Thread by @ConceptualJames

So I've been listening to some of the arguments made by so-called "post-liberals" (notably Prof. Patrick Deneen) a little more closely than before and want to speak to a persistent confusion I see in the foundation of their work that I almost have to wonder if it's deliberate. 🧵

The problem, and the allure of "post-liberalism" (including to our current Vice President) is obviously that "liberal" is a highly contentious term, and one has to wonder what it means if we're going to go "post" (beyond) it. It means VERY distinct things to different thinkers.

Deneen makes a curious point that liberalism began well as minimal government interference and the rejection of the birthright of the ruling class as absurd but rapidly acquired a different character of seeking the "Self-defined Self" liberated from all restrictions.

In particular, the "liberal" as such is someone who is seeking to overcome all tradition, authority, etc., that stand between him and his true self, which is a Self-defined Self. I don't know if he got this from Carl Trueman or not, but he argues similarly.

To someone like me, this isn't a "liberal" except in some kind of wacky, "ghey" European sense, and that dissonance in understanding arises from the fact that American Liberalism and French Liberalism, which Deneen seems to be blending, are not the same thing on any level at all.

The French liberalism he seems to be describing is ultimately Romantic and Idealist, which is actually to say Gnostic and mystical, or one could say Cartesian and Continental, but it is not how American liberals think of themselves or their search for self or meaning, generally.

This is a fraught statement to make, of course, because again, "liberal" is unclear in its meaning. If you mean by liberal whatever the Progressive Democrats who call themselves liberals, or what their conservative detractors like Rush Limbaugh called liberals, I guess ok.

"The libs," as we might call those people, have left American Liberalism behind for something that's like a weird American knock-off of the French and Continental original (so, "Globohomo"), which is metaphysically and ethically distinct from American Liberalism in all ways.

It is true, however, that "the libs" are somewhat correctly described by Deneen with his term "liberal," which makes this discussion really hard and confusing for people, which really sucks. It is wrong to conflate those people with American Liberals (classical liberals), tho.

The American Liberal tradition is based not in romanticism (as with the French) or idealism (as with German) or their blend ("Continental") but in common sense, which has roots in the Scottish Enlightenment but not so much the Continental ones. It's very different.

In particular, the Common Sense tradition believes reality exists and is generally accessible and comprehensible to everyone without elite help (sense is common). It is realist, humble, and individualist. This is the opposite of idealist (not realist) Continental "liberals."

The goal of American (Common Sense) Liberalism is not to discover the "true self" (idealist concept) as a kind of Self-defined Self (Gnostic concept); it is to discover who we really are and live accordingly. There are facts about ourselves that are true, and we seek to know them

So in the sense that there's a search for "self" at all in American Liberalism, it's a quest of discovery for a Discovered Self as it really is in reality, not an attempt to find a "Self-defined Self" that is necessarily in objection to reality. Reality defines us; we don't.

American Liberals (minus "the libs") don't see themselves as trying to overcome obstacles in tradition and institutional authority but rather we see ourselves in seeking to discover our capabilities, boundaries, and limitations and optimizing within them. It's very different.

The confusing point of overlap, aside from the terminology, is that American Common Sense Liberals will question institutions and traditions, or test them, to see when and where they are arbitrary, and as Chesterton's Fence demonstrates, sometimes this is in consequential error.

I raise this point because "post-liberalism" is on the rise (Marxism is Leftist post-liberalism, but now it's rising on the Right in various ways too), but its best thinkers seem desperately, if not deliberately, confused, mixing "liberal" traditions that aren't even similar.

I don't know why they do this, for surely they're well-read and intelligent enough to know better, and perhaps its just the complete poisoning of the language on the word "liberal," but I expect a lot better out of otherwise careful thinkers like Deneen and his acolytes.

Anyway, it's important to be able to spot this point of terrible confusion and see through it, at least for Americans who want to Make America America (thus Great) Again. The American tradition ain't broke, so don't fix it. We've just got to remove the Continental tares.

PS: "post-liberal" means "post-liberty." Don't forget that.