Another outstanding podcast!
However, Professor Deneen is simply wrong. He is using a straw man to define classical liberalism by only focusing on individual freedoms. The intellectual heritage of our founding is much richer, and the maintenance of our social fabric through strong mediating institutions is inseparable from freedom. In fa…
However, Professor Deneen is simply wrong. He is using a straw man to define classical liberalism by only focusing on individual freedoms. The intellectual heritage of our founding is much richer, and the maintenance of our social fabric through strong mediating institutions is inseparable from freedom. In fact, they are presented as inseparable (hence John Adams' statement that the Constitution is unsuitable for a nonreligious people). The malaise of our culture is not due to the success of the liberal project, but rather the failure of our mediating institutions to sustain the liberal order. It is very possible that we will have to relinquish more of our freedoms over time because our culture lacks the character to sustain it. This would be a failure of the liberal project, not the result of its success.
It’s always the people. The tool only ameliorates or exacerbates, or both. Until more individuals stop looking to/at others as the cause/solution instead of at/within ourselves, the group issues will only worsen.
Deneen's criticism of "Classical Liberalism" is that it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction in as much as it places autonomous, selfish mankind, unconstrained by history, tradition, religion or anything else, at the center of the Universe to decide for himself or herself how to be "Happy." But if individual, autonomous man is the "measure of all things," then of what use is the message of ANY "mediating institution" whose message or wisdom doesn't happen to please me personally? I think Deneen is saying, in part, that it is not merely Liberalism that has destroyed "mediating institutions," but the inevitable radical, autonomous, individualism that is created when individual "man is the measure of all things" - unconstrained by tradition, history, wisdom, religion, etc. It is we who, in our autonomous arrogance and hubris, have passed judgment on our "mediating institutions" and found them wanting. I think Deneen's point is well taken in this regard.
Classical liberalism does no such thing! Deneen seems to be equating classical liberalism with Randian utilitarianism. The concept of ordered liberty does not separate freedom from morality. Freedom only works when people's passions are constrained by virtues. We should be talking about strengthening the local platoons, federalism, and helping people succeed. Homework assistance in neighborhoods with high rates of fatherlessness. Prison ministry and reform. Sunday school. I disagree with Professor Deneen's characterization of the liberal project, which has been sabotoged for more than 100 years by progressives and now by people on the right, as somehow the problem.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing but talking past each other. I embrace the ideas of Christian Philosopher and social commentator Os Guiness in his book "Last Call for Liberty," whose ideas the publisher summarizes as: "... we face a fundamental crisis of freedom, as America's genius for freedom has become her Achilles' heel. Our society's conflicts are rooted in two rival views of freedom, one embodied in "1776" and the ideals of the American Revolution and the other in "1789" and the ideals of the French Revolution. Once again, America has become a house divided, and Americans must make up their minds as to which freedom to follow. Will the constitutional republic be restored or replaced?" It’s worth reading. See Last Call for Liberty by Os Guinness on Audible. https://www.audible.com/pd/B07HP99XVT?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007
Love Os! Haven't read that one, and I will take your advice and do so. The comparison between American and French revolutions is certainly relevant. I want my Constitutional Republic back!
Thomas, I would not say that the good Professor is wrong, but that he has not moved far enough into spelling out ways to make things better - at least not in this forum. He was also facing a debater that would usually act as a seeker of truth and then throw out a moral shaming argument: "There's no way you would want to take away birth control, would you?" Mr. Stephens asks a man who is apparently a practicing Catholic.
I think Stephens' only really strong point was when he asked where has this been tried and it worked. Deneen is then left trying to defend Hungary's Orban, who may or may not have been misinterpreted and may or may not have been fairly treated by the American and Western European press, but is definitely not looked on by most Americans as a great guy. Maybe Hungary is doing great in some significant regards, but the country is not highly regarded in the US or most of the West.
I think Deneen is right in thinking that a major indicator of the health of our society is its ability to sustain or grow the population. Stephens has accepted as true that "there are just too many of us." That, I think, is a mistake.
This is like the debate club when the better debater is given the inferior argument to defend. Stephen could have done much better, but Prof Deneen is wrong about the major facts. For starters, as I pointed out, he defeats a straw man nobody asserts, namely the ideas of indviidual liberty and self-governance apart from the inculcation of morality. Second, the liberal project has in fact been sabotoged by progressives in at least two fundamental ways: 1) the dismantling of limited government (a specific goal of Woodrow Wilson that he did in fact achieve) and replacement with nationalization, the equating of government and culture (i.e., fascism); and 2) the use of government to reward poor behavior and eliminate consequences of irresponsible behavior. Third, Prof Deneen states that liberalism and freedom are especially bad for poor or unskilled people. WHat is the evidence for this? He seems to suffer from the common misperception that the success of some people comes at the expense of other. No, all have been much much better off under systems of economic freedom. The solution is to restore the liberal and Constitutional order, not to blame it! You can't beat the hell out of the golden goose and then complain that it is not laying as many golden eggs.
