"These decisive, if heavy-handed, actions come at a time when democrats globally are searching for strategies to deal with populists."
Once again, the EU confuses democracy and liberalism. "Liberal democracy" sounded so good, but it was always an oxymoron. There is an innate conflict between the democratic (law should reflect popular will) and the liberal (law should reflect universal principles regardless of popular will). We're seeing this play out throughout the West today with Orwellian comments like that above.
The time for choosing is now. Are you a democrat first or a liberal first? To put democracy ahead of liberalism, you must be willing to accept the legitimacy of popularly supported policies even that you despise. Putting liberalism before democracy may promote your definition of "good", but it still makes you an authoritarian.
Excellent article. Sad for Poland, sad for the West. Hope this article inspires more people to awaken and take action to conserve our foundational values.
The opening line alone clearly differentiates classical liberalism from the utopian progressivism that is masquerading as liberal democracy: “We are not God. We cannot become God, make God, or speak with the authority of God. This is axiomatic and the beginning of wisdom and prosperity.”
I think Lindsay clearly captures what classical liberalism is about and it looks nothing like the thing that calls itself “liberal democracy”, but should more accurately be described as progressivism (with maybe some neoconservatism thrown in for good measure). Leftism and progressivism destroyed their own brand and repackaged themselves by stealing the term “liberalism”. This has become so entrenched that we just accept their usage of the term. The danger is that by misidentifying the voluminous shortcomings of progressivism and leftism as being the shortcomings of “liberalism” we don’t leave ourselves anywhere to turn. It can make it seem like we are left with only three choices - leftism, fascism, or this evil progressivism which calls itself liberal democracy but isn’t. If we allow ourselves to see the world through that lens, then the authoritarians have won.
Locke's invention was a "value-neutral" state that exists primarily to protect individual rights and police conflicts. It wasn't a bad response to the European wars of religion: can we stop trying to kill each other over rival interpretations of God and get on to making money? (The Dutch were actually pretty explicit about this.) That is the core of the Enlightenment.
However, this framework (government existing primarily to protect innate rights man received from God) requires a Creator with whom man shares some divine attributes ("made in the image of God"). There's a reason these ideas weren't invented in MesoAmerica or China or Arabia -- theology matters. Lockean liberalism is nonsensical without a pre-existing, broadly shared, Judeo/Christian (or at least monotheistic) moral order. But the very "value-neutral state" Enlightenment liberalism creates immediately starts undermining that moral order, as it places "individual autonomy" above the very Judeo/Christian values it needs to exist.
No one noticed this for a while because we had 1700 years of shared cultural inertia, but having now burned through, we face theological conflicts (competing value judgements about the nature of man and his rights and duties) that Enlightenment liberalism is powerless to resolve. Progressivism certainly put this on steroids (thanks John Stuart Mill) but Patrick Deneen has done a great job of showing that this conflict was present from the beginning.
The same liberationist tendencies that freed black women from the tyranny of slavery now frees their great-grand-daughters from the tyranny of biology. Progressivism isn't a break from classical liberalism. It is classical liberalism's assumptions taken to their logical endpoint.
I appreciate the exchange, but I am in no way trying to split the baby. And I’m not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water either ;) . We’re taking “Liberal” back.
The ills we face today are the works of leftists and progressives masquerading under the stolen title of “liberal”. Classical liberalism as laid down by Locke and our founding fathers (and summarized eloquently by Lindsay) should in no way be conflated with these ideologies. A value-neutral state, as you fairly characterized it, is vastly different from a state run in accordance with the Marxian theosophy of the Left or by utopian progressives.
What I will grant you, though, is that classical liberalism is susceptible to infection from these and other viruses. Recognizing this, it seems the proper solution is to better understand those viruses in order to better combat them in defense of classical liberalism, rather than to toss out the gifts of the enlightenment in favor of who-knows-what in their place.
"A value-neutral state, as you fairly characterized it, is vastly different from a state run in accordance with the Marxian theosophy of the Left or by utopian progressives."
Once you have removed a shared set of values, and made the state "value neutral" the current situation will develop over the course of a few centuries, as this idea of "value neutrality" slowly erodes the previous (values-based) culture.
"Marxian pheosophy" is just a random manifestation of the kind of prevalent ideology that emerges, predicated on some historical contigencies of its time.
With or without Marx, the real natural endpoint of the value-neutral state is the war on every previous limit, the placement of the individual and its subjective will and desire above everything, which ironically makes the state more necessary than ever, in order to avoid the war of everybody against everybody else (over their arbitrary and uncoordinated individual wills).
Suddenly every sentiment that was once shared, every compromise, and understanding between people based on shared values now has to be mediated by law. Because - what else would you base it on, given a value-neutral state?
The "original intent" or "real meaning" of liberalism doesn't really matter, it's the end results that do.
I hope you're correct, that progressivism is an infection you can excise and the patient will carry on. I remain convinced that it's not an infection but simply the aging process itself. Liberalism is terminal. But as I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Great discourse by the way. I wonder if another way of looking at classical liberalism is two oppositional forces held in balance. If one weakens and the other strengthens, there is a dangerous imbalance in the body politic.
Isn't it amazing how the conversation improves when people have to pay to participate. :-) Martin and Nick and I could never have done this on Twitter or Facebook, as the loons drown out everything else.
It's funny that private property (which is what a Substack is) creates a space for such public exchange. Possibly some IRL lessons from that too. (Ok, maybe only for an econ nerd like me.)
The only downside is spending too much time and money on Susbtack. But it is worth it for good writing and thoughtful comments where we can learn more through a respectful dialogue - our very own liberal society.
"It seems to me that we have lost track of what “liberalism” actually means and it is time to take it back"
Better not. Once words lose their meaning or are abused, they're no returning "no, but it really meant this originally, see?".
It only helps dillute the opposition to modern liberalism -- "I'm liberal too, but the right kind of liberal" is a less strong message than "we're done with liberalism".
