What Does Post-Liberalism Look Like?

 



What is post-liberalism, and what does it look like in practice?

Last week, Oren Cass - founder of American Compass, a new think tank that promotes the economic policies of the New Right - sat down with Notre Dame political science professor and author of Why Liberalism Failed, Patrick Deneen, to discuss the future of post-liberalism, a nascent ideology with an unclear definition. 

Deneen started by defining liberalism. 

These are the four ideological pillars he articulated:

1. Open borders, or, the free movement of peoples. 

2. Laissez faire economics.

3. The belief that liberal democracy ought to be disseminated widely (i.e. the Fukuyama thesis). 

4. The legacy of the sexual revolution. 

Phillip Blond, post-liberal political theorist and author of Red Tory, often alludes to point 2 and 4 as encapsulating the Left-Right liberal paradigm. That is, conservatives (especially in the American context, though less so these days), extol the virtues of deregulation and free markets, while liberals promote a sort of individual autonomy, particularly concerning sexual expression and the jettisoning of gender norms. According to Blond, both belief systems are actually two sides of the same liberal coin. 

Blond, an Englishman, articulated this paradigm at an Institute of Art and Ideas event in 2019:
We have been governed by extreme liberalism since the time of Margaret Thatcher. We have extreme economic liberalism on the Right, and extreme social liberalism on the Left, and they're a common project, and I always think it's incoherent to hear people on the Left denouncing neoliberalism economically, but essentially upholding it socially, and vice versa. 
This same sentiment can be found in Compact Magazine's mission statement: 
Our editorial choices are shaped by our desire for a strong social-democratic state that defends community—local and national, familial and religious—against a libertine left and a libertarian right.
Weirdly, though, it appears that Compact has since changed that language on the 'About' section of their site. See here. 

Deneen, like Blond and the folks at Compact, argues that the "limitlessness" of unbounded liberalism - that is, the belief that individuals should be left to their own devices in all realms of life - does, in fact, have limits. 

Both Deneen and Cass believe that we are already seeing the germ of a reaction to liberalism, as described in the aforementioned four pillars.  

That much is pretty hard to dispute. The Bernie movement, as well as MAGA, are both pretty obvious reactions to the liberal order. New York assemblyman and probable next mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, represents a far-Left rejection of liberalism. 

We are, it certainly appears, entering into a post-liberal era. This, though, begs two stubborn questions: 1. We know what post-liberalism is against, but what is it for? 2. What would post-liberalism look like in practice?

While Cass asked Deneen several times what a "positive version" of post-liberalism might look like, Deneen struggled to offer anything concrete, reiterating that people today are disaffected by liberalism. At one point, he attempts to make a parallel between post-liberalism and libertarianism. This was totally mystifying, as the former is frequently described as a critique of the latter. 

To be sure, Deneen is brilliant. Why Liberalism Failed was an awesome contribution to the national conversation. His normative view of a post-liberal future, though, at least as articulated in this podcast, is underwhelming. 

Personally, I struggle to see any kind of real difference between post-liberalism and social conservatism, à la Rick Santorum. 

Thus, it would make far more sense for post-liberals to simply advocate for a return to social conservative thinking, instead of attempting to build an entirely new ideology from the ground up. 

So, what is post-liberalism? As of right now, nothing...

But, perhaps I'm missing something. If you have the time, listen to the podcast here. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

As always, have a great week!

at No comments:
By

Conversation Is the Only Way Forward

 


There is nothing more dangerous than an ideological echo chamber. 

In Reclaiming Conversation, Sherry Turkle urges readers to "talk with people whom you don't agree."

This is, of course, easier said than done. 

What if, for instance, the person with whom you are conversing is a holocaust-denier or, at least, a holocaust-skeptic? Should said person even be entertained?

A few weeks ago, former UFC fighter and far-right political provocateur, Jake Shields, sat down with X-user and pro-Israel advocate, Adam King, who goes by the pseudonym, Awesome Jew, online.  

Shields is, in many ways, a rebarbative figure. 

He is obsessed with, what has historically been referred to as, the Jewish Question, or, the JQ. That is, more or less, the rather myopic and derivative view that Jews run the world. This is nothing new: an old and boring form of bigotry. 

While some discern anti-Zionism and antisemitism, Shields doesn't bother. 

Here's Shields playing Ye's "Heil Hitler" in front of Israelis in a hotel lobby. "Fuck these Israelis,"  Shields says in his raspy voice, "they're fucking everywhere." 

