Book review: Why liberalism failed

Deneen, Patrick J. Why Liberalism Failed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2018. xix + 225 pp.

It is impossible in these times to read Deneen's book--or read any book, or think or do anything--apart from the context of our pandemic. Why Liberalism Failed can be read through a pandemic hermeneutic, or any hermeneutic, because while addressing himself primarily to the American portion of western civilization, he wisely has not spent too much time addressing specific developments like the presidency of Donald Trump or the evolving Affordable (health) Care Act. So his argument remains universal, and can be read in the light of whatever times it's read in, whether now or a decade or more on.

The core of Deneen's argument is that liberalism has failed because its core of radical individualism has left us unable to meet the demands of the world in which we live. By liberalism he means, not the  contemporary political left as seen in the many plans of Senator Elizabeth Warren, but the centuries-old ideology that grew out of the Enlightenment. In contrast to the aristocratic and theocratic regimes that had predominated through world history to that point, classical liberalism

...conceived humans as rights-bearing individuals who could fashion and pursue for themselves their own version of the good life. Opportunities for liberty were best afforded by a limited government devoted to "securing rights," along with a free-market economic system that gave space for individual initiative and ambition. Political legitimacy was grounded on a shared belief in an originating "social contract" to which even newcomers could subscribe, ratified continuously by free and fair elections of responsive representatives. Limited but effective government, rule of law, an independent judiciary, responsive public officials, and free and fair elections were some of the hallmarks of this ascendant order... (pp. 1-2)

Contemporary western political disputes occur within the confines of this ideology, with the "left" promoting individual autonomy in personal life and the "right" promoting autonomy in economic life. These dimensions of the movements have largely succeeded, says Deneen, while their anti-liberal aspects--state empowerment of the individual through universal education and economic empowerment for the left, preservation of traditional moral values for the right--largely have not (pp. 142-143).

In distinct but related ways, the right and left cooperate in the expansion of both statism and individualism, although from different perspectives, using different means, and claiming different agendas. This... helps to explain how it has happened that contemporary liberal states--whether in Europe or America--have become simultaneously both more statist, with ever more powers and activity vested in central authority, and more individualistic, with people becoming less associated and involved with such mediating institutions as voluntary associations, political parties, churches, communities, and even family. (p. 46)

The public triumph of liberal individualism has delegitimized all claims on the individual, paradoxically leaving most people not brimful of power but weak and frustrated. Governments, active in broad areas impossible for John Locke or James Madison to have foreseen, are seen as tools of the wealthy and powerful to maintain their dominance (chs 7 & 8). Consumer goods are widely available, but atomized individuals are powerless against unmitigated market forces that could declare them obsolete at any moment: "Among the greatest challenges facing humanity is the ability to survive progress" (p. 29). Education, seen by liberals like Thomas Jefferson and John Dewey as the key to making democratic society possible, has become an extension of the marketplace, where individuals scramble to acquire the marketable skills--mostly "STEM"--they need to attain a modicum of security (ch. 5). Science and technology, which rationalists saw as the means to enlightened solutions to human problems, have themselves been co-opted by governments and powerful private interests (ch. 4).

Deneen is more about diagnosis than prescription, about convincing the unperceptive public that a seeming panoply of problems--political alienation or at best engaged yelling, environmental destruction, economic insecurity, loss of civility, governmental surveillance--are all symptoms of the radical individualism that is produced by unchecked liberalism. And that this situation is doomed to go smash, possibly very soon. "Taken to its logical conclusion, liberalism's end game is unsustainable in every respect: it cannot perpetually enforce order upon a collection of autonomous individuals increasingly shorn of constitutive social norms, nor can it provide endless material growth in a world of limits" (pp. 41-42). American liberals, take note! We can't provide social-economic inclusion and environmental protection without a social order that constrains our individual choices. American conservatives, take note! We can't both put our faith in an unrestrained economic market while perceiving only the obligations that morality places on others.

If Deneen has children, he might tell them that "there's a right way and a wrong way" out of liberalism's unsustainable self-contradictions. The right way involves connecting and empowering local communities. See, you knew eventually I'd get around to urbanism, and now I have!

Such efforts should focus on building practices that sustain culture within communities, the fostering of household economics, and "polis life," or forms of self-governance that arise from shared civic participation. All such practices arise from local settings that resist the abstraction and depersonalization of liberalism, and from which habits of memory and mutual obligation arise.  (p. 192)

Where do local nonprofits like Legion Arts fit into this analysis?

I am receptive to Deneen’s description of a polity undone by rampant unchecked individualism. I’ve written in much the same vein myself; see this post from 2015. Some days the glass seems half empty, others it seems half full. Even in routine times, it is possible to find evidence from the world around us to support and to refute his argument. Urbanists can testify to the power of the NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”) phenomenon, the allure of private cars, and how understandable concern for property values limits options for affordable housing. Yet there are also a myriad of voluntary organizations whose members defy the collective action problem to pursue some public good. There is the undeniable draw of civic spaces and third places. And when crises hit, like the Cedar River’s rise in 2016, the helpful response of ordinary citizens is awe-inspiring (see Kaplan 2016).

Both sides of humanity are intensified in the current pandemic. There has been the astonishing run on bathroom tissue among other necessities, gun purchases are up, the array of misinformation and butt-covering starting at the toplevels of government (the Trump administration continues to respond to COVID-19 largely as a problem of public relations), and drivers taking advantage of nearly-empty streets to drive at high speeds. These are happening at the same time medical personnel and paramedics are performing heroically (as are other "essential" workers), ordinary people are by and large attentive to scientific evidence and cooperating with recommendations for “social distancing” and working-from-home, and some are finding innovative ways to support each other across physical separation. In my town Cedar Ridge Distillery and all-purpose entrepreneur Steve Shriver produced batch after batch of hand sanitizer for giveaway, Rustic Hearth Bakery is offering free bread to those in need, singer-songwriter Kimberli Maloy is organizing a city-wide sing-along, and people are sharing ideas about how to support local small businesses. And in our neighborhood, these inspirational chalk drawings appeared over the weekend.

Still, even when we see the glass as half full, we might well ask why in such a far-reaching social crisis it’s only filled halfway?

Eventually, the threat of COVID-19 will recede. Though it will take longer than it did the flood waters in 2016 (or even 2008), when it does recede it will reveal a landscape changed in ways at which we can now only guess. At worst, government and economic elites may be able to use the crisis to expand their power, while those individuals and institutions whose economic vulnerabilities have been exposed by the crisis may never recover. At best, enforced separation might help us understand how much we need and desire the company of others, producing an orgy of empathy and community-building. Or maybe a mix of both, a glass both half empty and half full? Maybe we’ll just be glad to be able to touch our face again without feeling that we’re sealing our own doom.

In any case, Deneen explains why liberalism can’t get us through troubling times. Neither can tribalism, which is pretty much liberalism-in-teams. Only connected communities can do that. As Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns writes, “[D]uring times of distress, leaders—especially at the most adaptable local level—step forward and fill the gaps left by incompetence and inflexibility. We need to support these people because, despite the scariness of the unknown, this is an opportunity to reshape the direction of our entire country. To make our systems more bottom-up and responsive. To make them more humane” (Marohn 2020). Come be an urbanist with me!