Taking Liberties

Why Deneen failed.

By
41

Patrick Deneen has released a new book, and predictably, Jonah has some pointed opinions on it. To critique Deneen’s post-liberal vision for American society and the political right, Jonah is joined by a returning Stephanie Slade, senior editor at Reason and noted liberty-lover. With furious agreement and ornery hand-wringing, they take a deep dive into the strange world of the new right, analyzing how seriously we should take its vision for the conservative movement. They also provide a few thoughts on the state of Catholicism, what the Dobbs decision revealed about voters, and why nobody can agree about immigration.

Show Notes:

-Watch: Jonah Goldberg interview Stephanie Slade

–Stephanie’s page at Reason

–Jonah: “Patrick Deneen’s Otherworldly Regime”

– Stephanie: “Liberalism Isn’t Rule by Elites”

–Stephanie: “The New Right Isn’t So New”

–Stephanie: “The Rise of Right-Progressivism”

–Adrian Vermeule: “Integration From Within”

By
Comments (41)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Bobby D

    I’ve been away for a few weeks, and am just catching up on podcasts. This one is great. I listened to it twice.

    This review of Deneen’s book could probably apply with almost equal force to Yoram Hazony’s book and to just about anything written by Sohrab Ahmari or Rod Dreher. They don’t seem to care whether they can prove up their thesis. They simply “feel” the thesis to be true, and are pandering to an audience of others who also “feel” the thesis to be true.

    Few of these books say much about same-sex marriage. But it seems like same-sex marriage is lurking in the background of everything they write. They seem to have a certain irrational fixation around issues of male gender-role non-conformity.

    Collapse
  2. Russell J

    A little behind on podcasts but I always enjoy Stephanie as a guest. If more libertarians were as reasonable as her, I would probably identify as one. It is worth arguing against stupid movements just to keep ideas fresh in our minds.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tkdc926

    Maybe it was just me, but I thought Stephanie may have had just a wee bit too much caffeine before the podcast. She was speaking so fast I had a difficult time keeping up with her.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Anthonyjohnmartyr

    I've got a "briar patch" theory on Deneen and this book which, though almost certainly wrong, I find an interesting speculation. I'm no philosopher, so it's dangerous ground, but here goes.

    With any philosophical position devised by humans, there is inevitably a “root cause” or reductio ad absurdum problem – dig down far enough and you come across something that must be taken on faith or ignored, if the whole exercise isn’t to be consigned to the (already bulging) rubbish bin of failed philosophies. To take an example, Rand’s Objectivism denies basic human traits (mainly, compassion and altruism), so very quickly comes undone. Libertarianism founders on the rocks of censorship and protection of minors, etc.

    Yes, I did say “inevitably”. Big, if true. Find me a counterexample.

    The questions are always how far down do you have to dig (fascism & communism? Not far), how much good can be done along the way before you hit the contradictions (libertarianism, conservatism, western liberalism & social democracy? I’d argue a fair bit of good), whether that good outweighs the possible damage (fascism/communism – no; democratic capitalism – yes), and whether you can honestly ignore the problem or contend it doesn’t really exist (western liberalism and social democracy – so far, so good, but it’s perhaps shakier currently).

    (As an aside - I have an ongoing jihad against Utilitarianism generally and Peter Singer specifically, where I’m with Erik Hoel (and many others) in thinking the utilitarian Repugnant Conclusion problem is both unresolvable, and morally disqualifying.)

    Is Deneen just doing us the service, thankfully very early on in the life cycle, under the cover of making a case, of actually slyly pointing out the reductio ad absurdum flaws in Integralism, Common Good Constitutionalism or whatever we want to end up calling it? Is he the mischievous Brer Rabbit here?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      Interesting proposition. Vermuele is a legacy loo-loo, and MBD is a Very Verily Sincere Dear, but I don't know enough about Deneen to have a sense of whether he might be ironic or disingenuous.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    Jonah, you might reconsider your habit of holding up a stopwatch every time a guest answers a question. It seems to make some of them nervous.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Denise Cote

    According to Catholic News Agency, as of December of last year, 18.7% of Americans considered themselves to be catholic. What makes Deneen think "the people" are with him? These guys are cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Marianwcates

    Very interesting conversation. I like learning about the ideas of Deneen and Vermuele.

    Collapse
  8. Joe1776

    It is interesting that you are concerned about Gleichschaltung on the right while at the same time pointing out it is impossible. Who are all the conservatives that will fill the positions in the universities or media?

    Yet you seem to ignore this on the left. FBI is working with leftists to shut out right wing speech. Everything from USTA to NFL are supporting pride and BLM. Why are these ideologies getting mixed in with Tennis and Football? People are losing their jobs/ kicked out of school and even being dragged into court for not adopting leftist ideologies in America, and it is even worse in Europe. Ausschaltung = canceled.

    I agree with both you and actually mainly Stephanie that we should stop looking to state for answers. But we also need to start fighting back culturally. I'm not happy that people are boycotting bud light based on cultural issues but if there is no fighting back then these crazy ideas just gain in strength.

    We need some principled rules. Its not like I will not buy Microsoft or Bud light because some CEO marketing director has personal political or cultural views I disagree with. In fact I would disagree with people boycotting companies for that reason. But when companies, as a company, are pushing these agendas I disagree with, then I say no thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Bobby D

      We pay attention to these sorts of phenomena because they undermine conservatism and make it more difficult to mount reasonable critiques of progressivism. These folks complain that right liberals aren’t doing an effective job at countering progressivism, even as they train most of their fire on the very right liberals whom they criticize. Well, right liberals would probably be a bit more effective if they weren’t fending off friendly fire constantly.

      Collapse
  9. EireExpat

    Deneen & Vermeule should spend some time in Ireland. Following a brutal war of independence and civil war, the first governments basically handed over writing of the Constitution of the new State to the Catholic Church, here is the future:

    languishing in 3rd world status for decades with mass emigration
    bloody sectarian war of religion & politics
    indentured servitude for "fallen women"
    mother & baby homes
    World leading clergy sex abuse scandal
    overthrow of church rule
    collapse in religious affiliation (down 30% in the last 2 decades and accelerating, attendance even worse)
    First country to approve Same Sex Marriage via constitutional referendum
    One of a minority of countries to approve abortion via a constitutional referendum (two thirds support)

    And this in a country where the starting point was 90%+ Catholic versus 23% for the US???

    Deluded? Delusional?

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    One of you mentioned that these new Catholic Ascendancy loo-loos want to put the U.S. under the authority of the Pope, or words to that effect. However, Deneen and Vermeule and their compeers, such as Michael Brendan Dougherty, don't respect the Pope, that is, the actual Pope currently in office. Those who aren't openly sedevacantist are effectively so, biding their time, noses in air, until the Holy Spirit gets it right.

    Ms. Slade mentioned the formation of a new generation of backward-looking clergy, and I think about that sometimes. I know some of the new ordinands in my Diocese and their "too Catholic for the Pope" - let alone those redneck trash at "bad" parishes - families. It will be interesting if one is assigned to our "bad" parish. In a way, it would be a relief to have a blast from the past who would say, "We can't have a woman doing this!" so I don't have to fake my own death to get off the Stewardship Commission when I'm 60.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Anthonyjohnmartyr

      Yes - Jonah needs to remove the term "ultramontane" from his vocabulary of terms for gung-ho conservative Catholics.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CynthiaW

        He appears to use it as a synonym for "extreme," in a nonspecific way. However, it has an actual definition.

        Collapse
Load More