Another outstanding podcast!
However, Professor Deneen is simply wrong. He is using a straw man to define classical liberalism by only focusing on individual freedoms. The intellectual heritage of our founding is much richer, and the maintenance of our social fabric through strong mediating institutions is inseparable from freedom. In fact, they are presented as inseparable (hence John Adams' statement that the Constitution is unsuitable for a nonreligious people). The malaise of our culture is not due to the success of the liberal project, but rather the failure of our mediating institutions to sustain the liberal order. It is very possible that we will have to relinquish more of our freedoms over time because our culture lacks the character to sustain it. This would be a failure of the liberal project, not the result of its success.
It’s always the people. The tool only ameliorates or exacerbates, or both. Until more individuals stop looking to/at others as the cause/solution instead of at/within ourselves, the group issues will only worsen.
Deneen's criticism of "Classical Liberalism" is that it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction in as much as it places autonomous, selfish mankind, unconstrained by history, tradition, religion or anything else, at the center of the Universe to decide for himself or herself how to be "Happy." But if individual, autonomous man is the "measure of all things," then of what use is the message of ANY "mediating institution" whose message or wisdom doesn't happen to please me personally? I think Deneen is saying, in part, that it is not merely Liberalism that has destroyed "mediating institutions," but the inevitable radical, autonomous, individualism that is created when individual "man is the measure of all things" - unconstrained by tradition, history, wisdom, religion, etc. It is we who, in our autonomous arrogance and hubris, have passed judgment on our "mediating institutions" and found them wanting. I think Deneen's point is well taken in this regard.
Classical liberalism does no such thing! Deneen seems to be equating classical liberalism with Randian utilitarianism. The concept of ordered liberty does not separate freedom from morality. Freedom only works when people's passions are constrained by virtues. We should be talking about strengthening the local platoons, federalism, and helping people succeed. Homework assistance in neighborhoods with high rates of fatherlessness. Prison ministry and reform. Sunday school. I disagree with Professor Deneen's characterization of the liberal project, which has been sabotoged for more than 100 years by progressives and now by people on the right, as somehow the problem.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing but talking past each other. I embrace the ideas of Christian Philosopher and social commentator Os Guiness in his book "Last Call for Liberty," whose ideas the publisher summarizes as: "... we face a fundamental crisis of freedom, as America's genius for freedom has become her Achilles' heel. Our society's conflicts are rooted in two rival views of freedom, one embodied in "1776" and the ideals of the American Revolution and the other in "1789" and the ideals of the French Revolution. Once again, America has become a house divided, and Americans must make up their minds as to which freedom to follow. Will the constitutional republic be restored or replaced?" It’s worth reading. See Last Call for Liberty by Os Guinness on Audible. https://www.audible.com/pd/B07HP99XVT?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007
Love Os! Haven't read that one, and I will take your advice and do so. The comparison between American and French revolutions is certainly relevant. I want my Constitutional Republic back!
Right?! I'm totally with you...🙂
Thomas, I would not say that the good Professor is wrong, but that he has not moved far enough into spelling out ways to make things better - at least not in this forum. He was also facing a debater that would usually act as a seeker of truth and then throw out a moral shaming argument: "There's no way you would want to take away birth control, would you?" Mr. Stephens asks a man who is apparently a practicing Catholic.
I think Stephens' only really strong point was when he asked where has this been tried and it worked. Deneen is then left trying to defend Hungary's Orban, who may or may not have been misinterpreted and may or may not have been fairly treated by the American and Western European press, but is definitely not looked on by most Americans as a great guy. Maybe Hungary is doing great in some significant regards, but the country is not highly regarded in the US or most of the West.
I think Deneen is right in thinking that a major indicator of the health of our society is its ability to sustain or grow the population. Stephens has accepted as true that "there are just too many of us." That, I think, is a mistake.
This is like the debate club when the better debater is given the inferior argument to defend. Stephen could have done much better, but Prof Deneen is wrong about the major facts. For starters, as I pointed out, he defeats a straw man nobody asserts, namely the ideas of indviidual liberty and self-governance apart from the inculcation of morality. Second, the liberal project has in fact been sabotoged by progressives in at least two fundamental ways: 1) the dismantling of limited government (a specific goal of Woodrow Wilson that he did in fact achieve) and replacement with nationalization, the equating of government and culture (i.e., fascism); and 2) the use of government to reward poor behavior and eliminate consequences of irresponsible behavior. Third, Prof Deneen states that liberalism and freedom are especially bad for poor or unskilled people. WHat is the evidence for this? He seems to suffer from the common misperception that the success of some people comes at the expense of other. No, all have been much much better off under systems of economic freedom. The solution is to restore the liberal and Constitutional order, not to blame it! You can't beat the hell out of the golden goose and then complain that it is not laying as many golden eggs.