Recently, I have been part of a book study of Patrick J. Deneen’s “Why Liberalism Failed”. Three conversations into Deneen and I find myself continually frustrated by his loose use of the word Liberalism to mean anything and everything corrosive in contemporary culture, ranging from radical libertarianism to deconstructive relativism to unrestrained consumer capitalism. I also find he is quick to demonize liberalism– or rather his version of “liberalism”-- while very reticent to acknowledge the good liberalism has brought, which has never appeared en masse in any large society on earth. Goods such as universal suffrage, modern science, sustained engagement across radically different cultures, and civil rights for all kinds of people historically excluded or diminished across cultures (women, POC, LGBTQ, disabled, etc.). When I decide where to eat at night, or where to work on the weekday, or where to worship on the weekend, I have the choice between dozens of cultures and thousands of different opportunities, all within 15 minutes of my house. And that doesn’t happen without Liberalism. So, in order to balance the ledger, I would like to present my corrective to Deneen, in what I am calling the three strands of Classical Liberalism.
Classical Liberalism, a powerful and influential ideology which has shaped the West and then the Globe over the last 300 years, is often presented as a monolithic entity. However, a closer examination reveals that it's more accurately understood as a movement with three distinct, albeit intertwined, strands: Epistemic Liberalism, Political Liberalism, and Economic Liberalism. Each of these strands, while sharing a core commitment to individual liberty, offers a unique set of tools and principles applicable to a host of outcomes intended to maximize human liberty. Crucially, each strand also possesses two diverging trajectories: a positive trajectory that aims to enhance human flourishing and a negative trajectory that, often unintentionally, undermines the very foundations of a stable and just society. And with this, it is important to note that the tools offered in each strand are able to equally accomplish BOTH the positive and negative trajectories. They are tools, and like any tools, are able to be used for good or ill.
EPISTEMIC LIBERALISM: The Two Sides of Intellectual Freedom
Epistemic Liberalism focuses on the freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression. It emphasizes the importance of reason, evidence, and open debate in the pursuit of knowledge. In Deneen's understanding, this is simply part of "liberalism", but in many intellectual histories, this would be known as the intellectual movement that travels from the Enlightenment, to Modernism, and into Postmodernism. It provides tools to challenge established dogma and power structures. This strand provides a set of intellectual tools and critiques equally applicable to both a positive and negative trajectory across time:
Positive Trajectory: Freedom to reappraise and understand, leading to recovery of old truths and discovery of new truths
This trajectory emphasizes the power of open inquiry to refine existing knowledge and uncover new insights. It sees the free exchange of ideas as essential for intellectual progress.
John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) laid the groundwork for empiricism, emphasizing the importance of sensory experience and reason in acquiring knowledge, challenging innate ideas.
John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859) powerfully argued for freedom of thought and discussion, even of unpopular or seemingly erroneous views, as essential for the discovery of truth. He argued that suppressing ideas, even false ones, prevents society from fully understanding and affirming the truth.
The Scientific Revolution: The rise of modern science, with figures like Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, along with the practice of empiricism and the development of the scientific method, all exemplify this positive trajectory. The freedom to question established cosmological models (like the geocentric model) led to groundbreaking discoveries, validated through empirical observation.
Negative Trajectory: Freedom to deconstruct and reject, leading to a radical nihilism of no shared truths.
This trajectory arises when the tools of critique are turned against the very possibility of shared knowledge or objective truth. It leads to a skepticism so profound that it undermines any basis for collective understanding or action.
Friedrich Nietzsche's critique of traditional morality and metaphysics, while insightful, paved the way for a kind of nihilism that questioned the existence of objective truth or value. His concept of the "will to power" could be interpreted as justifying the imposition of one's own subjective truth.
Postmodernism: Certain strands of postmodern thought, particularly those influenced by thinkers like Jacques Derrida, emphasize the instability of language and the inherent subjectivity of interpretation. This can lead to a rejection of "grand narratives" and a skepticism towards any claims of universal truth.
The "post-truth" era: The contemporary rise of misinformation and the erosion of trust in institutions can be seen as a manifestation of this negative trajectory. The freedom to disseminate information, without a corresponding commitment to verification and shared standards of evidence, leads to a fragmented and polarized epistemic landscape.