Tony raises a good point though, Nick. Once you say "we're done with liberalism" (a sentiment I share) the obvious question is, "what's else is there?" The Left has an alternative (wokeness); the Right has none at this point.
For all their faults, Deneen and Amari are at least trying to answer this question. Unfortunately since all their fellow Catholic integralists in America would fit into a Starbucks, they're unlikely to get their wish. But at least they're trying. Trump has no answer to this; he doesn't even understand the problem. Nor do the Conservative, Inc think-tanks; even the ones like Hoover that have embraced populism don't seem to know what to do if they get power. I'm not even sure what my answer is, and I'm a postliberal HS government and philosophy teacher.
It's obvious what's wrong; it's less obvious what should replace it. The Left's answer is catastrophic. What's ours?
Perhaps an answer should emerge organically (which is the opposite of the managerial top-down approach of "liberalism"). But of course that, as a general sentiment, doesn't make for a very effective strategy, compared to an already organized opposition, complete with slogans, and most of the establishment on its side.
I think a catalyst that will solidify a more coherent political stance might be the increasing worsening material conditions, and the continued breakdown of all the false promises of the manageria/technocratic ideology. Of course their side is agile too, e.g. they're already backtracking on the subject of globalism, for example ("We've always been at war with China" to paraphrase Orwell).
The left always co-opts the language and turns it to its own uses. They have stolen “justice”, “democracy”, and countless others and twisted them to their own uses. “Liberal” is no different. The choice we have is to keep ceding ground to them on the semantic battlefield or actually fight back and retake ground.
“Liberal” is a great place to start, so we are going to take it back.
I'm not taking "liberal" back. Liberalism is authoritarianism in disguise (see Legutko or Deneen). It's rooted in an ever expanding list of universal principles not subject to infringement. The list may start small, but the 20th century demonstrates how it grows until "liberal" rules pervade every human interaction and curtail every expression of popular will -- Alexis de Tocqueville's nightmare come to life.
The term we need to take back is "democrat" (small d) -- policy must be rooted in the will of the people. Are there risks to democracy? Absolutely! But where has undemocratic liberalism gotten us: men in women's locker rooms; an open border; "free" trade impoverishing our working class. All in the name of liberation, of course! No thanks.
I've seen the will of the liberal elites; it sucks. I'll take my chances with the will of the demos.
"Language" in general is vague in itself though when it comes to such terms. "Democracy" and "Justice" is even more vague. It's in the nature of politics that if a term is generally revered, each side will claim to be the best representative of it and interpret it on its own terms.
Now, while "Liberal" has had a more specific heritage, it too wasn't really well defined at any given point. But while "Justice" and "Democracy" are ancient, necessary abstract terms, used across societies and cultures, and culturally defined), "Liberal" is just a relatively recent (say, 2 centuries) term that caught on.
And it's so strongly associated with the Left today, that reclaiming it is a tall-order, and a losing proposition. Re-claiming some historical contigent term most people (aside from political pundits and ideologues in either side) don't care about anyway, wont make much of a difference.
Whereas giving meaning, or fighting to maintain the original meaning of essential terms like "Justice" or "Democracy" serves far more.
I do follow your articles meticulously and find them quite informative and interesting.
However, your description of the situation in Germany (admittedly only mentioned very briefly) is not correct.
There are parts of the current German coalition who suggested a ban of the AfD, but trying to ban the party is certainly not consensus in German mainstream political circles, and is certainly not contemplated by the German state (in toto). The people who suggested so also received quite a bit of critique. Let alone that it is quite difficult to do so as one has to surmount high hurdles.
Also, I dispute the assertion that AfD is the only real opposition party; the CDU (under a new leadership) is the main opposition party and is clearly presenting an alternative to the current government. I rest here as I do not want to go too deep into German politics, but as written the characterisation of the German political situation is in my view no accurate
The CDU has forfeited a lot of trust by their past actions. The burning question is will they form a coalition with AfD. If they continue to freeze them out, then they have not changed.
Richard hit the nail on the head above: is the CDU willing to enter a coalition with AfD? They have historically joined the German mainstream to freeze out AfD. If that's still the case, they are not truly an opposition party at all.
The French immigration bill passing only with RN's backing last month was monumental, the first sign of a crack in the "thou shalt not consort with the Right" commandment of European politics. This behavior (in France and Germany at least) has backfired, as the longer they refuse to talk to RN or AfD, the stronger those parties become. After the EU elections in June, the so-called "far-Right" will likely be too large a voting bloc to continue to ignore. Expect rapid attempts to co-opt them.
> it is certainly not contemplated by the German state
Well, except for the people who make up the ruling coalition, and the guy who runs the organization that's allowed to ban political parties (who is also a CDU member!). Except for those people the State isn't considering it, indeed.
> trying to ban the party is certainly not consensus in German mainstream political circles
That is tautological. Of course it's not YET, otherwise it'd have already been done and the conversation would be entirely different. The point is that if it reaches the point where that consensus is established then it's already too late.
It is Gnosticism all the way down, as says this author.
Professor Patrick Deneen of the post-liberal substack refers it to it as “the political gnosticism of the liberal imperium.”
Gnosticism - special knowledge - is the mobilization of our fear, it is our education, turned into arrogance, turned into action, sans limitations, and because we are special, just like mommy said, we charge forth and calamity ensues in the name of our faith. Our annual ritual, November 11, we commemorate the lives lost, vowing to “never forget” but we commit the same errors that precipitated the old war which is to say, of course, WE ALWAYS FORGET!
Eventually your little Gnostic self will push me too the brink and I won’t take it so I take action and then it begins again, we return to our alma mater, and we learn anew: no atheists in a fox hole.
The thing that has me down is Curtis Yarvin’s concept of the cathedral . He says the engine of all human polity is the “selective advantage of dominant ideas, and the inability of recessive ideas to compete.” I call it the intersection of practical consideration and human ambition.
Depressingly it appears we must cycle through war because we simply cannot manage ourselves. That’s why he’s a monarchist. Our psychological reality does not allow for collective action that doesn’t become grossly distorted. We are a self destructive species.
