After Liberalism: The Common Good and the Politics of the Future

The liberal project of organizing politics around individual liberty and equality is in decline. This is a unique opportunity to revisit the politics of the common good.

I have written on the post-liberal movement in an earlier installment of Logos Letter, but recent events suggest that now is a good time to revisit the matter. In my original analysis of this movement, I provided a mixed evaluation that brought out both its strengths and weaknesses. At this point, I am prepared to concede that post-liberalism as a critical assessment of our current political situation is largely correct.

The liberal project of organizing politics around individual liberty and equality is in decline. Both political leaders and constituents are moving on. And the institutions that most deeply embody the liberal ethos — government agencies, universities, corporations, and journalism — are very unpopular and losing credibility every day. I am inclined to think that this decline is not only real, but right. Capitalism and liberal institutions have not delivered. Liberalism is exhausted. Samuel Huntington was right; Francis Fukuyama was wrong, and it is time to move on. But if so, what exactly are we to move towards. This is the challenge for post-liberal thinking, especially those working from the right.

It is not at all clear, what form of politics will succeed liberalism. Nevertheless, some broad features of the political future seem likely.

Populism Rising

Obviously, populism is in the ascendant throughout the European - American world. As I have written elsewhere this reflects the fact that normal people have lost trust in their leaders and major institutions. On the left, populism takes an anti-capitalist aspect; populism on the right focuses on immigration, “woke” institutions, and elite corruption. This widespread dissatisfaction with the liberal, capitalist consensus is radically reshaping political alignments and ending the unipolar, liberal experiment. Will these movements succeed in making radical changes to modern government? Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure, this wave of populism, like others, will fade. Some may be disappointed to hear this, but it is true.

Populism is a reaction to elite corruption and the alienation of the leadership class from the common people. But the truth is this: almost no one is really against elites and institutions in principle. Every stable society needs leaders and institutions. Eventually leadership, hierarchy, and institutions will return and that is a very good thing. The real question is this: what will take the place of liberalism once the populist wave recedes? For my own part, I believe that the successor to liberalism should address the underlying error modern politics and address the need for institutional and elite reform.

The Errors of Liberalism

It is important to remember that in the sweep of political history, Enlightenment liberalism is completely idiosyncratic. No other society has attempted to shape society on the basis of radical individualism — and rightly so. By “radical individualism,” I mean two things: (1) the denial that man is political by nature and (2) the ordering of society to the individual good rather than the common good. Classical liberalism begins with these two errors and all of the contradictions and inefficiencies inherent in this system flow from these fatal mistakes.

Within the liberal paradigm, man is naturally an individual and chooses to construct politics for his own individualistic purposes; as such, politics is a matter of art rather than nature and lacks a natural purpose and standard. Now the human arts are an important part of human flourishing, but in this context removing politics from the natural order removes it from the natural teleology that guides us towards authentic human flourishing and objective goodness. Indeed, liberalism narrowly restricts the concern of governance to its contractual purposes. In this perspective, politics is predominantly a matter of convention, agreement, and manipulation rather than a process for putting truth and goodness into action.

The second error of liberalism is that it prioritize the individual good over the common good of the political community. I have stated the classical arguments for the priority of the common good many times. In brief, the central argument is this: the individual is compared to the political whole, as an imperfect part to a perfect whole. This so because the political whole is complete for human flourishing whereas the individual is not. It follows that the common good of the whole is preferable to the individual good of the part because the perfect is prior and better than the imperfect. Additional arguments may be added, but the “part – whole argument” is sufficient for the purposes of this essay.

Against the primacy of the common good —, which is the classical Western tradition — liberalism prioritizes the individual goods of liberty, life, and equality. This irrational stance inevitably leads to disunity, inefficiency, and decline. By contrast, the classical prioritization of the common good ennobles man and builds civilization. It concentrates resources into cooperative growth, achievement, and even national greatness.

The Politics of the Common Good

Under our present circumstances, the way forward is the way back. The classical conception of the common good provides a framework for creating a genuinely post-liberal politics that advances human flourishing. Several features of this approach sharply distinguish it from the liberal paradigm. Classical politics is communal rather than individualistic, cooperative rather than competitive, and substantive rather than procedural. I will explain these differences briefly.

The communal character of classical politics is most evident in its commitment to the common good. Generally speaking the common good is distinguished from the individual good as a good shared and enjoyed by many rather than a good enjoyed individually. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the individual good (as along as it is genuinely a good). Nevertheless, it is inferior. Indeed, common goods pervade and ennoble human life even outside of politics: the procreation and education of the child is the common good of the parent; the symphonic beauty of the orchestra; or even the efficient provision of medical goods and services in a hospital. All of these are common goods that make our lives better, and the same is true with the political common good, which consists in cooperative human flourishing. In this perspective, genuine human flourishing is something that we achieve together, through cooperative effort. We do not flourish or decline alone. Rather we rise or fall together.

The classical approach emphasizes cooperation rather than competition. This is so because the common good cannot be accomplished without the coordination of many diverse factors of production. The building of a house or victory on the battlefield requires unity of purpose and following a plan. If the roofers show up before the foundation is laid, time and energy will be wasted. In the political context, cooperation means that the various segments of society will work in harmony with each in order to bring about the common good — concentrating rather than dividing their efforts. Of course, the coordination of diverse parts of society requires a robust administrative power, and much of the awe and respect traditionally afforded to political authority is based on the vital role it plays in advancing the common good.

Finally, classical politics is substantive rather than procedural. The liberal paradigm minimizes the political importance of questions about God, the Good, and the soul. Substantive matters of this sort were to be consigned to the private sphere; the metaphysical question of the good is an individual matter in this perspective. Each individual is free in a liberal regime to pursue his private, subjective version of the good. In the place of substantive philosophical commitments, liberal regimes adopt procedures of due process and fairness. These procedures are important because they secure the liberal priorities of equality and liberty. You may regard someone’s statements to be dangerous errors, but because the regime prioritizes liberty, safeguards are put in place to protect free speech, even when it is erroneous or harmful. Again, the procedural rules of fairness work to protect individual liberty and equality while separating philosophy and religion from politics.

The sort of tidy separation of the Good and politics achieved in liberalism is considered a grave defect from the classical perspective. By contrast, classical politics characterizes the common good in terms of human flourishing — a species specific form of perfection. Framing political life in this way leaves no room for bracketing philosophical questions about the good. Of course, classical political thought leaves plenty of room for particular institutions, historical circumstance, and custom. Nevertheless, with these qualifications in place, the politics of human flourishing necessarily includes a philosophy of the Good — mere procedures are not enough.

Going Forward

In sum, if the postliberal political culture focuses on the common good, we can expect a form of politics that pivots towards cooperation, mutual benefit (and burden), hierarchy, and traditional moral norms. The development of such a political community would mark a sharp departure from the options that are on offer today. At once more regal and united, and more cooperative.

In upcoming installments of Logos Letter, I intend to develop a systematic interpretation and defense of the common good from a Thomist – corporatist point of view (sometimes called Solidarism); this series of essays will include a concrete policy agenda and answers to common objections. In many ways, much of what I intend to argue has been anticipated by the early stages of Catholic Social Teaching, Thomas Aquinas, and associated sources. But even if my sources are older the politics of the common good is not out of date. Indeed, tt is time to give the common good another chance.

Please remember that beginning in December, some content on Logos Letter will be restricted to paid subscribers.