Why Liberalism Failed

When we think of liberalism, we almost always associate it with democratic regimes—hence the term “liberal democracy.” Along with this comes the assumed form of government where those who rule do so by the voiced consent and affirmation of the populace as a whole.

On the whole, though, Deneen argues that this form of government assumes the veneer of perfect democratic representation while doing away with genuine representation: “The genius of liberalism was to claim legitimacy on the basis of consent and arrange periodic managed elections, while instituting structures that would dissipate democratic energies, encourage the creation of a fractured and fragmented public, and ensure government by select elite actors” (155). Democracies devolve very quickly, in most cases, into rule by the elite who have assumed their positions at the behest of the people.

Eventually, those who would defend liberalism are accustomed to view true democracy with suspicion and anxiety since their positions of power would be rather precarious and would depend on their completion of their duties. When the majority begin to be suspicious or resentful of their leaders, however, democracy suddenly becomes something that may not be so desirable after all: “When democratic majorities reject aspects of liberalism—as electorates throughout western Europe and America have done in recent years—a growing chorus of leading voices denounce democracy and the unwisdom of the masses” (157). Some have even gone so far as to denounce the universal right to vote, a clear ploy to keep power away from those deemed undesirable for advancing the liberal project.

These same figures often try to find ways to keep the population under control and reluctant to form close associations with one another. Citizens are trained to view one another with suspicion and to view their own interests as trumping all others (even to the detriment of their family and neighbors, completely destroying the sense of the common good). Deneen suggests it can even be argued that the founding fathers of the nation had this explicitly in mind: Alexnader Hamilton, for instance, wrote that even though individuals would by nature feel closer to their family, the central government could win the affections of the people if it was made to function better than their local communities and governments.

Alexis de Tocqueville, however, noticed that the American spirit was one of great cooperation and empathy, noting that “it was the nearness and immediacy of the township that made its citizens more likely to care and take an active interest not only in their own fates but in the shared fates of their fellow citizens” (176). Tocqueville had his doubts that this kind of culture could continue under the philosophical trajectory he predicted for the country, and Deneen believes he was correct.

The time is ripe for a reevaluation of liberalism and its fruit thanks to the fact that liberalism has been fully implemented, been fully successful, and therefore has inevitably failed. Deneen asserts, “The ‘Noble Lie’ of liberalism is shattering because it continues to be believed and defended by those who benefit from it, while it is increasingly seen as a lie, and not an especially noble one, by the new servant class that liberalism has produced” (180). More and more, the divide between the stated ideals of the liberal state and the actual experience of those living within that regime has been noticed. The state’s tendencies to shift toward a deeper and more extensive centralized government has done damage to the ways in which human beings are meant to live locally and in manageable communities.

Liberalism can continue as it currently exists, resulting in ever-more strident discontent. On the other hand, the liberal regime can disintegrate and be replaced by something quite different, as it has in certain other Eastern nations where instances of authoritarianism, fascism, and military autocracy have occurred. Neither of these options are desirable. So the question becomes: If not liberalism, then what manner of regime is desirable?

Deneen argues that there are three steps that must be taken to begin driving politics in a sane, human, and therefore desirable direction. First, the genuine goods of liberalism need to be acknowledged; there is no reason to deny that there are certain goods that have been brought about in the previous centuries. Second, there must be a strong reaction against any manner of ideology that would require blind commitment in contrast to opposing views and persons. Third and finally, the genuine possibility of finding something new must be hoped for—nothing will change if nothing is expected.

Modern liberalism has replaced genuine freedom with the freedom of choice, and this typically narrows even further to the choice of various consumer goods. Liberalism has been an enemy of genuine freedom and liberty from the start, making men and women alike servants of the liberal state and its goals. There is no reason to return to an imagined golden age, but the best of the past must be drawn out and reinstated in order to create a new future that leaves the ideology of liberalism behind. Just because there has been a general consensus that liberalism was the way forward—considered largely under the terms of free consent—does not mean that this is the path that should be used in the future.

Deneen believes that there is a growing discontent with liberalism, and it is starting within individual families and communities who are attempting to cultivate a genuine counterculture. What that mode of living, and the regime by which it is ruled, is called makes no difference. Deneen posits,

What we need today are practices fostered in local settings, focused on the creation of new and viable cultures, economics grounded in virtuosity within households, and the creation of civic polis life. Not a better theory, but better practices. Such a condition and differing philosophy that it encourages might finally be worthy of the name ‘liberal’ (197-98, emphasis added).

When that occurs, the regime of liberalism will finally be purified of its excesses and decay and might truly gain the power to enable genuine liberty.