What the West (EU and the Anglosphere) need is 1848 with yellow vests. However, it is likely to end in failure since the populists like the revolutionaries of 1848 are fractured. What we need is a Populist Manifesto. The populists are outraged by the activities of the ruling class but unfocused and unable to prioritize. Such a document would come up with a specific and positive program and also allow us to identify fake populists which are in abundance not only in the US but throughout the West.
Populism has always had a Right aspect and a Left aspect but the last person who could unify those aspects was William Jennings Bryan. Not a perfect man by any means but was able to identify the Cross of Gold and serve as a prosecutor in the Scopes trial. While we are waiting for that a document that codifies our position would be helpful.
My own preferences would be to focus on the control of the levers of power by the ruling class. Many of these levers are economic and breaking the ruling class could involve leftist ideas as well as rightist ideas. The Canadian experiment in using the banking system is far more dangerous to us than the brown shirts of yesteryear.
I think N. S. Lyons is the right person to write such a document, if he is willing.
First of all, again a very interesting piece of work, and I fully agree liberalism has degraded to "woke", with characteristics as well described by Legutko and yourself.
But as a west european, now living in Poland, I disagree with some statements in the article. PiS is not the noble voice of people against the dictature of the liberals. PiS stopped the "Shock Dictrine" of the ninetees, based on fear and traditional obedience to teacher and priest . Without offering any alternatives, just defending old structures that could not survive... policies of PiS caused a lot of damage and delay for many people, who want Poland to be equally prosperous as its western neighbours who worked, or still work within the EU, and made money to build a house at home, and nice clothes for wife and kids, and feel indepedent.... a life completely different to the socialist and catholic times, when all this was forbidden..... Most of the economic development of Poland is based on European integation. PiS was actively blocking this integration, forbidding non-traditional life styles, but using the growing economy, tax base and EU fundings to strengthen former bureaucrats following priests. Many people felt it as the old prison, and as some kind of theft (of their work and energy) ... And PiS did not really enter into a discussion.. PiS was the moral teacher. Many Poles are sick and tired of this policy.... Ofcourse, as critical west european citizen, I question the golden promises of the free economy. I understand its hypocrisy. But I had 50 years or more to come to this understanding, and most of the Poles have not had this luxery. And I also agree, this does not justify repeating the wrong doings as revenge... The overall picture you describe, how "DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS" claim to have the moral right, and are doing everything to defend their power, is certainly true in most west european countries. In the Netherlands, 20 years of liberalism is now doing everything to block alternative voices. In Germany, the isolation of the AfD, promoted by most political parties, is scary. Forbid AfD and millions of Germans are outlaws...Hopely it wont happen. However, it must be said, AfD is sometimes expressing opinions that seem close to former fascists, which ofcourse is an absolute "no go" for most Germans. Remembering pre WW2, they are scared... So, also here, the reality is more nuanced than you state... Still, overall your reaction to the woke liberalism is a healthy alternative voice, which I wholeheartedly support. thanks..
I am actually Polish and what you say is utter bullshit, a one quite typical for a liberal PMC (or aspiring).
1. Literally any macroeconomic statistic, from GDP to disposable income, shows that the 8 years of the PiS rule were a time of extraordinary development, also reflected by increasing quality of life (also self-reported). And all this was in the time of covid and russian invasion on Ukraine.
2. And this development was largely because of the government policies, significantly (even if not rhetorically) motivated by old school social democratic ideas, particularly wage-led growth (an idea often attributed to another great Polish scholar - Michał Kalecki).
3. And all this was combined with major infrastructural projects, from the first Polish airport hub to new gas pipelines and trade ports for large container ships. Literally all these projects are now being actively cancelled by the new goverment, which is evidently directly controlled by Berlin. (You can convince youself of this through a simple application of Occham's razor, but let us leave this point for another time.)
4. As a matter of fact, that can be proved by a simple analysis of historical pollings, PiS lost power primarly because of its extremely stupid move to violate the abortion status quo (or at least the lack of will to stop this development which actually at least formally originated outside of the gov and the rulling party), which was an important latent pillar of the general national social contract.
There are of course many more reasons why the comment of @Anton van der Burgt is a pile of nonesenses and hallucinations detached from anything real (and very typical for the liberal PMC mindset), but the 4 points above should do for a good starter.
dear sztal. agree on facts in the 4 points and I agree that new government is overacting, partly in revenge.... but economic developments you mention were also funded by, or thanks to business with the EU . Wage-led growth was/is the right strategy, certainly. But why so angry with me, when I say that the article was a little one sided.... Is the country not divided?
First, I apologize for being somewhat too confrontational. On the other hand, however, it is honestly quite irritating to constantly see the same talking points being repeated. Talking points that are, for the most part, completely manufactured and/or hallucinated by, roughly speaking, the liberal managerial class (an important side note: in many semi-peripheric countries, Poland included, PMC is significantly oriented towards foreign countries, those that are central in a sense of the economic world-system, and as a result is largely indifferent or even hostile towards the raison d’état of their country. This is why you can find so many complete hallucinations about Poland circulating in the global media, primarly mainstream but not only, of which the lion share is of domestic making; this phenomenon is, perhaps, particularly strong in Poland due to the historical role and hegemony of the intelligentsia as a social class, but this is a complex topic for another time - but do look up the work of Tomasz Zarycki if this sounds interesting.)
So to give an example of a hallucination that you repeat, let us look at the supposed "EU-scepticism" of PiS. This is an entirely manufactured non-truth (with a running of risk of becoming self-fulffilling prophecy), as you will never find anti-EU objectives in the actual program of the party. As most of the Polish society, PiS is largely pro-EU. That said, it is - as many people in Poland - quite sceptical of the ongoing federalization, which is by the way imposed top-down through almost completely non-democratic legalist tricks. But being an anti-federationist does not make you anti-EU. However, it is always rhetorically presented as such by the mainstream media.