POLITICAL LIBERALISM: Equity vs. Elite License
Political Liberalism concerns itself with the structure of government, the protection of individual rights, and the promotion of a just and equitable society. It advocates for limited government, the rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties. In Deneen's understanding, this is simply part of "liberalism", and while many intellectual histories would agree this is Liberalism "proper", it also has numerous spin-offs such as American Political Conservatism, Neo-Liberalism, and Neo-Conservatism. This strand provides a set of public policies and programs equally applicable to both a positive and negative trajectory across time:
Positive Trajectory: Freedom from harm for vulnerable groups, leading to equity, access, and opportunity.
This trajectory focuses on using the principles of liberalism to protect vulnerable groups from oppression and to create a society where everyone has the opportunity to flourish.
Moral Philosophies that emphasize right use of human freedom: These include thinkers such as:
Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: This moral principle, emphasizing universalizability and treating individuals as ends in themselves, provides a foundation for rights-based ethics.
John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle: This principle, articulated in On Liberty, states that the only legitimate reason to restrict individual liberty is to prevent harm to others.
John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance: This thought experiment, presented in A Theory of Justice, asks us to design a just society from behind a veil that obscures our own social position, promoting fairness and impartiality.
John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689) argued for natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property, and for government by consent. This laid the foundation for constitutionalism and limited government.
The Recognition of Human Rights: We can see this in The American Declaration of Independence (1776). This document, heavily influenced by Locke, proclaimed the self-evident truths of human equality and inalienable rights. This carries through to documents like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This UN document articulates a broad range of fundamental human rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
The Civil Rights Movement: The struggle for racial equality in the United States, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., exemplifies the positive trajectory of political liberalism. It sought to extend the promises of liberty and equality to all citizens, regardless of race, creed, culture, sexuality, gender, or identity.
Negative Trajectory: Freedom from moral constraints for elites, leading to moral relativism of no shared values.
This trajectory occurs when the emphasis on individual autonomy is taken to an extreme, leading to a rejection of any shared moral framework or common good. It can result in a society where individual preferences are prioritized over collective responsibility.
Extreme Libertarianism: Some strands of libertarian thought, while advocating for individual liberty, can downplay the importance of social responsibility and the role of government in addressing collective problems.
The "Culture Wars": Contemporary debates over issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender identity often reflect a clash between individual autonomy and traditional moral values. The negative trajectory is characterized by an inability to find common ground or shared principles.
Moral Relativism: The idea that there are no objective moral truths, only subjective preferences, can be seen as a consequence of this trajectory. If all values are equally valid, there is no basis for judging any behavior as inherently wrong.
ECONOMIC LIBERALISM: Commonwealth vs. Predation
Economic Liberalism focuses on free markets, private property, and limited government intervention in the economy. It emphasizes individual initiative, competition, and the pursuit of self-interest as drivers of economic growth. In Deneen's understanding, this is simply part of "liberalism", but in many intellectual histories, this would be known as the economic movement that travels from early Mercantilism to Capitalism, and which merges with Political Liberalism to form Neo-Liberalism. This strand provides a set of economic techniques and management systems equally applicable to both a positive and negative trajectory across time:
Positive Trajectory: Freedom to maximize productive capacity, leading to a commonwealth that manages resources for human thriving.
This trajectory emphasizes the power of free markets to generate wealth, innovation, and opportunity. It sees economic freedom as a key ingredient for human flourishing.
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (1776) argued that the "invisible hand" of the market, guided by self-interest, would lead to greater prosperity for all. He advocated for free trade and limited government intervention.
The Industrial Revolution: The dramatic increase in productivity and living standards that occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries can be seen as a result of the adoption of more liberal economic policies.
The rise of global trade: The expansion of international trade in recent decades has lifted millions of people out of poverty and increased global prosperity.
Negative Trajectory: Freedom to maximize personal wealth, leading to a predatory system that sacrifices all for monetary value.
