Deneen begins by telling the reader that this book was finished three weeks before the US presidential election in 2016. He goes on to say that its main theses matured over the last decade or more, and in light of recent events like Brexit, and the election of Donald J. Trump, he may have written a different book indeed. Still, Deneen thinks that his main contentions shed light on current events, and that current events vindicate those contentions much faster than he would have anticipated.
Deneen argues that liberalism undermines culture and the mores which instruct people in their obligations to one another, and to God in the virtuous life. Meanwhile, the ravages of individualism and capitalism demand an ever-active state to redress its injustices. This cycle repeats and escalates. Politics then becomes the arena for the venting of rage, rather than the considered deliberations of virtuous people in pursuit of a common good. He believes that the current widespread yearning for an illliberal strongman represents the frustration of deepest desires as a result of the liberal order.
None of this, he says, has caused the power-brokers of the liberal order to question the undermining of traditional values, customs, and family bonds. Deneen believes that increasing amounts of force will be used against those to continue to resist the prevailing liberal zeitgeist. He will argue that both left-progressive and right-conservative versions of liberalism undermine the social bonds and systems by which people derive purpose and fulfillment.
--
I could not help but think that the authoritarian strongman has arrived in the person of Donald Trump. Many scoff at this idea, since certain segments of his critics also behave as though he is a totalitarian mastermind, while others highlight his ignorance and stupidity. But Europe's fascists in the time of the second world war were equal parts mind-bogglingly inept, and well-practiced in evil and grave injustice.
At the same time, there is a profound lack of neutrality with respect to values in the progressive-left paradigm of today. Liberalism's insidious nature hides this progressive intolerance behind the appearance of neutrality, fashioned by the regular routine of apparent democratic elections. For my part, it appears that the end-point of this postmodern liberalism is exactly as John Rawls suggested: Nietzschean will-to-power, and majoritarian positivism.
I should also say that I have become aware--without reading Russell Kirk, as yet--that he himself was fearful that libertarian capitalism would undermine traditional value systems. It is intriguing that Deneen has caused such a splash in these latter days, if critics of capitalism from a traditionalist viewpoint had prominence for many decades. On the other hand, this "fusionism" was politically expedient, and hardly questioned in right-conservative circles.
Deneen argues that liberalism undermines culture and the mores which instruct people in their obligations to one another, and to God in the virtuous life. Meanwhile, the ravages of individualism and capitalism demand an ever-active state to redress its injustices. This cycle repeats and escalates. Politics then becomes the arena for the venting of rage, rather than the considered deliberations of virtuous people in pursuit of a common good. He believes that the current widespread yearning for an illliberal strongman represents the frustration of deepest desires as a result of the liberal order.
None of this, he says, has caused the power-brokers of the liberal order to question the undermining of traditional values, customs, and family bonds. Deneen believes that increasing amounts of force will be used against those to continue to resist the prevailing liberal zeitgeist. He will argue that both left-progressive and right-conservative versions of liberalism undermine the social bonds and systems by which people derive purpose and fulfillment.
--
I could not help but think that the authoritarian strongman has arrived in the person of Donald Trump. Many scoff at this idea, since certain segments of his critics also behave as though he is a totalitarian mastermind, while others highlight his ignorance and stupidity. But Europe's fascists in the time of the second world war were equal parts mind-bogglingly inept, and well-practiced in evil and grave injustice.
At the same time, there is a profound lack of neutrality with respect to values in the progressive-left paradigm of today. Liberalism's insidious nature hides this progressive intolerance behind the appearance of neutrality, fashioned by the regular routine of apparent democratic elections. For my part, it appears that the end-point of this postmodern liberalism is exactly as John Rawls suggested: Nietzschean will-to-power, and majoritarian positivism.
I should also say that I have become aware--without reading Russell Kirk, as yet--that he himself was fearful that libertarian capitalism would undermine traditional value systems. It is intriguing that Deneen has caused such a splash in these latter days, if critics of capitalism from a traditionalist viewpoint had prominence for many decades. On the other hand, this "fusionism" was politically expedient, and hardly questioned in right-conservative circles.
Comments