And an important side note (again!) is that being anti-federationist is actually pretty reasonable from the Polish raison d’état, so it is really hard (if you want to be honest), to make an accusation against someone out of it. Why? It is simple. Federated EU will obviously put more power into the hands of the largest states, particularly Germany. And really since times immemorial subjugating/dominating Poland (and middle Europe more generally, but Poland as the largest state of the region is of course most important here) is the core objective of the entire German foreign policy. You can find this almost explictily stated in, at least, policy documents of government-affiliated think tanks (I can try to dig it up, if you really need to see that), if not in official government policies (that I am not sure about, though). And, obviously, one of the main reasons why Germany wants to control CEE region is that once it has it, it can use to make a deal with Russia allowing it to subsequently dominate the western Europe. (Until very recently that deal was about getting very cheap energy from FR. Once the arrangement was cancelled by the war in Ukraine, the whole German economy is in shambles, and this is why it is so important for them to subjugate Poland, which is developing very fast, and the beaurocratic machinery of the EU is the primary tool for achieving this goal.)
Anyways, my point is, almost any other "fact" you mentioned is similarly untrue, when you scratch the surface. And frankly, N.S. Lyons made a terrific job with the latest piece as he managed to get almost all the facts correct. One can argue with his interpretations of what the facts mean, of course, but the fact that the new Polish government is pretty much 100% aligned (if not directly controlled) by some faction(s), primarly German but apparently also U.S. (which is indicated by the way the current U.S. ambassador behaves), of the managerial class (understood here in the sense proposed by N.S. Lyons, that is, primarly through their redefinition of "democracy") is almost self-evident.
So it is really hard to understand, how this article can be one-sided. It gets the fact correct, it presents a not really far-fetched interpretation of those facts, and very much consistent with the general theory underlying all the thinking in this blog. And the fact that the country is divided (which it is!) does not negate that. Polarization does not mean that the truth must be in the middle. The truth is where it is.
(And the last side note: it is becoming more and more evident, imho, that the global phenomenon of polarization is largely driven by the rise to power of the PMC; but, again, this is a matter for another time, and I can't help the feeling that N.S. Lyons will write about it one day.)
Great, almost fully agree. Interesting points you make about Germany, I have probably underestimated this "impression". Maybe for me PiS is overshadowed by Mr. Kaszynski, or maybe I dont think it is a real alternative to "the democrats", because it reminds me too much about my own catholic upbringing, in full obedience to priest, teacher and mayor. Thanks for pointing to Tomasz Zarycki and your comments!
You're welcome, it is nice to see someone honestly interested in history/society/politics of Poland, instead of just looking for a confirmation of his priors!
Douglas Murray once remarked about Eastern Europe, and I am paraphrasing, "the East retains a tragic sense of life." He made the comment in the context of commentary about Western Europeans' disdain for the works of their ancestors and embrace of migrants as a form of redemption (e.g., expiating the guilt of colonialism). But I can't help but think that he had an optimistic view of the durability of Eastern Europe's immunity to the totalitarian impulse in modern liberalism - its hatred of any and all limits, from national borders to human biology. Eastern Europe will remain (comparatively) sane for as long as those who lived under and remember Communist rule are still alive and active in public life.
Poland is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If a country with a national identity rooted in resistance to foreign powers and their alien ideologies cannot effectively push back against managerial liberalism, then I shudder to think of what the future holds for countries where the managerial revolution is farther along.
Reading Legutko helped me better understand the Russian liberal opposition. Their hatred of Putin (just in case, not a fan of his) is less about wanting freedom for the Russian people, whom they despise anyway, and more about being denied the power they feel entitled to.
It is frustrating that we don’t have a common definition or understanding of terms like democracy, liberal, conservative, Nazi, communist, socialist, etc. When someone claims that XYZ is a threat to democracy, what do they mean? That non-citizens will be allowed to vote? That people don’t have to verify their identity to vote? Or the Executive Branch will choose which laws it wishes to enforce or which “laws” it will create without legislative authority?
We see “democracy” as good, so a threat to democracy must be stopped. Just like “Nazi” is bad, so someone labeled as a Nazi must be stopped. No definitions required.
The US is a constitutional republic constructed with checks and balances to protect the minority from democracy’s majority rule (aka mob rule). The whole argument about “threat to democracy” is a smokescreen to take control of the voting process by any means necessary to secure power. Arguing about the label given to the ideology behind the power play is a fool’s errand, since the label will be redefined or co-opted by the power-seekers. The enemy to our way of life is standing before us, call them what you will, they must be stopped.
Great article. I wasn't aware of the situation in Poland. As a subscriber from Brazil, the similarities to what is happening here are striking [1,2]. It seems that International Socialism gave rise to International Progressivism, and with technological and communication advances, the managerial class is able to work in tandem across country boundaries like never before.
Demon in Democracy is an amazing book that really opened my eyes when I read it 6-7 years ago. Legutko has a rare set of life experience (communist dissident, Polish MP, philosophy professor) with which he makes connections that others miss. And the succeeding 8 years have born out his predictions.
He wrote a second book a couple of years ago called The Cunning of Freedom that I believe is underrated but equally good. I'm surprised Lyons didn't mention it.
Legutko's book is excellent and brings a much needed European perspective to the question. For a similar look at these issues from a U.S. viewpoint see James Kalb's 'The Tyranny of Liberalism' (2008).
Very good. Yeah the stuff going on these days is perplexing, and it makes me wonder about all of the people who buy into this stuff about democracy being in danger, far right, etc. How credulous can one be? Do you not realize that someone can lie? Someone can claim to be inclusive, but not be? Fighting fascism, but actually acting fascistic?
Excellent work. What is going on in Poland should make everyone weep.
"These decisive, if heavy-handed, actions come at a time when democrats globally are searching for strategies to deal with populists."
Once again, the EU confuses democracy and liberalism. "Liberal democracy" sounded so good, but it was always an oxymoron. There is an innate conflict between the democratic (law should reflect popular will) and the liberal (law should reflect universal principles regardless of popular will). We're seeing this play out throughout the West today with Orwellian comments like that above.
