Deneen begins this chapter by giving us a basic rundown of where our notions of "liberal" and "conservative" originated. Even in its European context, it makes a certain sense, as two sides of two fairly fundamental human dispositions: one oriented toward equality, progress, and social and economic justice, while the other values a respect for authority, hierarchy, and nostalgia for the past. He gets around quickly to saying that while these two dispositions seem to be locked in intractable battle, that they are actually united more fundamentally at the philosophical level. They are united he says, in the fundamental assumption that the individual ought to be liberated from all that encumbers his absolutely free choice in every situation. The progressives, it goes without saying, quickly recognize today the harm in conceiving of the good life in individualist terms, frequently castigating both their erstwhile opponents and friends for perpetuating especially individualist alienation in economic terms. The progressive solution to the harmful effects of individualism he says, is an ever-expanding state, charged with redressing especially the harm of severe economic inequality. Observers will also note the expansion of the national government with respect to dissent from others' self-definition, especially with regard to sexual self-expression.
Deneen also says that conservatives have participated in the expansion of the state, mainly by advocating for an unfettered global free market, its main effect being the destruction of smaller associations, whether economic or familial. Provocatively, he argues that this alleged "free market" is not free at all, nor was it something that arose spontaneously, but it came about as a result of deliberate choices by the state itself. The marketplace in its present form could only exist he says, once the state had liberated the individual from all his unchosen and interlocking identities, which unite him to his place, and to his kin. Deneen carefully laments the fact that this older agrarianism is forever tainted with the white supremacy of the Confederacy in the Civil War. One historian in that particular Ken Burns documentary noted correctly that the United States and its people became comfortable saying, "The United States is…" after the war, whereas before, someone might say, "The United States are…" Deneen, for his part, suggests that the victory of the North accelerated technological progress--and without saying it--the move of the population into cities. He will go on to argue that the other element of liberalism's philosophical project is the liberation of man from the limits of nature, by the means of science and technology.
One aspect of the argument which needs justification is the use of the word, "statist". To me, this is a loaded term, suggesting a predetermined notion of the state's role. This is ironic in the present context, because Deneen is not an advocate for liberalism in any form. In its common usage--that is, its connotation--"statism" represents a disaster scenario of tyranny. If Deneen wants to use this word with its connotation, it would be more consistent for him to be an advocate of the conservative form of classical liberalism.
It seems to me that were Deneen falters is in the assumption that the "conservatives" intend for the state to expand. It is Deneen's prerogative to argue that the state must expand, to accommodate conservative demands for a "free market." He does seem to be going a bit further than simply saying that a global marketplace of some type is undermining other conservative commitments. Christian advocates for the conservative form of classical liberalism certainly do not intend for the marketplace to undermine their other commitments. If I wanted to argue in defense of classical liberalism, I would try to find an account of the state of nature which does not require absolute autonomy, nor the total liberation from unchosen obligations. Certainly, a counter-case could be made that the Founding Fathers did not intend to liberate the citizens from their religious and familial obligations. Their own piety or lack thereof notwithstanding, they were not in any respect hostile to religious piety, or its traditional commitments. One could argue that Jacksonian democracy was so popular here, because no one saw it as a threat to their more fundamental commitments.
Deneen finishes by stating that liberals have succeeded only in liberating man from the older sexual morality, while conservatives have only succeeded in making man a consumer, as opposed to a citizen.
Deneen also says that conservatives have participated in the expansion of the state, mainly by advocating for an unfettered global free market, its main effect being the destruction of smaller associations, whether economic or familial. Provocatively, he argues that this alleged "free market" is not free at all, nor was it something that arose spontaneously, but it came about as a result of deliberate choices by the state itself. The marketplace in its present form could only exist he says, once the state had liberated the individual from all his unchosen and interlocking identities, which unite him to his place, and to his kin. Deneen carefully laments the fact that this older agrarianism is forever tainted with the white supremacy of the Confederacy in the Civil War. One historian in that particular Ken Burns documentary noted correctly that the United States and its people became comfortable saying, "The United States is…" after the war, whereas before, someone might say, "The United States are…" Deneen, for his part, suggests that the victory of the North accelerated technological progress--and without saying it--the move of the population into cities. He will go on to argue that the other element of liberalism's philosophical project is the liberation of man from the limits of nature, by the means of science and technology.
One aspect of the argument which needs justification is the use of the word, "statist". To me, this is a loaded term, suggesting a predetermined notion of the state's role. This is ironic in the present context, because Deneen is not an advocate for liberalism in any form. In its common usage--that is, its connotation--"statism" represents a disaster scenario of tyranny. If Deneen wants to use this word with its connotation, it would be more consistent for him to be an advocate of the conservative form of classical liberalism.
It seems to me that were Deneen falters is in the assumption that the "conservatives" intend for the state to expand. It is Deneen's prerogative to argue that the state must expand, to accommodate conservative demands for a "free market." He does seem to be going a bit further than simply saying that a global marketplace of some type is undermining other conservative commitments. Christian advocates for the conservative form of classical liberalism certainly do not intend for the marketplace to undermine their other commitments. If I wanted to argue in defense of classical liberalism, I would try to find an account of the state of nature which does not require absolute autonomy, nor the total liberation from unchosen obligations. Certainly, a counter-case could be made that the Founding Fathers did not intend to liberate the citizens from their religious and familial obligations. Their own piety or lack thereof notwithstanding, they were not in any respect hostile to religious piety, or its traditional commitments. One could argue that Jacksonian democracy was so popular here, because no one saw it as a threat to their more fundamental commitments.
Deneen finishes by stating that liberals have succeeded only in liberating man from the older sexual morality, while conservatives have only succeeded in making man a consumer, as opposed to a citizen.
Comments