Is Postliberalism just Christian Nationalism by Another Name?

Comparing Classic Liberalism, Affirmative Liberalism, and Postliberalism

Photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash

One of the political buzzwords today is “postliberalism,” a political philosophy that is associated with people such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, the UK’s “Blue Labour,” USA VP J.D. Vance, and Catholic political theorists Patrick Deneen (See his Why Liberalism Failed and Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future). It is a political philosophy that is increasingly intersecting with political theology, hence my interest in it and attention to it.

I would argue that classical liberalism emerged as a political system created to encourage tolerance of minorities and to ensure the civil rights of all citizens. Liberalism was a way to resist the tyranny of both the majority and government in a given social context (i.e. post-Reformation Europe). However, since the Second World War, political liberalism has evolved into a socio-political framework that prioritizes human autonomy and expressive individualism over and against the mediating institutions of nationality, tradition, family, religion, and local community. Let’s call it “affirmative liberalism.” The result of affirmative liberalism is the fracture and fragmentation of society, a hierarchy of identities rather than equality before the law, and coercive measures against mediating institutions if they resist expressive individualism.

Postliberals critique affirmative liberalism is the terms stated above and in the place of liberalism they advocate a social framework that is willing to restrain expressive liberties, curtail laissez-faire economics, and prevent government intrusion into mediating institutions. Postliberals also prefer to support nationality over globalism, community over identity, tradition over dissent, and a common good over autonomy. The role of the state in postliberalism is, among other things, to promote social cohesion and a shared ethical framework through popular traditions and a social contract.

Postliberals are diverse in terms of both the “post” and “liberal” elements. Postliberalism can sound like a socially conservative socialism or else a mixture of libertarianism mixed with communitarianism with an emphasis on “we” before “me.”

---

Check out the excellent podcast interview about postliberalism on the Church Grammarly podcast where Brandon Smith talks to James Wood of Redeemer University on the subject.

Patrick Deneen has a short video explaining Postliberalism here and Hunter Baker has recently published his book Postliberal Protestants: Baptists Between Obergefell and Christian Nationalism.

---

Let me explain the differences between classic liberalism, affirmative liberalism, and postliberalism with an analogy about nude dancers.

Let’s say that somebody identifies as a “nude dancer” and declares that their identity means that they must dance naked through the street in order to flourish as human beings.

In which case, according to progressive liberalism, unless the nude dancers are free to express themselves, then they are oppressed, and all oppression and restriction of self-expression is a moral evil. In addition, if somebody critiques or resists the desire of nude dancers to dance nude in public, the government either pressures and prosecutes individuals or groups for their dissenting and discriminating - and thus oppressive - prejudices. The government creates spaces for nude dancers and then, later on, nude dancers demand that all persons must affirm the inherent good of nude dancing and disaffirmation is discouraged by informal and formal repercussions (sound familiar?). The irony is that in affirmative liberalism, society becomes both more and less liberal (i.e. free) at the same time.

How does this progressive liberalism differ from classical liberalism and postliberalism when it comes to nude dancing?

In classic liberalism, you could dance nude in the privacy of your own home without persecution or harassment, but you would face a token punishment, like a fine, if you danced nude in public. In postliberalism, people are taught not to dance nude in public, you are still free to do it in your own home, but if you do dance naked in the streets, the state will whip your buttocks with a wet shoelace until you stop.

Or, to spell out the differences another way, using musical theatre:

Classic Liberalism: “Do you hear the people sing?” (from Les Misérables).

Progressive Liberalism: “No right, no wrong, no rules for me. I'm free” (from Frozen)

Postliberalism: “Even when the dark comes crashing through. When you need a friend to carry you. When you're broken on the ground. You will be found” (from Dear Evan Hansen).

The advantages of Postliberalism is that it retains the basic emphasis on tolerance and civil rights in classical liberalism while also avoiding the fissures and excesses of affirmative liberalism. Postliberalism is also an alternative to the theocratic tendencies of Christian Nationalism and the nanny-state ethos of democratic socialism.

However, the downside of Postliberalism is:

• The suspicion of globalism means postliberals can become isolationist and nationalist.

• The suspicion of free market economics means reduced incentives for innovation and risk-taking, while also inhibiting profit motive, which may reduce economic prosperity.

• Who decides the common good and which traditions and institutions should be supported by the state to promote it?

• The curtailment of expressive individualism will always require some degree of censorship and coercion which can easily morph into authoritarianism.

I think progressive liberalism is incoherent, chaotic, and coercive. It is a place where governments want to ban cigarettes but legalize cannabis. There is a suicide prevention hotline, but also an info-line about accessing euthanasia. It is where you have sexual freedom to the max, but lesbians who refuse to have sex with transwomen are guilty of discrimination. Even if most citizens do not support abortion all the way up to birth, governments will still seize control of Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions. In progressive liberalism, there is hyper-individualism in self-expression, but individuals are viewed through the lens of an identity group rather than as individuals before the law. It is a world where grievance trumps evidence. It is a place where sociology displaces science. A place where Marxism is found in gender studies departments, but not in economic think-tanks.

That said, Postliberalism may not be the solution as it sometimes sounds like a British bishop in the House of Lords wearing a MAGA hat. Or else, it is the Portguese dictator António de Oliveira Salaza holding a rosary and a copy of World Magazine. Allowing religious institutions a political voice and social influence can easily give way to civil religion and ethno-nationalism. The attempt to forge a common good in a heterogeneous society, united by religious values, and that commands democratic consensus, will be nearly impossible to forge without the manipulation of the populace.

I wonder if the best option is what I call chastened liberalism, shorn of the excesses and absurdities of affirmative liberalism, and which proceeds on the basis of historical awareness of its genetic origins in Latin jurisprudence, Christianity, and the Enlightenment. Further, its objective is to ensure the freedom and responsibility of its citizens, balancing individualism and the common good, where no single ideology or institution becomes Almighty. To do that, I wonder if liberal democracies need to think of themselves not as a collection of individuals nor even as a socio-religious demographic, but as a type of civilization, dare I say a Christianized civilization with a bespoke legal tradition, a way of ordering society, one that is a compelling alternative to a Caliphate and Communism.

Otherwise, what do you think about Postliberalism? Let me know in the comments below!