The time for choosing is now. Are you a democrat first or a liberal first? To put democracy ahead of liberalism, you must be willing to accept the legitimacy of popularly supported policies even that you despise. Putting liberalism before democracy may promote your definition of "good", but it still makes you an authoritarian.
Excellent article. Sad for Poland, sad for the West. Hope this article inspires more people to awaken and take action to conserve our foundational values.
It seems to me that we have lost track of what “liberalism” actually means and it is time to take it back.
James Lindsay has done some great work on that front, particularly in this essay and the related podcast episode. https://newdiscourses.com/2023/11/basis-of-classical-liberalism/
The opening line alone clearly differentiates classical liberalism from the utopian progressivism that is masquerading as liberal democracy: “We are not God. We cannot become God, make God, or speak with the authority of God. This is axiomatic and the beginning of wisdom and prosperity.”
I think Lindsay clearly captures what classical liberalism is about and it looks nothing like the thing that calls itself “liberal democracy”, but should more accurately be described as progressivism (with maybe some neoconservatism thrown in for good measure). Leftism and progressivism destroyed their own brand and repackaged themselves by stealing the term “liberalism”. This has become so entrenched that we just accept their usage of the term. The danger is that by misidentifying the voluminous shortcomings of progressivism and leftism as being the shortcomings of “liberalism” we don’t leave ourselves anywhere to turn. It can make it seem like we are left with only three choices - leftism, fascism, or this evil progressivism which calls itself liberal democracy but isn’t. If we allow ourselves to see the world through that lens, then the authoritarians have won.
I think you're trying to split the baby here.
Locke's invention was a "value-neutral" state that exists primarily to protect individual rights and police conflicts. It wasn't a bad response to the European wars of religion: can we stop trying to kill each other over rival interpretations of God and get on to making money? (The Dutch were actually pretty explicit about this.) That is the core of the Enlightenment.
However, this framework (government existing primarily to protect innate rights man received from God) requires a Creator with whom man shares some divine attributes ("made in the image of God"). There's a reason these ideas weren't invented in MesoAmerica or China or Arabia -- theology matters. Lockean liberalism is nonsensical without a pre-existing, broadly shared, Judeo/Christian (or at least monotheistic) moral order. But the very "value-neutral state" Enlightenment liberalism creates immediately starts undermining that moral order, as it places "individual autonomy" above the very Judeo/Christian values it needs to exist.
No one noticed this for a while because we had 1700 years of shared cultural inertia, but having now burned through, we face theological conflicts (competing value judgements about the nature of man and his rights and duties) that Enlightenment liberalism is powerless to resolve. Progressivism certainly put this on steroids (thanks John Stuart Mill) but Patrick Deneen has done a great job of showing that this conflict was present from the beginning.
The same liberationist tendencies that freed black women from the tyranny of slavery now frees their great-grand-daughters from the tyranny of biology. Progressivism isn't a break from classical liberalism. It is classical liberalism's assumptions taken to their logical endpoint.
I appreciate the exchange, but I am in no way trying to split the baby. And I’m not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water either ;) . We’re taking “Liberal” back.
The ills we face today are the works of leftists and progressives masquerading under the stolen title of “liberal”. Classical liberalism as laid down by Locke and our founding fathers (and summarized eloquently by Lindsay) should in no way be conflated with these ideologies. A value-neutral state, as you fairly characterized it, is vastly different from a state run in accordance with the Marxian theosophy of the Left or by utopian progressives.
What I will grant you, though, is that classical liberalism is susceptible to infection from these and other viruses. Recognizing this, it seems the proper solution is to better understand those viruses in order to better combat them in defense of classical liberalism, rather than to toss out the gifts of the enlightenment in favor of who-knows-what in their place.
"A value-neutral state, as you fairly characterized it, is vastly different from a state run in accordance with the Marxian theosophy of the Left or by utopian progressives."
Once you have removed a shared set of values, and made the state "value neutral" the current situation will develop over the course of a few centuries, as this idea of "value neutrality" slowly erodes the previous (values-based) culture.
"Marxian pheosophy" is just a random manifestation of the kind of prevalent ideology that emerges, predicated on some historical contigencies of its time.
With or without Marx, the real natural endpoint of the value-neutral state is the war on every previous limit, the placement of the individual and its subjective will and desire above everything, which ironically makes the state more necessary than ever, in order to avoid the war of everybody against everybody else (over their arbitrary and uncoordinated individual wills).
Suddenly every sentiment that was once shared, every compromise, and understanding between people based on shared values now has to be mediated by law. Because - what else would you base it on, given a value-neutral state?
The "original intent" or "real meaning" of liberalism doesn't really matter, it's the end results that do.
Excellent summary. Far better than mine. :-)
I hope you're correct, that progressivism is an infection you can excise and the patient will carry on. I remain convinced that it's not an infection but simply the aging process itself. Liberalism is terminal. But as I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Great discourse by the way. I wonder if another way of looking at classical liberalism is two oppositional forces held in balance. If one weakens and the other strengthens, there is a dangerous imbalance in the body politic.
Isn't it amazing how the conversation improves when people have to pay to participate. :-) Martin and Nick and I could never have done this on Twitter or Facebook, as the loons drown out everything else.
It's funny that private property (which is what a Substack is) creates a space for such public exchange. Possibly some IRL lessons from that too. (Ok, maybe only for an econ nerd like me.)
The only downside is spending too much time and money on Susbtack. But it is worth it for good writing and thoughtful comments where we can learn more through a respectful dialogue - our very own liberal society.
"It seems to me that we have lost track of what “liberalism” actually means and it is time to take it back"
Better not. Once words lose their meaning or are abused, they're no returning "no, but it really meant this originally, see?".
It only helps dillute the opposition to modern liberalism -- "I'm liberal too, but the right kind of liberal" is a less strong message than "we're done with liberalism".
Tony raises a good point though, Nick. Once you say "we're done with liberalism" (a sentiment I share) the obvious question is, "what's else is there?" The Left has an alternative (wokeness); the Right has none at this point.