To rehash every dimwitted, Jew-hating X post from Jake Shields would be akin to emptying the ocean with a thimble, as his feed is replete with the typical Leo Frank-type tropes. 

This said, I was shocked to see that Shields had accepted a debate challenge from Awesome Jew, a right-wing Zionist. 

You can watch the nearly-three hour debate here. 

To be clear, I am no fan of Awesome Jew, either. Many of his posts are far from thoughtful. But his knowledge of Israel and the conflict in the region writ large was clearly no match for Shields, a neophyte far out of his depth. 

Content aside, though, the exchange was surprisingly civil.  

In fact, it was less of a debate and more of friendly back-and-forth, with plenty of laughter and tongue in cheek one-liners. 

While you can frame this as a showdown between a holocaust-skeptic and a right-wing Zionist, you can just as easily see it as two stripped-down humans seeing each other as equals, instead of enemies. 

To be sure, there are some folks in the ever-growing world of nasty conspiracy theories whom it would be unwise to engage: Stew Peters and Lucas Gage are just a few examples. They don't just espouse racism and antisemitism, they engage in violent rhetoric. Here is Peters calling for a "Final Solution" on the Jewish people. 

Shields, however, to his credit, does not advocate for violence during his debate with King (a low bar, I know).

The point: conversation, not censorship, is the best way to combat extremism, both on the political Right and Left. 

Jake Shields and Adam King (Awesome Jew) shake hands.

To be sure, not everyone has the stomach to engage with such divisive personalities, and that's totally understandable. But someone has to do it. 

I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, a black man who has, through the power of conversation, de-radicalized members of the KKK. Davis, a remarkably affable guy with no motive other than cognitive empathy, has done more to combat extremism than anyone else. His approach and temperament ought to be studied. 

Daryl Davis with KKK member.

As polarized as we are in America today, I remain optimistic about our future. Through dialectic, we can depolarize, deradicalize, and come together once again. 

at No comments:
By

A TikToker Asks, 'Can It Third Place?'

By Frank Filocomo

TikTok is a mostly brain-numbing app, typified by vapid Get Ready With Me (GRWM) videos, your typical celebrity gossip click-bait, and some confoundingly nonsensical political takes (recall when TikTok influencers were taking to the platform to praise Osama bin Laden for his repulsive Letter to the American People?) 

The app - again, mostly a toxic, digital wasteland - will turn you into a proper misanthrope. 

User @madisonraetogo, however, is one exception to the rule. 

Madison, in a TikTok-original series she calls "Can It Third Space?" travels around the U.S. to find venues that more or less fit Ray Oldenburg's definition of a "Third Place." 

In The Great Good Place, Oldenburg writes that a third place is...

a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work. 

Madison has her own variation of the Oldenburg criteria for a third space:

1. "It has to be free entry;

2. we have to meet someone;

3. vibes."

While these criteria for third places don't match up exactly with Oldenburg's (Oldenburg mentions low-barrier to entry, not necessarily free entry; he emphasizes the informality of these places and their conduciveness to conversation; the concept of social leveling is extremely important; etc...), it's close enough.

Madison takes us to Washington Square Park in NYC, and cafes and art museums throughout Florida. 

After spending some time in these places - and making some valiant effort to socialize with total strangers - she employs a 1-10 rating system. 

Her comments throughout these videos are thoughtful, witty, and perceptive. A much welcomed respite from the cacophony of nonsense on TikTok, for sure. 

Many people I speak to about this subject lament what they perceive to be the decline in America's social capital and civil society. I, too, share that same lament. The good news, though, is that people - young people, in particular - are yearning for community and social connection in a world of uprootedness and atomization. 

Robert Putnam must be taking solace in the fact that young people today no longer want to bowl alone. 

 

at No comments:
By

The Old 'Young Guns'

 



In March, Troy Olson and I had a conversation about the dying Neoliberal Order and communitarianism on the political Left and Right. Watch a clip below!



at No comments:
By

Whatcha Reading?

 

ICYMI: I wrote about Reading Rhythms, a NYC-based literary group, for Front Porch Republic, easily one of my favorite online publications. 

From the article:

Though some folks were understandably timid at first, a wave of loquacity hit the room during our conversation time; everyone wanted to discuss what they had been reading. I even saw some people exchanging phone numbers and inquiring about the next event.

To sum up my thesis: reading does not necessarily have to be a solitary act; it can, in fact, be surprisingly communal, if done in the right context. 