This trajectory occurs when the pursuit of self-interest is unchecked by ethical considerations or social responsibility. It can lead to a system where the powerful exploit the vulnerable and where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Unfettered Capitalism: The "Gilded Age" of the late 19th century, with its vast disparities in wealth and power, exemplifies the negative trajectory of economic liberalism. Robber barons amassed huge fortunes while workers toiled in dangerous conditions for low wages.
Corporate Greed: The pursuit of profit maximization at the expense of workers, consumers, and the environment is a common manifestation of this negative trajectory. This is perhaps best seen in the 2008 Financial Crisis. The collapse of the housing market and the subsequent global recession can be seen as a result of deregulation, excessive risk-taking, and a lack of oversight in the financial sector.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism: This philosophy champions radical self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, often criticized for its potential to justify ruthless competition and disregard for the welfare of others.
The commodification and homogenization of all forms of value: We can see this phenomenon in the way Consumer Capitalism tends to reproduce and standardize cultural forms, from everyone wearing the same kinds of clothes, to the same big box stores and restaurants on every corner. We can also see this in the way even education is reduced to financial ends, with education seen as only a tool to enhance income. We can even see it in how social media monetizes our attention by focusing us on the most anger and fear inducing content to sell ads, creating echo chambers of outrage.
The exploitation of natural resources: Unsustainable practices, driven by short-term economic gain, constantly leads to environmental degradation and long-term harm.
Thus Classical Liberalism, in its various forms, has been a powerful force for progress, promoting individual liberty, economic growth, and the advancement of knowledge. However, it's crucial to recognize that each of its core emphases carries inherent tensions. The positive trajectories, which emphasize the responsible exercise of freedom, the pursuit of equity, and the creation of a commonwealth, require constant vigilance and a commitment to shared values. The negative trajectories, which lead to nihilism, moral relativism, and predatory economic systems, represent the ever-present dangers of unchecked individualism and the erosion of social responsibility. Ultimately, the future of liberalism depends on its ability to navigate these tensions and to harness its strengths while mitigating its potential for harm. The key lies in finding a balance between individual freedom and the common good, between the pursuit of knowledge and the recognition of shared truths, and between economic dynamism and social justice.
The Source and Degradation of Liberalism's Positive Trajectory This balance is necessary to fulfill what I am labelling the "positive trajectory" of liberalism's three strands. However, this positive trajectory is only maintained when we posit human flourishing and wellbeing as THE summon bonum to aim ALL human activities toward: Intellectual, scientific, technological, economic, and political. All resources and processes must be treated as means toward the ultimate end of human wellbeing. But proclaiming this Supreme Value for human thriving immediately opens for us the "grounding problem" of ethics: From whence does this value come from and on what basis are we justified in saying it is THE highest good which all else in society should be directed toward? For me, it seems that the most direct route to a commitment to human wellbeing is one rooted in the transcendent worth of humans. I think it is most satisfying and true to say that there is a personal Ultimate Reality (God) who values human beings infinitely and renders them worthy of dignity and respect and love. However, as soon as I say this, I must also admit this ultimate value for human flourishing has also been rooted in non-theistic worldviews such as Buddhism and Humanism. However, in regard to Buddhism I would argue that their transcendent dimension is so effectively similar to a compassionate God as to have identical moral effects. And as regards Humanism I would argue that it imports theistic values for human flourishing without acknowledging the theistic cultural basis of those values (cf. Kant’s categorical or Mill’s value on humans as experiencers of pleasure). Yet, if it is true that something like a compassionate God is either "A" source for the value of human flourishing, or even "THE" Source, we must immediately ask: Why have religions which claim to follow God (or the Transcendent) often become so oppressive and anti-egalitarian? Why has every form of mass religion prior to modernity always and everywhere degenerated into an oppressive hierarchical system which usually aligned with the powerful over the powerless, thus effectively negating their core values around flourishing of all humans, especially those on the edges of society. Yes, the communities of Jesus and Buddha and Rumi (and other small communities) were idyllic and utopian