For all their faults, Deneen and Amari are at least trying to answer this question. Unfortunately since all their fellow Catholic integralists in America would fit into a Starbucks, they're unlikely to get their wish. But at least they're trying. Trump has no answer to this; he doesn't even understand the problem. Nor do the Conservative, Inc think-tanks; even the ones like Hoover that have embraced populism don't seem to know what to do if they get power. I'm not even sure what my answer is, and I'm a postliberal HS government and philosophy teacher.
It's obvious what's wrong; it's less obvious what should replace it. The Left's answer is catastrophic. What's ours?
That's a good question.
Perhaps an answer should emerge organically (which is the opposite of the managerial top-down approach of "liberalism"). But of course that, as a general sentiment, doesn't make for a very effective strategy, compared to an already organized opposition, complete with slogans, and most of the establishment on its side.
I think a catalyst that will solidify a more coherent political stance might be the increasing worsening material conditions, and the continued breakdown of all the false promises of the manageria/technocratic ideology. Of course their side is agile too, e.g. they're already backtracking on the subject of globalism, for example ("We've always been at war with China" to paraphrase Orwell).
The left always co-opts the language and turns it to its own uses. They have stolen “justice”, “democracy”, and countless others and twisted them to their own uses. “Liberal” is no different. The choice we have is to keep ceding ground to them on the semantic battlefield or actually fight back and retake ground.
“Liberal” is a great place to start, so we are going to take it back.
I'm not taking "liberal" back. Liberalism is authoritarianism in disguise (see Legutko or Deneen). It's rooted in an ever expanding list of universal principles not subject to infringement. The list may start small, but the 20th century demonstrates how it grows until "liberal" rules pervade every human interaction and curtail every expression of popular will -- Alexis de Tocqueville's nightmare come to life.
The term we need to take back is "democrat" (small d) -- policy must be rooted in the will of the people. Are there risks to democracy? Absolutely! But where has undemocratic liberalism gotten us: men in women's locker rooms; an open border; "free" trade impoverishing our working class. All in the name of liberation, of course! No thanks.
I've seen the will of the liberal elites; it sucks. I'll take my chances with the will of the demos.
"Liberal" was originally an insult. See Shakespeare. Basic definition: "someone One opposed to the natural order."
John Locke didn't change the definition. He changed the world to make the definition seem like a good thing.
And now the world is remembering. Liberal is once again becoming an insult.
"Language" in general is vague in itself though when it comes to such terms. "Democracy" and "Justice" is even more vague. It's in the nature of politics that if a term is generally revered, each side will claim to be the best representative of it and interpret it on its own terms.
Now, while "Liberal" has had a more specific heritage, it too wasn't really well defined at any given point. But while "Justice" and "Democracy" are ancient, necessary abstract terms, used across societies and cultures, and culturally defined), "Liberal" is just a relatively recent (say, 2 centuries) term that caught on.
And it's so strongly associated with the Left today, that reclaiming it is a tall-order, and a losing proposition. Re-claiming some historical contigent term most people (aside from political pundits and ideologues in either side) don't care about anyway, wont make much of a difference.
Whereas giving meaning, or fighting to maintain the original meaning of essential terms like "Justice" or "Democracy" serves far more.
I do follow your articles meticulously and find them quite informative and interesting.
However, your description of the situation in Germany (admittedly only mentioned very briefly) is not correct.
There are parts of the current German coalition who suggested a ban of the AfD, but trying to ban the party is certainly not consensus in German mainstream political circles, and is certainly not contemplated by the German state (in toto). The people who suggested so also received quite a bit of critique. Let alone that it is quite difficult to do so as one has to surmount high hurdles.
Also, I dispute the assertion that AfD is the only real opposition party; the CDU (under a new leadership) is the main opposition party and is clearly presenting an alternative to the current government. I rest here as I do not want to go too deep into German politics, but as written the characterisation of the German political situation is in my view no accurate
Glad to hear there is significant pushback!
The CDU has forfeited a lot of trust by their past actions. The burning question is will they form a coalition with AfD. If they continue to freeze them out, then they have not changed.
Richard hit the nail on the head above: is the CDU willing to enter a coalition with AfD? They have historically joined the German mainstream to freeze out AfD. If that's still the case, they are not truly an opposition party at all.
The French immigration bill passing only with RN's backing last month was monumental, the first sign of a crack in the "thou shalt not consort with the Right" commandment of European politics. This behavior (in France and Germany at least) has backfired, as the longer they refuse to talk to RN or AfD, the stronger those parties become. After the EU elections in June, the so-called "far-Right" will likely be too large a voting bloc to continue to ignore. Expect rapid attempts to co-opt them.
> it is certainly not contemplated by the German state
Well, except for the people who make up the ruling coalition, and the guy who runs the organization that's allowed to ban political parties (who is also a CDU member!). Except for those people the State isn't considering it, indeed.
> trying to ban the party is certainly not consensus in German mainstream political circles
That is tautological. Of course it's not YET, otherwise it'd have already been done and the conversation would be entirely different. The point is that if it reaches the point where that consensus is established then it's already too late.
It is Gnosticism all the way down, as says this author.
Professor Patrick Deneen of the post-liberal substack refers it to it as “the political gnosticism of the liberal imperium.”
Gnosticism - special knowledge - is the mobilization of our fear, it is our education, turned into arrogance, turned into action, sans limitations, and because we are special, just like mommy said, we charge forth and calamity ensues in the name of our faith. Our annual ritual, November 11, we commemorate the lives lost, vowing to “never forget” but we commit the same errors that precipitated the old war which is to say, of course, WE ALWAYS FORGET!
Eventually your little Gnostic self will push me too the brink and I won’t take it so I take action and then it begins again, we return to our alma mater, and we learn anew: no atheists in a fox hole.
The thing that has me down is Curtis Yarvin’s concept of the cathedral . He says the engine of all human polity is the “selective advantage of dominant ideas, and the inability of recessive ideas to compete.” I call it the intersection of practical consideration and human ambition.
