12 Comments

Shame is powerful, we want to be good, our American myth of individualism is held tightly like a shibboleth and practically speaking we daren’t be on the wrong side: it is embarrassing, a bad career move and socially gauche to be a post-liberal.

Marshall McLuhan spoke of figure ground relationships. The “figure” is liberalism’s individualism exulted and it worked when “grounded” in a Christian or generally theistic ethos of community and duty beyond oneself. Now the old paradigm has been trounced, all past practices vilified, and we see what comes of unfettered individualism. We are lost.

Expand full comment

To answer your question, "Why have we not yet abandoned our pacifying libertarianism?" I would answer, greed. Politicians are greedy. CEOs are greedy. The professional-managerial class is greedy. In order for the postliberal project to separate itself from right-liberalism, it's going to need to provide a more robust analysis of political-economy. The cultural issues are important. I think it's vital for the common good that our children, and society at large, are inculcated with the principles to live a virtuous life (principles likely fleshed out from the Judeo-Christian tradition); to proscribe the pornificiation of every nook and cranny of American life; and to full-throatedly speak to the importance of marriage, family, and children. All of that is good and important, but there's a symptomatic silence in the postliberal project concerning the social organization of the means of production and the manner in which wealth is distributed. Symptomatic because I don't think even the leading intellectuals of the postliberal project have adequately grabbled with the materialist component of such (a postliberal order).

I noticed in Professor Deneen's fantastic book "Why Liberalism Failed" the word "commonweal" was used consistently throughout the text. I also saw the word "communitarian" at least a couple of times. You don't need to be a socialist to sniff out common ground that could be forged between the moral-ethical imperatives of the post-liberal project and communitarian commitments to political economy.

Unfortunately, I don't see any national figures aware of or interested in the electoral gains to be mined here: anti-woke, family focused, for national prosperity, community-oriented, morally-ethically Judeo-Christian AND willing to forcefully denounce the local, national, and international depredations that increase yearly as unrestrained capitalism reigns supreme.

Expand full comment

I agree with many precepts espoused here and by the post-liberals generally. Liberalism has a misordered set of priorities, and most fundamentally, synthetically ignores human nature and the reality of divine law.

It's like a Kantian attempt to impose a moral ideology of rule and power that is somewhat based on human nature--and so it has compatibility with natural liberty and God's laws--but it draws its authority from its own self-assertion and historical experience alone, putting the divine into a box of irrelevance.

But! I don't follow why that means "post-liberals" must impliedly support a large, activist, technocratic, taxing, etc., monopoly government. I think the post-liberals might define more clearly the following:

--What is the nature of private property and homesteading, and how far does it extend;

--Responding to Hoppean argumentation ethics around the irrationality of opposing private property or advocating for its regulation;

--Kingship of the old West was very, very different from modern states that emerged in the 1600's. Democracy of the modern sort is totalitarian by comparison. What does a post-liberal "state" look like?

--More fundamentally, what makes a government legitimate? What is the response to Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner? St. Augustine found that a state without justice is just a powerful pirate. Who gets to assert power if not a private property owner that has homesteaded an area?

I don't mean to take on the synthetic assumptions of liberalism with Robinson Cruesoe thought experiments, although I don't think those are worthless constructs for working out problems. People are born into structures and customs and the like. But like GKC stated more eloquently, we aren't supposed to just conserve for the sake of conserving. That's when you become the pagan-paleo-right, which sometimes looks a bit to fondly at Rome and Greece without the Christian baptism.

So in the exercise of right reason, what should we seek for government? Should we not see it as extensions of families working together, with layers of authority (subsidiarity) and interlocking arrangements, sort of like, gasp, feudalism? Or just every day civil contracts with their unappreciated complexities?

Classical liberalism went off the rails, in part, because liberty without grounding in Tradition came to mean liberty from all "harm" and authority, not merely injustice. Well, harm avoidance uber-alles led to the Covid hellscape and post-modern twisting of words as violence itself. Are post-liberals making the same mistake? Why do they want to entrust so much power to a state for the common good - what souls are saved if I'm coerced to give treasure or avoid sin, rather than done freely?

Expand full comment

It seems too easy to point to progressives being unafraid to wield power and saying conservatives should do the same. Progressives are so good at it because they are tearing down which is easy (tearing down traditional values, etc). Postliberals want to build something good, and that is far more difficult. Can we look at someone swinging a wrecking ball and say that is the best way to build a home?

Expand full comment

Right-liberals gave up the culture in exchange for the Market and wound up with nothing. Clinging to the golden age of powdered wigs is a boomer cope. Great essay!

Expand full comment

Many Thx to Guest Author. It is heartening to know the next generation in America has such goodly creatures in it to help allay the wild waters whose roar has all but smashed not only the sail but the compass.

The supreme irony is in a land that prides itself with the ideal of individual autonomy, the push and pull of group think has, in a mere quarter of a century, completed a process of constituting a force more powerful than Panopticon, reducing every individual to a prisoner of “what’s trending" in a misguided definition of Freedom, one which countenances no responsibilities, only rights. The invisible guard in the tower is the alluring seductive power of sound-bites and sound-baits deployed in one-dimensional and exclusionary binary analysis of what is supposed to be REAL.

Expand full comment

Is it necessary to embrace technocracy in order to champion postliberalism? Who avers this? I can easily envision a postliberal state that is less powerful and intrusive than the one we have at present.

Expand full comment

What a tour de force! Excellent! Thank you!

I wonder if there is a Founder who can be raised up as the paragon of Common Good Constitutionalism.

Expand full comment