Myths and realities of post-liberalism

In a world where state economic and legislative intervention is becoming increasingly pervasive, it is curious how much of the discourse describes a parallel reality: a landscape in which there is a need for more coercion and less freedom, because the former is deemed insufficient and the latter excessive. Curious, up to a point. Freedom is demanding and therefore requires a certain kind of person and of institutions: Luigi Sturzo maintained that ‘freedom is put into practice every day, defended every day, and regained every day’. Coercion, by contrast, stems from the demand for greater security and is aimed at restricting the possibilities that human life offers. It often happens that the term ‘freedom’ is used to mean something else, primarily equality. Alexis de Tocqueville warned on this point: if freedom is conceived as a means to a different end, one is destined to serve, certainly not to be free. The political and cultural alliance hostile to freedom is now well-established. This is above all because it brings together broad sections of both the right and the left: expressed perhaps in slightly different terms, but the ever-present ‘common good’ is invoked by both sides. Why? Because we must change course, building a world that is less free and open – assuming it ever truly was – and more, or entirely, politically oriented. This is true of all authors who describe themselves as ‘post-liberal’.

A few years ago, in a book that deserves to be read and discussed, the American political theorist Patrick J. Deneen set out the reasons for the failure of liberalism and individual freedom. In his view, liberal theory inevitably leads to the destruction of the moral and institutional foundations of the human world. Freedom, therefore, would consume itself, and liberalism would be nothing more than an anti-human ideology: that is, one aimed at constructing a context devoid of roots and community support, without values or a heritage to pass on. The thesis is interesting, though not new: the caricature of liberalism is a constant that flares up from time to time, yet never fails to find support amongst many – indeed, the majority – of intellectuals. But there is more to it, as James M. Patterson and Thomas Howes demonstrate in "Why Postliberalism Failed" (Acton Institute). Although relatively new as a label, reality shows that there have been several concrete examples of postliberalism in practice, with disastrous results. The collectivist movements of the twentieth century, from Latin America to the European examples of a fascist nature, were utter failures from every point of view. What interests scholars, however, is to emphasise a distinctive trend within one interpretation of post-liberalism, which has its roots in classical reactionary thought (de Maistre and de Bonald, above all) and which regards the state as the earthly instrument of the Catholic religion and the implementation of God’s will.

Capitalism is seen as an alienating and depersonalising machine that undermines the common good; representative democracy fractures the general will and the community as a whole; Freedom, to quote the authors’ reference to Louis Billot, is “an inanimate god behind whom Satan is preparing to reduce nations to a servitude far worse than that with which he had chained the world by means of the material idols of paganism”. In short, the free world is hell on earth. How can we create paradise? Hand over the keys to the State, guided by religious precepts, and its new elites will lead you towards the common good. Organise yourselves as a flock, and the post-liberal good shepherd will lead you to the good life. Amen.