Depressingly it appears we must cycle through war because we simply cannot manage ourselves. That’s why he’s a monarchist. Our psychological reality does not allow for collective action that doesn’t become grossly distorted. We are a self destructive species.
What the West (EU and the Anglosphere) need is 1848 with yellow vests. However, it is likely to end in failure since the populists like the revolutionaries of 1848 are fractured. What we need is a Populist Manifesto. The populists are outraged by the activities of the ruling class but unfocused and unable to prioritize. Such a document would come up with a specific and positive program and also allow us to identify fake populists which are in abundance not only in the US but throughout the West.
Populism has always had a Right aspect and a Left aspect but the last person who could unify those aspects was William Jennings Bryan. Not a perfect man by any means but was able to identify the Cross of Gold and serve as a prosecutor in the Scopes trial. While we are waiting for that a document that codifies our position would be helpful.
My own preferences would be to focus on the control of the levers of power by the ruling class. Many of these levers are economic and breaking the ruling class could involve leftist ideas as well as rightist ideas. The Canadian experiment in using the banking system is far more dangerous to us than the brown shirts of yesteryear.
I think N. S. Lyons is the right person to write such a document, if he is willing.
Indeed, this is exactly what is needed.
First of all, again a very interesting piece of work, and I fully agree liberalism has degraded to "woke", with characteristics as well described by Legutko and yourself.
But as a west european, now living in Poland, I disagree with some statements in the article. PiS is not the noble voice of people against the dictature of the liberals. PiS stopped the "Shock Dictrine" of the ninetees, based on fear and traditional obedience to teacher and priest . Without offering any alternatives, just defending old structures that could not survive... policies of PiS caused a lot of damage and delay for many people, who want Poland to be equally prosperous as its western neighbours who worked, or still work within the EU, and made money to build a house at home, and nice clothes for wife and kids, and feel indepedent.... a life completely different to the socialist and catholic times, when all this was forbidden..... Most of the economic development of Poland is based on European integation. PiS was actively blocking this integration, forbidding non-traditional life styles, but using the growing economy, tax base and EU fundings to strengthen former bureaucrats following priests. Many people felt it as the old prison, and as some kind of theft (of their work and energy) ... And PiS did not really enter into a discussion.. PiS was the moral teacher. Many Poles are sick and tired of this policy.... Ofcourse, as critical west european citizen, I question the golden promises of the free economy. I understand its hypocrisy. But I had 50 years or more to come to this understanding, and most of the Poles have not had this luxery. And I also agree, this does not justify repeating the wrong doings as revenge... The overall picture you describe, how "DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS" claim to have the moral right, and are doing everything to defend their power, is certainly true in most west european countries. In the Netherlands, 20 years of liberalism is now doing everything to block alternative voices. In Germany, the isolation of the AfD, promoted by most political parties, is scary. Forbid AfD and millions of Germans are outlaws...Hopely it wont happen. However, it must be said, AfD is sometimes expressing opinions that seem close to former fascists, which ofcourse is an absolute "no go" for most Germans. Remembering pre WW2, they are scared... So, also here, the reality is more nuanced than you state... Still, overall your reaction to the woke liberalism is a healthy alternative voice, which I wholeheartedly support. thanks..
I am actually Polish and what you say is utter bullshit, a one quite typical for a liberal PMC (or aspiring).
1. Literally any macroeconomic statistic, from GDP to disposable income, shows that the 8 years of the PiS rule were a time of extraordinary development, also reflected by increasing quality of life (also self-reported). And all this was in the time of covid and russian invasion on Ukraine.
2. And this development was largely because of the government policies, significantly (even if not rhetorically) motivated by old school social democratic ideas, particularly wage-led growth (an idea often attributed to another great Polish scholar - Michał Kalecki).
3. And all this was combined with major infrastructural projects, from the first Polish airport hub to new gas pipelines and trade ports for large container ships. Literally all these projects are now being actively cancelled by the new goverment, which is evidently directly controlled by Berlin. (You can convince youself of this through a simple application of Occham's razor, but let us leave this point for another time.)
4. As a matter of fact, that can be proved by a simple analysis of historical pollings, PiS lost power primarly because of its extremely stupid move to violate the abortion status quo (or at least the lack of will to stop this development which actually at least formally originated outside of the gov and the rulling party), which was an important latent pillar of the general national social contract.
There are of course many more reasons why the comment of @Anton van der Burgt is a pile of nonesenses and hallucinations detached from anything real (and very typical for the liberal PMC mindset), but the 4 points above should do for a good starter.
dear sztal. agree on facts in the 4 points and I agree that new government is overacting, partly in revenge.... but economic developments you mention were also funded by, or thanks to business with the EU . Wage-led growth was/is the right strategy, certainly. But why so angry with me, when I say that the article was a little one sided.... Is the country not divided?
First, I apologize for being somewhat too confrontational. On the other hand, however, it is honestly quite irritating to constantly see the same talking points being repeated. Talking points that are, for the most part, completely manufactured and/or hallucinated by, roughly speaking, the liberal managerial class (an important side note: in many semi-peripheric countries, Poland included, PMC is significantly oriented towards foreign countries, those that are central in a sense of the economic world-system, and as a result is largely indifferent or even hostile towards the raison d’état of their country. This is why you can find so many complete hallucinations about Poland circulating in the global media, primarly mainstream but not only, of which the lion share is of domestic making; this phenomenon is, perhaps, particularly strong in Poland due to the historical role and hegemony of the intelligentsia as a social class, but this is a complex topic for another time - but do look up the work of Tomasz Zarycki if this sounds interesting.)
So to give an example of a hallucination that you repeat, let us look at the supposed "EU-scepticism" of PiS. This is an entirely manufactured non-truth (with a running of risk of becoming self-fulffilling prophecy), as you will never find anti-EU objectives in the actual program of the party. As most of the Polish society, PiS is largely pro-EU. That said, it is - as many people in Poland - quite sceptical of the ongoing federalization, which is by the way imposed top-down through almost completely non-democratic legalist tricks. But being an anti-federationist does not make you anti-EU. However, it is always rhetorically presented as such by the mainstream media.
