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.
Great analysis. It has struck me for some time that there’s no inherent contradiction between the ‘left’ and ‘ right’ elements of populist thinking.
In fact, one could argue that unrestrained capitalism benefits from all woke projects. Gender-bending supports greater consumption and economic activity; lower fertility equals more time in the workplace and shopping malls. And those hormone blockers aren’t going to pay for themselves.
Borders are ‘racist’ of course, but also sand in the gears of an economic system which requires the free-est possible movement of people, money and goods.
Multiculturalism delivers local diversity, which as everyone from Putnam to Salter has demonstrated, lowers social trust within communities. Fewer people bowling together in leagues, but also fewer volunteering and fewer joining trade unions.
It’s fascinating to consider how much these two alleged ‘sides’ of populist politics have in common. It’s as if the whole left left/right political spectrum - this outdated relic of the French Revolution - is being deliberately maintained to engender disunity in populist ranks.
Most of that is very correct particularly the art thing but liberalism goes a bit farther. It places man above nature (with reason and institutions from reason). They don't think they're disconnected from nature, although they are, but they do see themselves above rather than within it like romantics.
Also you say man is political in nature but politics is hardly a unifying force. Politics is more what individualists do, that's romantics and liberals, for differing reasons. A justice system cannot be political. If it's political then you have no state and are forced to engage in military authoritarianism to hold the state together or you just get revolutions and riots. A justice system has to be based in values which are applied consistently. Anything else is just not a stable institution. This applies to the arts and sciences as well. We've hardly been in a renaissance of arts and everything has become hyperpolitical. The arts and sciences have become shallow due to politics. It's not even a marketplace of ideas because politicized science never actually does science. We see that with dei, deutschphysik etc. They're engaged in something else. That limit of what man can be as political can be drawn further down.
Also you keep saying common good but you never say what the common good is. In fact you say man is political making it seem like a state is a General Will from Rousseau which is extremely individualistic. There needs to be a common good that the population adheres to and it can't be as unstable as political agreements. It'd have to, for you, be looked at within catholicism for something that unites us. It has to be an epistemic approach with a metaphysics. You said thomism but it's more than obvious that reason and empiricism cannot be the epistemic approach. Neither can testimonial or consensual epistemologies. Usa used reason and it did not work and empiricism is so inductive it's stuck in a replication crisis except where artificially bandaged.
#$%^^& this reactionary bs. There may be a case that classical liberalism is losing some of its appeal for people, but going backwards to a time before liberalism is not the answer.
Hi, this post is well written and interesting, thanks for writing it. Your perspective you share within it regard populism and its current resurgence is interesting, but it appears you may have the wrong impression of traditional American populism, especially as it dominated the politics and decision-making of the Old Republic. Historically, US populism, deeply rooted in the Jacksonian tradition, wasn't just a reaction to elite corruption but a proactive, energetic, systemic effort to decentralize power, making it so that institutions remained accessible to ordinary people and responsive to local concerns and policy ideas. This populism derived most of its energy from regional autonomy, local financial control, and the deliberate prevention of public and private power concentrations.
The dissatisfaction you're seeing today might not only herald a transient "wave" of populism but may actually be signs of the centrifugal precursors to a deeper period of decentralization. Such a shift has the potential to resurrect *real* populism -- one that doesn't just critique elites but actively dismantles over-centralized structures to create systems of leadership and institutions that are embedded in and reflective of local communities. While you rightly note the inevitability of leaders and institutions, the forms they take and how many of them there are on a relative basis, and the variability of them within a given system, and dynamic or even transient they are, varies by quite a lot; and the form they take after this era may not simply return to the deeply centralized and rigidly hierarchical norms we've had since the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, but might just reimagine manifest themselves in mold with the decentralized ethos the USA's deeply populist Old Republic.
Thank you for your comments. My perspective on populism is not based on the traditional American model, but the classical class analysis advanced by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and similar authors. In this perspective, populism is a powerful but transient and reactive force. Of course I may be wrong. The current developments may take on a more Jacksonian and long lasting character. We will see. My hope is that current situation will mark a pivot towards the politics of the common good. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my essay.
Thank you for your analysis. Aquinas is important for the Common Good tradition. It is also found throughout the Anglican tradition through Richard Hooker -whom Aquinas also influenced. Aquinas was received as a ‘Schoolman,’ rather than as the exemplar of Roman Catholicism.
John, I am sure that you are correct. I have not had the opportunity to read Hooker, but I know he is an important source. Do you suggest a particular work?
I'm reading his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as well as a fine introduction to his thought by W. Bradford Littleford. I think he is an important convergence between Anglo-American thought with its 'Protestantism' and Aquinas that is not overdetermined by the biblicism and ultimate Christian nationalism of the dissenting/radical Protestant tradition.
Great analysis. It has struck me for some time that there’s no inherent contradiction between the ‘left’ and ‘ right’ elements of populist thinking.
In fact, one could argue that unrestrained capitalism benefits from all woke projects. Gender-bending supports greater consumption and economic activity; lower fertility equals more time in the workplace and shopping malls. And those hormone blockers aren’t going to pay for themselves.
