As I understand Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed (without um, having read it) he is advancing the idea that the atomistic value-free liberalism of today, utterly unmoored from human nature and morality, is simply the liberalism of Madison and Jefferson plus time.
No! The American Founders and Framers spoke of nature and nature’s God, they put the strongest emphasis on society’s need for virtue and religion in their new Republic, our rights are only “unalienable” because they’re endowed by our Creator
“It’s fine to not want to bother learning anything about economics or public policy, but in that case do not hold yourself up as a person who is in a position to comment on these topics.”
Yes. But it is nearly always a case of them simply not knowing what they don’t know. I hope Deneen sees your article and it wakes him up. But sometimes it is the hubristic policy wonk who poses a more serious problem. E.g., prior to the disappearance of the USSR, many mainstream economists believed that Mises/Hayek had *lost* (!) the debate over the Economic Calculation Argument. It was distressing that someone like me, who was outside the economic profession, could grasp something that top economists could not. Although full-scale socialism has been discredited, the planning mentality still continues, albeit on a smaller scale. This is why Jeffrey Friedman (RIP) wrote _Power Without Knowledge_. Anarchist Bryan Caplan is very wonky, but at the end of the day I suspect he realizes that debating the intricacies of neoliberalism helps perpetuate the very thing (the state) that is the root of our problems. But I am a “puritan” like him.
Drivel is one of the most important "intellectual" currencies of our time. Its foisted upon us daily, and whats more, it seems to work. Thrashing it apparently only encourages it.
Im not familiar with deenans particular brand of drivel, but it must be somewhat popular if youre talking about it. Countering it by pointing out how stupid it is wont work though, so youll have to do better if your goals go beyond creating content.
I read Why Liberalism Failed because I was interested in what high-brow Trumpism would sound like. I think the most measured thing I could say about the book is that Deneen clearly thinks of himself as a political *philosopher* and very much not a political economist or policy thinker, as Richard notes.
A less measured take would be that it was some of the most incoherent ivory tower babble I’ve ever drudged through. I came away thinking less of the movement to develop an intellectually sound Trumpism that could survive the end of his personality cult. Just as in the book Richard discusses, it is completely devoid of any factual grounding. And his interview with Klein was a disaster in the same vein.
At the end of the day someone who fancies themself a societal diagnostician but who views actual practical treatment recommendations as something beneath them… well, that’s a radical, I suppose. They don’t want power, they want to endlessly critique power, etc.
Yes, I am struck that to the extent Deneen proposes anything concrete it is a vague economic localism. Reminds me of Alain De Benoist: maximalist meta-claim (1776/human rights/liberal democracy/market economy bad), utterly underwhelming specific implications. Municipal monopolies and local guilds (reserved jobs for the local boys?) are unlikely to give give your life the Meaning allegedly destroyed by "(neo)liberalism."
Regime Change was a book Patrick probably had to write after getting an advance from his publisher. It’s not his best work. Why Liberalism Failed is more intellectually serious, and if you want to take on Deneen and the post liberals, you should really read that book. It probably won’t satisfy your standards of “empiricism,” but it is at least grounded in a tradition of political philosophy that dates back to Aristotle, and was clearly important to the American founders.
I agree with your take on Deneen, though it is interesting that Obama took such a high view of Deneen’s first (I think) book, which trafficked in some of the same vague pronouncements. Maybe Obama just wanted to be seen as engaging with (what was then) counterintuitive and obscure takes.
As I understand Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed (without um, having read it) he is advancing the idea that the atomistic value-free liberalism of today, utterly unmoored from human nature and morality, is simply the liberalism of Madison and Jefferson plus time.
No! The American Founders and Framers spoke of nature and nature’s God, they put the strongest emphasis on society’s need for virtue and religion in their new Republic, our rights are only “unalienable” because they’re endowed by our Creator
To what extent is postliberalism simply warmed over catholic integralism?
“It’s fine to not want to bother learning anything about economics or public policy, but in that case do not hold yourself up as a person who is in a position to comment on these topics.”
Yes. But it is nearly always a case of them simply not knowing what they don’t know. I hope Deneen sees your article and it wakes him up. But sometimes it is the hubristic policy wonk who poses a more serious problem. E.g., prior to the disappearance of the USSR, many mainstream economists believed that Mises/Hayek had *lost* (!) the debate over the Economic Calculation Argument. It was distressing that someone like me, who was outside the economic profession, could grasp something that top economists could not. Although full-scale socialism has been discredited, the planning mentality still continues, albeit on a smaller scale. This is why Jeffrey Friedman (RIP) wrote _Power Without Knowledge_. Anarchist Bryan Caplan is very wonky, but at the end of the day I suspect he realizes that debating the intricacies of neoliberalism helps perpetuate the very thing (the state) that is the root of our problems. But I am a “puritan” like him.
Drivel is one of the most important "intellectual" currencies of our time. Its foisted upon us daily, and whats more, it seems to work. Thrashing it apparently only encourages it.
Im not familiar with deenans particular brand of drivel, but it must be somewhat popular if youre talking about it. Countering it by pointing out how stupid it is wont work though, so youll have to do better if your goals go beyond creating content.
I read Why Liberalism Failed because I was interested in what high-brow Trumpism would sound like. I think the most measured thing I could say about the book is that Deneen clearly thinks of himself as a political *philosopher* and very much not a political economist or policy thinker, as Richard notes.
A less measured take would be that it was some of the most incoherent ivory tower babble I’ve ever drudged through. I came away thinking less of the movement to develop an intellectually sound Trumpism that could survive the end of his personality cult. Just as in the book Richard discusses, it is completely devoid of any factual grounding. And his interview with Klein was a disaster in the same vein.
At the end of the day someone who fancies themself a societal diagnostician but who views actual practical treatment recommendations as something beneath them… well, that’s a radical, I suppose. They don’t want power, they want to endlessly critique power, etc.
Yes, I am struck that to the extent Deneen proposes anything concrete it is a vague economic localism. Reminds me of Alain De Benoist: maximalist meta-claim (1776/human rights/liberal democracy/market economy bad), utterly underwhelming specific implications. Municipal monopolies and local guilds (reserved jobs for the local boys?) are unlikely to give give your life the Meaning allegedly destroyed by "(neo)liberalism."
Regime Change was a book Patrick probably had to write after getting an advance from his publisher. It’s not his best work. Why Liberalism Failed is more intellectually serious, and if you want to take on Deneen and the post liberals, you should really read that book. It probably won’t satisfy your standards of “empiricism,” but it is at least grounded in a tradition of political philosophy that dates back to Aristotle, and was clearly important to the American founders.
British philosopher John Gray makes a great refutation of the "post-liberal" sensibility here:
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/10/how-to-save-british-liberalism
Apparently Alastair MacIntyre, one of the intellectual guiding lights of this movement, described Rajasthan, India as the ideal post-liberal society!
I agree with your take on Deneen, though it is interesting that Obama took such a high view of Deneen’s first (I think) book, which trafficked in some of the same vague pronouncements. Maybe Obama just wanted to be seen as engaging with (what was then) counterintuitive and obscure takes.