And an important side note (again!) is that being anti-federationist is actually pretty reasonable from the Polish raison d’état, so it is really hard (if you want to be honest), to make an accusation against someone out of it. Why? It is simple. Federated EU will obviously put more power into the hands of the largest states, particularly Germany. And really since times immemorial subjugating/dominating Poland (and middle Europe more generally, but Poland as the largest state of the region is of course most important here) is the core objective of the entire German foreign policy. You can find this almost explictily stated in, at least, policy documents of government-affiliated think tanks (I can try to dig it up, if you really need to see that), if not in official government policies (that I am not sure about, though). And, obviously, one of the main reasons why Germany wants to control CEE region is that once it has it, it can use to make a deal with Russia allowing it to subsequently dominate the western Europe. (Until very recently that deal was about getting very cheap energy from FR. Once the arrangement was cancelled by the war in Ukraine, the whole German economy is in shambles, and this is why it is so important for them to subjugate Poland, which is developing very fast, and the beaurocratic machinery of the EU is the primary tool for achieving this goal.)
Anyways, my point is, almost any other "fact" you mentioned is similarly untrue, when you scratch the surface. And frankly, N.S. Lyons made a terrific job with the latest piece as he managed to get almost all the facts correct. One can argue with his interpretations of what the facts mean, of course, but the fact that the new Polish government is pretty much 100% aligned (if not directly controlled) by some faction(s), primarly German but apparently also U.S. (which is indicated by the way the current U.S. ambassador behaves), of the managerial class (understood here in the sense proposed by N.S. Lyons, that is, primarly through their redefinition of "democracy") is almost self-evident.
So it is really hard to understand, how this article can be one-sided. It gets the fact correct, it presents a not really far-fetched interpretation of those facts, and very much consistent with the general theory underlying all the thinking in this blog. And the fact that the country is divided (which it is!) does not negate that. Polarization does not mean that the truth must be in the middle. The truth is where it is.
(And the last side note: it is becoming more and more evident, imho, that the global phenomenon of polarization is largely driven by the rise to power of the PMC; but, again, this is a matter for another time, and I can't help the feeling that N.S. Lyons will write about it one day.)
Great, almost fully agree. Interesting points you make about Germany, I have probably underestimated this "impression". Maybe for me PiS is overshadowed by Mr. Kaszynski, or maybe I dont think it is a real alternative to "the democrats", because it reminds me too much about my own catholic upbringing, in full obedience to priest, teacher and mayor. Thanks for pointing to Tomasz Zarycki and your comments!
You're welcome, it is nice to see someone honestly interested in history/society/politics of Poland, instead of just looking for a confirmation of his priors!
Douglas Murray once remarked about Eastern Europe, and I am paraphrasing, "the East retains a tragic sense of life." He made the comment in the context of commentary about Western Europeans' disdain for the works of their ancestors and embrace of migrants as a form of redemption (e.g., expiating the guilt of colonialism). But I can't help but think that he had an optimistic view of the durability of Eastern Europe's immunity to the totalitarian impulse in modern liberalism - its hatred of any and all limits, from national borders to human biology. Eastern Europe will remain (comparatively) sane for as long as those who lived under and remember Communist rule are still alive and active in public life.
Poland is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. If a country with a national identity rooted in resistance to foreign powers and their alien ideologies cannot effectively push back against managerial liberalism, then I shudder to think of what the future holds for countries where the managerial revolution is farther along.
Reading Legutko helped me better understand the Russian liberal opposition. Their hatred of Putin (just in case, not a fan of his) is less about wanting freedom for the Russian people, whom they despise anyway, and more about being denied the power they feel entitled to.
It is frustrating that we don’t have a common definition or understanding of terms like democracy, liberal, conservative, Nazi, communist, socialist, etc. When someone claims that XYZ is a threat to democracy, what do they mean? That non-citizens will be allowed to vote? That people don’t have to verify their identity to vote? Or the Executive Branch will choose which laws it wishes to enforce or which “laws” it will create without legislative authority?
We see “democracy” as good, so a threat to democracy must be stopped. Just like “Nazi” is bad, so someone labeled as a Nazi must be stopped. No definitions required.
The US is a constitutional republic constructed with checks and balances to protect the minority from democracy’s majority rule (aka mob rule). The whole argument about “threat to democracy” is a smokescreen to take control of the voting process by any means necessary to secure power. Arguing about the label given to the ideology behind the power play is a fool’s errand, since the label will be redefined or co-opted by the power-seekers. The enemy to our way of life is standing before us, call them what you will, they must be stopped.
If they'd only read Aristotle at University instead of chugging down on Plato.
Great article. I wasn't aware of the situation in Poland. As a subscriber from Brazil, the similarities to what is happening here are striking [1,2]. It seems that International Socialism gave rise to International Progressivism, and with technological and communication advances, the managerial class is able to work in tandem across country boundaries like never before.
[1] https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2024/1/10/the-rise-of-censorship-industrial-complex-in-brazil
[2] https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2024/1/21/brazils-authoritarian-rise
Demon in Democracy is an amazing book that really opened my eyes when I read it 6-7 years ago. Legutko has a rare set of life experience (communist dissident, Polish MP, philosophy professor) with which he makes connections that others miss. And the succeeding 8 years have born out his predictions.
He wrote a second book a couple of years ago called The Cunning of Freedom that I believe is underrated but equally good. I'm surprised Lyons didn't mention it.
Legutko's book is excellent and brings a much needed European perspective to the question. For a similar look at these issues from a U.S. viewpoint see James Kalb's 'The Tyranny of Liberalism' (2008).
Very good. Yeah the stuff going on these days is perplexing, and it makes me wonder about all of the people who buy into this stuff about democracy being in danger, far right, etc. How credulous can one be? Do you not realize that someone can lie? Someone can claim to be inclusive, but not be? Fighting fascism, but actually acting fascistic?