and egalitarian for a time. But the majority expression of every religious community has, overall, been oppressive to many in society: The poor and vulnerable, women, cultural and religious minorities, queer folk, low caste members, etc. To bring clarity before proceeding, I would like to differentiate mass movements from niche movements. We can point to plenty of niche movements as radically egalitarian and humanity affirming, from the first generation Christians and Buddhists and Muslims, to monastic movements and small collectives such as the Essenes or Pythagoreans or Amish or Quakers. But in terms of mass movements that impact entire societies for decades or centuries, only forms of liberalism have sustained a collective trajectory to increase civil rights and democratic participation and inclusion for all, even if that has been a trajectory never fully fulfilled at any particular time. Why is this? What is different in liberalism that it created a massive public ethos, across centuries and across cultures, that it is good to advocate equal rights for all regardless of culture, creed, gender, or identity, and that the opposite of this is wrong? It is not that Liberalism brought new values to society: All of its core values can be found in niche movements that predate it by centuries. What is truly new is the scope that these values reached in Liberalism: A universalization of the transcendent value of every human and a sense that every human has rights and responsibilities in society. The scope here is breathtaking. And due to population growth, more people have flourished in these liberal and post-liberal cultures than ever lived prior to this in pre-liberal cultures. But if what Liberalism does is universalize prior values of egalitarian human flourishing, why did so many early Liberal thinkers fail to live by these values. Why were they often men who we would consider classist, misogynist, and racist by current standards? I take the point that early liberals were not as inclusive and egalitarian as we have come to expect from the liberal tradition. And this is true for not only liberalism, but many other mass movements. On one hand, we can point to some mass movements that begin with niche egalitarian idealism which then degenerates into more exclusive, rigid, and anti-egalitarian forms: We can see this negative trajectory from the movement from Jesus into Christianity, from Buddha into Buddhism, and from Muhammad into Islam. But more often than not, later forms of mass movements build on trends and trajectory of earlier thinkers and ideals, until earlier thinkers are often seen as retrograde. This happens in liberalism when we consider someone like Thomas Jefferson who penned the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal..." while also holding slaves and being, according to the current standards that derive from his trajectory, racist and misogynist. But we also see this trend at work in explicitly anti-liberal movements from the Left and from the Right. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were scads of budding Nationalist movements (on the Right) which stressed blood and soil politics, and ideals of cultural and racial purity. Likewise, there were scads of Internationalist movements against Industrial Capitalism (on the Left) which stressed forcibly disassembling the ideological, economic, and political structures which upheld cultural elites and economic inequality. Both of these anti-liberal movements came to diagnose liberal bourgeoise politics as the disease which their ideology was the cure for. And all mass anti-liberal movements of the 20th century, when they fulfilled their trajectories, led to horrors of prison camps, mass executions, industrial warfare, and silencing of all dissent. The anti-liberalism of the right did this with a flavor of racist hatred, while the anti-liberalism of the left did it with a flavor of anti-religious hatred. They brought to explicit fruition what was always part of their implicit trajectory from the beginning. So, Liberalism started with seminal thinkers who wrote of pro-human ideals they often failed to live into (and even failed to realize they were failing to live into them!). And they took those high ideals from previous sources, both philosophical and religious, and re-cast them as self-evident and not rooted in anything other than human reason. But, I would argue, along with Tom Holland in "Dominion: How the Christian Revolution remade the world", that liberalism really did was to universalize and secularize the best of Biblical values. If you take the trajectory of Biblical values, which are embodied in Christ, and then subtract from that trajectory the cultural heritage of violence and exclusion, you get very liberal values in the most positive sense, in the most human affirming sense. And then what Classical Liberalism does is try to strip away the story these values arise from— the story of Jesus and the prophets, the Ultimate Reality of God— and then arrange society by this secularized vision of Biblical values. But what happens when these values become untethered to any story or affirmation of Transcendent Reality is that they become merely an assertion without any grounding. This lowers human flourishing to merely