I also encourage you to read Nadya Williams' piece about a more communitarian kind of reading here.  

By the way, I'm curious: what are you reading right now? Tell me in Frank's Forum, here. 

I recently started Coming Apart by Charles Murray, and I can already tell why it's such an important book...

Have a great week!

at No comments:
By

The Thing About Artists

By Claire Cordonnier

You’ve probably had the satisfying experience of listening to a pop song and resonating with the lyrics. 

It’s comforting to know that you aren’t alone in your feelings. But what about for the artist? What's scary about sharing your art with people is that you are sharing with them something deeply personal. Good art is drawn from life and expresses something authentic and unique to you.


Good artists need to have “life” to draw from. They need to have had life experiences that have challenged and changed them emotionally.


What separates artists from other people? Do they have more interesting lives than the average person? Or do they feel emotions more strongly than other people in a way that compels them to express them?


In expressing their emotions, artists allow themselves to be vulnerable in a way that resonates with their audience.  I would argue that this kind of vulnerability doesn’t exist the same way in other fields in which the answer is more “objective.”


But what about the scientists and engineers that work in these "objective" fields? Don’t they feel the same need to express themselves? Perhaps their work allows them to cope with their emotions in a more indirect way.
at No comments:
By

Why Disagreement Is Good

By Frank Filocomo

Ideas are meant to be challenged. 

I always say: when you enter into a dialectic - in good faith, presumably - you must be prepared for your paradigms to be shattered. In other words, you might very well be wrong on numerous fronts. 

Learning that you were in the wrong about whatever topic mustn't be seen as a defeat; it is, conversely, a sort of triumph. When I was a kid, my uncle, whenever I learned something new, would prompt me to say, "now I know." 

Too often, though, we enter debates with a defensive posture. Nothing is learned when we do this. What's absent here is humility. 

I recently read Norman Finkelstein's heterodox book, I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It. Finkelstein, who starts this 500-page tome by quoting critics who lambasted this work as "incoherent" and "ineffective," argues against the idea of ideological purity, in favor of a Milliean view of Truth-seeking. That is, a process that involves engaging with those whose views you may find rebarbative. 

"If one aspires to dislodging falsehood and replacing it with truth," Finkelstein writes, "it requires openly confronting and persuasively responding to the falsehood."

Amen.

Finkelstein's frequent quoting of Mill throughout the book made me want to re-visit On Liberty.

Mill writes:

...for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers - knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter - he has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process. 

This, though, is obviously an arduous process, and one, I might add, that most people won't bother perusing. For, to seek the truth in a Milliean fashion requires one to engage oratorically with others with opposing viewpoints. 

What's more: what if people are unable - or at least, unwilling - to articulate strong defenses of their opinions?

I encountered this a great deal in, of all places, college. 

As I've written before:

Some students... were pitifully reticent. I never could understand this. Why would you not at least want to try to stand out? I was easily the most loquacious of all my peers. But I always made sure that my contributions were relevant and substantive. Otherwise, your contribution isn't much of a contribution at all. 

The oratorical muscle atrophies when not rigorously exercised. 

When we are always comfortable, having our convictions routinely affirmed and repeated back at us, our ability to learn and grow as thinkers is stunted. 

Disagreement and polemical exercise - in good faith, of course - is how we become, as David Brooks often says, "more fully human."

at No comments:
By

Communitarianism Transcends Partisanship

 

The late Amitai Etzioni


A quick note:

Communitarianism is neither a conservative or liberal ideology. It's adherents - such as the great Amitai Etzioni - believed that it could actually be a depolarizing force. 

In order for it to be an efficacious ideology, however, communitarians must also embrace a robust patriotism. That is, a healthy love of one's country and sense of obligation towards the common good, not a blind and reactionary kind of jingoism. While the former can only make us stronger, the latter might prove fractious. 

This, from Etzioni's Reclaiming Patriotism:

At its core, patriotism points to passionate concern for one's fellow citizens and the community they share, a resolve to love one's nation despite its defects and to work for its flourishing. 

I'll let Etzioni speak for himself here. 

I hope everyone has a great week! 

at No comments:
By

On a More Selfless Kind of Friendship

By Claire Cordonnier

Recently, I had the gift of making a new friend. We met at a party where both she and I liked the same guy; she confronted me about it immediately saying, “girlfriends before guys.”

I remember being struck immediately by her openness and sincerity. The barrier of entry to our friendship seemed non-existent. One of my favorite things about her is her unbounded generosity. I think that people need to stop using the word “sweet” to describe everyone they meet, because it’s a word that is starting to lose its meaning.


