other side [of the aisle]. Personal and social responsibility are both at the heart of religion, and the two together could make a very powerful and compelling political vision for the future of our bitterly divided nation” (8). He doesn’t use the word virtues, but it’s very much the same idea, and headed toward the concept of the common good.
Navigating the Tension: A Christian Response
In sum, I was correct (according to Deneen) on several ideas:
- The focus on the importance of the individual.
- The desire and goal to create a common good.
- The difference between different parties in terms of how that goal is achieved.
Yet, there is an undeniable tension between the philosophy of individuality and the philosophy of the common good. As Christians, we know that, on one hand, we are each individually unique and beloved by God. Each person is irreplaceable, created wonderfully and amazingly distinct.
At the same time, however, we cannot stand by ourselves. Jesus said, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Paul wrote, “Therefore, encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing” (1 Thessalonians 5:11). And the prophet Micah made it clear: The Lord “has told you, O mortal, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).
Biblically and morally, it’s very clear that we were created for community. And because of our unique individuality, we will always feel the tension between doing what is best for ourselves and doing what is best for everyone else, even if it involves personal sacrifice.
I’ll give Deneen the last word on this:
Out of the fostering of new and better selves, porously invested in the fate of others selves–through the cultivation of cultures of community, care, self-sacrifice, and small-scale democracy–a better practice might arise, and from it, ultimately, perhaps a better theory than the failing project of liberalism” (9).
1 – “Between 1981 and 2021, income increased more quickly for high-income earners,” Congressional Budget Office, Peter G. Peterson Foundation, last modified December 5, 2024, https://www.pgpf.org/article/5-facts-about-rising-income-inequality-in-the-united-states/.
2 – Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 59.
3 – U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” America’s Founding Documents, last modified Dec. 30, 2024, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.
4 – Deneen, 9.
5 – Deneen, 24-27 for this section.
6 – Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Times (Boston, MA, Beacon Press, 2001), 79.
7 – 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), 160.
8 – Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2005), xxiii.
9 – Deneen, 20.
About the Author
Debbie Owen
Deborah C. Owen is an experienced spiritual director, Neuro-based Enneagram executive and life coach, disciple maker, professional writer, senior librarian, and long-time church Music Director and lay leader. She has earned the award of National Board Certification for teaching excellence, and a podcasting award, and is pursuing a Doctor of Leadership degree through Portland Seminary at George Fox University. She lives in the backwoods of Maine with her husband and flat-coated retriever. She spends as much time as she can with their 3 grown children, daughter-in-law, and 2 small grandchildren. Find her online at InsideOutMinistries.info.6 responses to “The Price of Independence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Debbie, I like how you brought Polanyi, Wright, Bird, and Wallis into your post. Do you think any one of these authors might have a remedy for failed democracy that Deneen might accept?
Hi Debbie,
I enjoyed reading your Indepth posting.
What questions would you explore if you were invited for a roundtable discussion with Deneen?
Hi Debbie, I appreciated how you highlighted the Christian response to this week’s reading and the tension between doing what is best for ourselves and what is best for everyone else. As you read Deneen, could you pinpoint areas where you feel that tension?
Debbie,
I appreciate your initial response and insight before the reading. I was left wondering why your initial thoughts went to the economy? Is the economic disparity a division of liberal and conservative? Or what made you initially think of the economic divide? Is your mind still on Polanyi? (I put him in the deep recesses of my brain:)
Debbie, thanks for a great book summary and syntopical thinking with other works. I enjoyed reading your post.
Like you, I had viewed Liberalism as the “left” side of the political spectrum. In Canada, we have “Liberal” and “Conservative” parties. In my opinion, the conservatives are more classically Liberal, and the Liberals are more modern liberal. LOL.
My question is about the influence of a liberal democracy on your research. How does this influence your NPO?
Hi Debbie! This a throrough post! You mentioned “Yet, there is an undeniable tension between the philosophy of individuality and the philosophy of the common good.” Considering Deenan’s writing how do we bridge the gap?