one possible value among many values, with the chief competitors being the idols of power and pleasure and profit sought by empires and corporations alike. And in the face of these competitors, human values without grounding can only demonstrate the supremacy of human flourishing over and against the idols by means of resorting to scolding and shaming and exclusion, or censoring and violence and coercion. And these means destroy Liberalism from the inside out, because they are actions at odds with the very values they seek to promote and defend. Not Anti-Liberal but Hyper-Liberal I do not think the solution to this is to jettison the Liberal project and throw out the baby with the bathwater in Anti-Liberalism. Rather, we lean into Liberalism and become "Hyper-Liberal" by emphasizing the positive trajectory of Liberalism, while also re-enchanting Liberalism by acknowledging the stories and Transcendent Source(s) its values are rooted in. Then we encourage different religious and civic organizations to practice their religion and “compete” in a “free market” to create maximal human flourishing in their communities. And when we have hundreds or thousands of religious and civic organizations all working to accomplish human flourishing, all boats rise. In contrast to this, what it seems that Deneen wants to instantiate only one version of religious culture as the sole driver for politics, while excluding or at least diminshing all others. It is true that he publicly eschews Catholic Integralism, in which the Catholic Church is seen as the guarantor and supervisor of public values in a marriage of Church and State. But he affiliates himself adjacent to Catholic Integralists, and is seen by many as a source and contributor to their movement, as well as the larger project of Christian Nationalism. And I think this later commitment, seen in Deneen's book "Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal future" and other lectures, really reveals the anti-liberal and almost theocratic direction his argument takes him. We know where explicitly anti-liberal politics leads us, whether in Left wing or Right wing versions. We have seen it before. And regardless of whether it is Secular Nationalism or other forms of religious anti-liberal politics (whether "Christian", or Hindutva, or Islamist, or Zionist), it only leads to mass graves. Instead, what liberalism has going for it-- particularly in what I am calling "political liberalism"-- are inbuilt mechanisms for self-correction that anti-liberalism or illiberalism does not have (and has no way of having). Such mechanisms include separation of powers, democratic redress / transparency, universal human rights, and a vision of diversity as a social good. Anti-liberalism always has a gathering momentum toward the opposite: Instead of a separation of powers, we get a focusing of power into the privileged caste who touts itself as the caretaker of tradition and social "good". Instead of democratic redress by, and transparency to, all citizens, we have the privileged caste operating for the "good" of all. Instead of universal human rights, we have full rights only for those who meet the ideological and perhaps racial or gender expectations of the privileged caste. And instead of seeing diversity as a social good which causes all groups to "compete" in a "free market" of ideas, we get only one narrow vision of human flourishing that dominates over others. I think Deneen is a transitional figure in the movement from where we are now to a radically anti-liberal politics of the future. To look back on Communist Russia for examples: Some folks in the circles of Catholic Integralism (such as Adrian Vermeule) as well as more secular anti-liberals (such as Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel) advocate what is often called a "Leninist" position: The seizure of mechanisms of cultural and political power by an illiberal elite who will refashion society into a new anti-liberal mold. If their position is "Leninist" in this regard, then folks like Deneen are more like "Trotsky" who advocated a more decentralized and bottom-up social transformation to the same ends. The problem is that once the anti-liberal state is in power, even Trotsky was made into a heretic, and his followers violently persecuted by Leninist-Stalinist anti-liberal state. In the same way, I don't think Deneen is viable except as a bridge for people leaving postmodern liberalism for something much worse. Deneen may stay a "Trotskyite" and never become a "Leninist", but that won't stop a whole host of people who crossed over his bridge from becoming "Leninists". I think the other side of the bridge for any group claiming to be anti-liberal is a bad destination. We can see what that anti-liberal destination looks like in mid-20th century Italy and Germany and Russia and China. I do not think a good and beautiful human future is obtained by destroying liberalism, but by building on it, and helping it to fulfill its positive trajectory. I intend to do my part by aiming people toward full human flourishing as THE preeminent value toward which we ought to aim ALL social institutions, as well as reminding people where this transcendent value is ultimately rooted in, which is a God of unconditional Love.