There must be another word for someone who lends you her clothes like it's nothing, compliments you genuinely on the things you care most about, invites you into her life, and shares her friends with you like it's the most natural thing in the world.


I wish that more people approached life with her generous attitude toward others. As one grows older and enters the career space, one is increasingly tempted to view relationships with a transactional mindset. When purely self-centered intentions accompany activities like networking, insincerity can make things unenjoyable for all those involved. “What can I get out of this relationship” is a question that shouldn’t be constantly on our minds.


In one of my classes right now, we just finished a unit where we examined significant themes of sacrifice in the Bible. Sacrifice can take many forms and is especially valuable when thinking about relationships. It requires generosity… which is why generosity is such an important virtue in friendship, which is all about sacrifice.


People like to reference the five love languages (acts of service, physical touch, words of affirmation, quality time, and gift giving) which are actually each a nod to generosity!


Claire Cordonnier is a spring 2025 intern for National Review Institute. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree at New York University, and plans to major in politics and journalism. Before beginning her studies at NYU, Claire spent a gap semester interning for non-profit organizations–The Borgen Project and the Childhood Cancer Society–and working as a barista in a local coffee shop.
at No comments:
By

Goodbye, Neoliberalism

 

By Frank Filocomo

It's time we jettison neoliberalism, and all its atomizing features. 

And, while we're at it, so long, homo economicus.

In her latest book, The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life, Sophia Rosenfeld writes that, unless we move on from the rational-choice model of human behavior, wherein man is nothing more that an autonomous, choice-making machine, we will eventually "fail to recognize the larger ramifications resulting from our many private choices, and we will continue to underproduce public goods and services."

American sociologist Alan Wolfe, a critic of the economically liberal Chicago school of economics, made much the same argument in Whose Keeper?, a book that promotes a Durkheimian kind of civil society, as opposed to more market-based and state-centric solutions to domestic problems.

In 2025, both parties, and the American electorate writ large, oppose the post-Cold War neoliberal paradigm. In many ways, Donald Trump's election in 2016 typified the atrophying ideology's death knell. 

The modern day Left finds its greatest source of energy in Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed "democratic-socialist," and AOC, a young, wide-eyed egalitarian. The Right's superstars, not dissimilarly, are of a post-liberal bent. That is, they decry the bygone era of "zombie-Reaganism." Think: J.D. Vance, Josh Hawley, and, increasingly, Marco Rubio. 

Both flanks of the ideological spectrum are, in their own roundabout ways, right: neoliberalism no longer serves American interests. 

What is needed moving forward is a communitarian/pro-worker-style bipartisan framework that will empower families and communities around the country.

The rugged individual is no more. 

at No comments:
By

What if We're Wrong About Each Other?

By Frank Filocomo

Nothing can replace in-person connection.

Lura Forcum, in her new Substack, How to Human, explains how her bimonthly potluck dinners foster interpersonal connections and weak-tie relationships that would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible, to cultivate digitally:

Every other month, on Sunday evenings, people bring a dish for dinner at my house. Anyone is welcome. It’s not fancy, but the food is good and so is the company.

Forcum, who, along with the State Policy Network's Erin Norman, authored Beyond Polarization, is an advocate for socializing with those outside of your ideological orbit (read my write-up of that report in National Review here).

It's true: we tend to surround ourselves with people who are "politically like-minded" and "on the same page," ideologically speaking. 

There's nothing wrong with this, of course, but, if the goal is the engender a culture of high-trust relationships and communitarian values, we must venture outside of our silos and extend social invitations to others whom we may disagree politically, theologically, or whatever. 

It's also true that, party affiliation aside, we may have more in common with each other than we initially think:

From the article:

It’s easy to attribute all sorts of inaccurate, negative characteristics to other people, especially those who are different from us. But in-person interaction confronts us with the reality that the characteristics we attributed to other people aren’t very accurate. We have to correct our assumptions based on the person in front of us.

So, in the spirit of rising above the current climate of toxic polarization and balkanization, I encourage you to dine and converse with those from outside your orbit; you might be surprised by how in-person connection and meaningful dialectic can make your preconceptions about others fall by the wayside. 

Read more by Lura here. 

at No comments:
By
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

What Does Post-Liberalism Look Like?

  By Frank Filocomo What is post-liberalism, and what does it look like in practice? Last week, Oren Cass - founder of American Compass , a ...