Borders are ‘racist’ of course, but also sand in the gears of an economic system which requires the free-est possible movement of people, money and goods.
Multiculturalism delivers local diversity, which as everyone from Putnam to Salter has demonstrated, lowers social trust within communities. Fewer people bowling together in leagues, but also fewer volunteering and fewer joining trade unions.
It’s fascinating to consider how much these two alleged ‘sides’ of populist politics have in common. It’s as if the whole left left/right political spectrum - this outdated relic of the French Revolution - is being deliberately maintained to engender disunity in populist ranks.
Most of that is very correct particularly the art thing but liberalism goes a bit farther. It places man above nature (with reason and institutions from reason). They don't think they're disconnected from nature, although they are, but they do see themselves above rather than within it like romantics.
Also you say man is political in nature but politics is hardly a unifying force. Politics is more what individualists do, that's romantics and liberals, for differing reasons. A justice system cannot be political. If it's political then you have no state and are forced to engage in military authoritarianism to hold the state together or you just get revolutions and riots. A justice system has to be based in values which are applied consistently. Anything else is just not a stable institution. This applies to the arts and sciences as well. We've hardly been in a renaissance of arts and everything has become hyperpolitical. The arts and sciences have become shallow due to politics. It's not even a marketplace of ideas because politicized science never actually does science. We see that with dei, deutschphysik etc. They're engaged in something else. That limit of what man can be as political can be drawn further down.
Also you keep saying common good but you never say what the common good is. In fact you say man is political making it seem like a state is a General Will from Rousseau which is extremely individualistic. There needs to be a common good that the population adheres to and it can't be as unstable as political agreements. It'd have to, for you, be looked at within catholicism for something that unites us. It has to be an epistemic approach with a metaphysics. You said thomism but it's more than obvious that reason and empiricism cannot be the epistemic approach. Neither can testimonial or consensual epistemologies. Usa used reason and it did not work and empiricism is so inductive it's stuck in a replication crisis except where artificially bandaged.
#$%^^& this reactionary bs. There may be a case that classical liberalism is losing some of its appeal for people, but going backwards to a time before liberalism is not the answer.
Well I cannot agree, but I appreciate your spirited reply.
Integralism FTW.
Good insight 😌. Can I translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?
Salvador,
I would be honored for you to do so. Thank you for asking. I am so pleased you found the essay useful.
Thanks. This is a note about your article:
https://substack.com/profile/172879528-salvador-lorca/note/c-81365575
And this is your article:
https://cienciasocial.substack.com/p/despues-del-liberalismo-el-bien-comun
Some writers to whom I have translated have made a restack of the article, with a sentence like this:
‘My article has been translated into Spanish’.
Hi, this post is well written and interesting, thanks for writing it. Your perspective you share within it regard populism and its current resurgence is interesting, but it appears you may have the wrong impression of traditional American populism, especially as it dominated the politics and decision-making of the Old Republic. Historically, US populism, deeply rooted in the Jacksonian tradition, wasn't just a reaction to elite corruption but a proactive, energetic, systemic effort to decentralize power, making it so that institutions remained accessible to ordinary people and responsive to local concerns and policy ideas. This populism derived most of its energy from regional autonomy, local financial control, and the deliberate prevention of public and private power concentrations.
The dissatisfaction you're seeing today might not only herald a transient "wave" of populism but may actually be signs of the centrifugal precursors to a deeper period of decentralization. Such a shift has the potential to resurrect *real* populism -- one that doesn't just critique elites but actively dismantles over-centralized structures to create systems of leadership and institutions that are embedded in and reflective of local communities. While you rightly note the inevitability of leaders and institutions, the forms they take and how many of them there are on a relative basis, and the variability of them within a given system, and dynamic or even transient they are, varies by quite a lot; and the form they take after this era may not simply return to the deeply centralized and rigidly hierarchical norms we've had since the advent of the so called Neoliberal Era, but might just reimagine manifest themselves in mold with the decentralized ethos the USA's deeply populist Old Republic.
Mike,
Thank you for your comments. My perspective on populism is not based on the traditional American model, but the classical class analysis advanced by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and similar authors. In this perspective, populism is a powerful but transient and reactive force. Of course I may be wrong. The current developments may take on a more Jacksonian and long lasting character. We will see. My hope is that current situation will mark a pivot towards the politics of the common good. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my essay.
Thank you for your analysis. Aquinas is important for the Common Good tradition. It is also found throughout the Anglican tradition through Richard Hooker -whom Aquinas also influenced. Aquinas was received as a ‘Schoolman,’ rather than as the exemplar of Roman Catholicism.
John, I am sure that you are correct. I have not had the opportunity to read Hooker, but I know he is an important source. Do you suggest a particular work?
I'm reading his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity as well as a fine introduction to his thought by W. Bradford Littleford. I think he is an important convergence between Anglo-American thought with its 'Protestantism' and Aquinas that is not overdetermined by the biblicism and ultimate Christian nationalism of the dissenting/radical Protestant tradition.
J