From Principles to Practice – A Hyper-Liberal Path Forward The analysis presented doesn't lead to a condemnation of liberalism, but to a call for its reinvigoration. We must acknowledge the duality inherent in each of liberalism's strands, understanding that the very tools which empower us can also, if wielded carelessly, lead to societal fragmentation and injustice. This isn't about a retreat from liberalism, but rather an advance into it – a "hyper-liberalism" as I've termed it, conscious of its own potential pitfalls and firmly rooted in a transcendent vision of human flourishing. The abstract must become concrete; our principles must translate into action. To fortify epistemic liberalism in our increasingly fractured information landscape, we need a multi-pronged approach. Media literacy education, starting from a young age, is no longer a luxury but a civic necessity. It's not about dictating what people should think, but equipping them with the critical thinking skills to navigate the deluge of information, to separate signal from noise. We can point to alarming statistics, like the Stanford study showing the vast majority of middle schoolers unable to distinguish between news and sponsored content, to illustrate the urgency. Coupled with this must be a push for transparency in the digital realm. Social media platforms and news outlets must embrace algorithmic transparency and clear labeling practices. The average citizen, increasingly reliant on these platforms for information (as Pew Research Center data confirms), deserves to understand why they are seeing what they see, and who is behind it. Furthermore, we need to actively teach and enculturate an intellectual environment which rewards "steelmanning", that is presenting the best version of an opponent's position. Political liberalism, too, requires a renewed commitment to its core principles, while guarding against its potential perversions. The corrosive influence of money in politics, documented by organizations like OpenSecrets, demands robust campaign finance reform. It's about ensuring that the democratic process reflects the will of the people, not the purchasing power of a select few. Simultaneously, we must fiercely defend and expand the protections afforded to vulnerable groups. The rise in hate crimes, tracked by the FBI, serves as a stark reminder that the fight for equality is far from over. Strong anti-discrimination laws and robust enforcement mechanisms are crucial, as is a broader cultural shift towards civic engagement and respectful dialogue. This necessitates creating spaces – both physical and digital – where genuine conversation across ideological divides can flourish, a conscious effort to move beyond echo chambers and engage with differing perspectives, while also upholding the highest standards of free speech, and only restricting defamation and calls for violence.
However, in order to revive and fortify the trajectories of epistemic and political liberalism, we must tame and harness the power of economic liberalism. All other forms of liberalism are riders in the vehicle of economic liberalism and are driven by the engine of the Market. If the vehicle which carries Liberalism is misaligned, unsafe, and out of control, no other reform will be possible. For instance, the health of epistemic and political liberalism requires healthy information and communications ecosystems. But when all information and communication is run through an advertisement based media system, then what gets incentivized is information which sells the most advertisements, not what is good or true or beautiful. When the algorithms that run our social media are optimized to commodify our attention, then they will optimize for the content that most induces anger or fear or lust or addiction to keep our eyes glued on the screen. They will not optimize for what makes us healthiest and most virtuous. And the only way to clean up our media ecosystem to optimize for human flourishing is to build protections into it so that the Market doesn't optimize it for mere profit over all other human goods. Turning to economic liberalism, the path forward involves tempering the undeniable power of free markets with a commitment to social justice. The widening chasm of wealth inequality, documented by the Congressional Budget Office, is a symptom of a system in need of recalibration. Progressive taxation policies, designed to fund essential social services and create a more equitable distribution of resources, are not radical propositions, but rather a necessary corrective. Furthermore, corporations cannot be allowed to operate unchecked. Strong regulations – to protect the environment, ensure worker safety, and foster fair competition – are essential. The devastating consequences of air pollution, as reported by the EPA, are just one example of the human cost of prioritizing profit above all else. We must also champion corporate social responsibility, encouraging businesses to move beyond a narrow focus on shareholder value and embrace a broader stakeholder model. Simultaneously, we must empower workers through robust support for labor unions and worker cooperatives, recognizing the historical link, revealed by Bureau of Labor Statistics data, between union decline and the rise of inequality. But this alone is not enough to temper the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Much of the malaise and negative trajectory of postmodern liberalism is driven by the economic engine of profits over all other forms of value, such that not only are persons used as mere means to serve the idol of profit, but entire societies and nations and ecosystems are also sacrificed to the Market as if to a god. David Deane, Catholic moral theologian and author of "The Tyrrany of the Banal" makes the case that late stage "consumer capitalism" has eviscerated anything good in Liberalism, to hollow it out as a parasite might hollow out its prey, so it can form a space for unrestrained consumption and profit. That, I think, is the core of the current social implosion of Liberal societies across the globe. In light of this, it is wise to revisit the liberal social mechanism of the separation of powers so that separate social spheres can check the worst tendencies of the others. In this mode, we see that a principle social good accomplished by the State is the power to restrain harm to humans in order to protect them, while the principle social good accomplished by the Market(s) is the power to produce goods which help humans thrive and flourish. In order for this balance of powers to work correctly, on one hand we can side with the economic "right" which insists that the State should not be in the business of production of goods which can be adequately supplied by the Market(s). But, we also must side with the economic "left" in the insistence on a strong role of the State to regulate Markets to protect laborers and consumers and the ecosystem that supports them all. In fact, I would urge that we understand this role not as "regulation" which sounds abstract and merely bureaucratic. Rather, we understand these policies as protections: Protections of human beings and the environment we depend on. However, the corruptive power of Corporate Capitalist interests often derails the State role of protection. Too often the State bends the knee when Corporations become so large that they dominate entire markets and entire sectors of the economy, and especially when one or a few Corporations could unilaterally damage the economy or significant groups of people within it. These monopolies and oligopolies offer no enduring social good. After the brief benefits they offer consumers while establishing market dominance, they always lead to increased prices for lower quality and less productivity and innovation over time. In order for Corporate Capital to cease to have an outsized influence in Liberal societies, we need to protect the People from monopolies or oligopolies by breaking up and selling off Corporations with an outsized share of any market or geographic area. This will not only stop Corporations from gaining outsized political power to steer the State to maximize their individual profit over all other social goods. It will also open up space in markets for more competition, more entrepreneurship, and more innovation. But policies and practices alone are insufficient. The heart of this hyper-liberal project lies in what I've called the re-enchantment of liberalism. A purely secularized liberalism, divorced from the transcendent sources that gave rise to its core values, becomes fragile, susceptible to being overtaken by the very forces it seeks to restrain. Therefore, we must actively foster a public square where faith communities and philosophical traditions are not relegated to the sidelines, but are welcomed as vital contributors to the conversation about human flourishing. Interfaith and inter-ideological dialogue are not merely polite gestures, but essential tools for building a shared understanding and identifying common ground. Crucially, we must reframe the narrative of liberalism itself, acknowledging its profound debt to the religious and ethical traditions that emphasize the inherent dignity of every human being. The Hyper-Liberal narrative is no longer the march of a purely secular logic that emerges fully formed and victorious from the dark ages of religious ignorance. Instead, the Hyper-Liberal narrative is that we are part of an evolutionary process in which human culture is always struggling to evolve toward the Transcendent Value who is our Source. And as culture evolved and adapted over time, it drew into itself all kinds of resources for human thriving, from different cultures and different religions and different philosophies and different geographies, to form the strands of Classical Liberalism. The criteria for inclusion in the Liberal project is NOT whether some idea or practice is religious or secular, but rather whether it works to help human individuals and communities thrive. When we consider Liberalism in its widest and most originative sense— the width and breadth envisioned in the Latin root word "liberalis"-- we see that Liberalism is at its root the width and breadth of all ideas and ideals, practices and processes, which lead to human thriving. And just as biological evolution is driven by "natural selection" to pick those life forms best adapted to thrive, so also Liberalism is an expression of cultural evolution which is driven by "ethical selection" to pick those forms of culture, religion, science, economics, and politics which helps human beings thrive and flourish. And just as "natural selection" leads to a panoply of life forms, all vying to fulfill their biological imperative, so also "ethical selection" should lead to a panoply of local communities and cultures, both secular and religious, who "compete" to be the most effective in helping humans thrive and flourish. The Good Society needs to form virtuous people in order to exist, because goodness cannot be imposed on a populace not formed to value the good. And the best way to form the best people is to have cultural groups actively and empathetically compete to see who can form the most empathetic and active communities who work toward the common good of all. This, then, is not a blueprint for a utopian future, but a call for a more deliberate, self-aware, and morally grounded liberalism. It's a recognition that the ongoing work of building a just and flourishing society is a continuous process, demanding constant vigilance, critical self-reflection, and an unwavering commitment to the transcendent values that lie at the heart of human dignity and freedom. It demands, in essence, a hyper-liberalism – a liberalism that knows itself, understands its limitations, and draws strength from the wellspring of human experience and spiritual wisdom, all working in a free market to accomplish the goal of human flourishing. It demands a Liberalism which knows its Source.
No comments:
Post a Comment