Ingeborg G. Gabriel is a professor emerita at the University of Vienna.
The debate in the United States and beyond on liberalism has taken a rather disconcerting turn, in which concepts from Catholic Social Teaching (CST) are invoked. The following post is an attempt to sketch this phenomenon drawing on ideas of economist Angus Deaton and philosopher Patrick Deneen. Can CST, which is also high on the agenda of the present pontiff Leo XIV, cut a trail through the jungle of these ideas?
Angus Deaton: Can Liberalism Become Suicidal?
In The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality (2015), Angus Deaton, the 2015 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, shows that liberal economics in the tradition of Adam Smith have, during the past 250 years, been the theoretical basis for the way out of poverty for the largest part of a world population growing at great speed. Deaton sketches a path for the future to increase the “wealth of nations” through concerted action and solidarity to reduce inequalities.
In his latest book, Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism (2023), Deaton and his coauthor Anne Case are, however, much less optimistic. In analyzing the opioid epidemic in the United States, which led to a reduction in life expectancy in some groups, they even muse whether it would not be appropriate to speak of the “failure of capitalism.” The authors credit the epidemic to the lack of independence of the political from the economic sphere—that is, a corruption of politics, as well as aggressive advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry’s products; the scaling down of public goods, among them the health care system; and last but not least personal despair, which they attribute mainly to the stagnation or even decline of low- and middle-income wages in the United States over the past decades.
According to this economic analysis, the framing conditions for economic liberalism, which are solid institutions, education, and health care, as well as independent political decision-making for the common good, have eroded, leading to a deterioration of living standards of larger parts of the populace and the depletion of the public infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. This deterioration, by the way, also constitutes a major problem in Europe and is one of the main reasons for the rise of nationalist right-wing parties there. However, from across the Atlantic one observes that there are also strongly anti-institutionalist motives for the breakdown of traditional liberal institutions. The Trump administration’s purges of federal agencies and renowned academic institutions, as well as its attempts to re-nationalize the economy, thereby seem to be infected by the strangely contradictory germs of nationalism and anti-statism. The latter leads to what has been called a “great-power suicide” by a former director of the CIA. Considering that the United States is the leading power of the West, this muddle of ideas must ring alarm bells.
Patrick Deneen: Blueprint for a Revolution Leading to What?
Has liberalism indeed reached a tipping point of no longer being able to provide justice for the majority of the population? Must it be replaced by another form of political order? This is the hypothesis of University of Notre Dame Professor Patrick Deneen, whom JD Vance has called his intellectual mentor (and Deneen has voiced hopes that Vance will become the next U.S. president). In Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future (2023) Deneen gives traditionalism a post-liberal revolutionary turn. His overall message strangely recalls a radical left slogan in Germany in the 1960s: “Destroy what destroys you!”
Deneen, who is a frequent guest in Europe, is loved by both economic libertarians (or liberals in European parlance), because of his anti-state rhetoric and an emphasis on personal morality, and by right wingers, because of his nationalism and harsh critique of the managerial and political elites who have lost touch with the people due to their wealth and, more significantly, their claim to moral superiority. According to Deneen, the failure of liberalism stems mainly from its destructive effects on the moral foundations of communities, firstly the family but also civic institutions and with them the traditional values, often labeled Christian, of the majority of the population. He thus—unlike Deaton—focuses on moral reasons for the social crisis. In his traditionalist critique of progress, Deneen combines romantic ideas with a revolutionary impetus. This is not new. After all, the term revolution comes from re-volvere, meaning “to return,” to a supposedly better past. Nostalgia has been an important ingredient of fascist as well as Marxist ideologies. Deneen’s acid criticism of liberal political institutions thus reflects a mixture of ideas that attunes with the discontent of some segments of Western societies.
This blog-post format does not allow for a thorough analysis of reasons for this but does allow for some hints: Though material inequalities and disappointment play a role, it may be just as important that the liberal call for freedom stands in stark contrast with the fact that, because of the sheer complexity of all spheres of modern societies, there exist more rules and regulations than ever before. The obscene wealth of the superrich, as well as a libertarian ideology depleting the public space of institutions, are further reasons for growing discontent. Against these apparent shortcomings of the present social and political order, the buzz word is community, signaling a nostalgia widespread even beyond the right. At a recent conference I attended, left-leaning academics expressed unanimous enthusiasm about a speech on African Ubuntu communities, contrasting their social warmth with the cold individualistic and egoistic milieu in the West, thereby obscuring that such communities are in no way egalitarian vis-à-vis women and minorities.
Based on this ideal of community, Deneen criticizes a representative democracy that is no longer based on personal relations and referendums but is hijacked by the wealthy few. His skepticism regarding institutions extends to the international order, which he considers inimical to his communitarian approach, being based on an elite universalism.
This emphasis on community is not without reason, however. It hints at the open flank of liberal societies, which depend on moral and social foundations they are unable to produce or reproduce by themselves. Critics of liberalism like Michael Sandel and other communitarians have rightly contended that a political community’s humus—consisting of functioning families, strong civil society organizations, religious and other public communities, and social networks—tends to erode under the conditions of economic competition and because of modern technologies.
As a remedy, Deneen proposes a common-good conservativism that uses “Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends.”[1] His blueprint for regime change leading to what he calls Aristopopulism foresees a reintegration of elites into society by, for example, forcing its members to learn about the life of the majority. Chinese commentators have, not without humor, linked such a blueprint to their “cultural revolution.” Be that as it may, the reference to Machiavelli indicates that the depth of the social crisis justifies violent means to reach the common good—a thought that, in light of U.S. policies during the past several months, shows some concrete traction. Interestingly enough, Deneen does not address the role of technologies and their effects on human relations (for example, the reduction of human communication).
Differentiating Political, Economic, and Moral Liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching
Since the above ideas resound with segments of U.S. and global Catholicism and are easily identified with, their relationship to CST requires some, even if fragmentary, clarifications. Given that the new pontiff chose the name Pope Leo XIV (referring to Leo XIII, the initiator of CST), and intends to promote CST, as his first apostolic exhortation (Dilexi Te) shows, the question is: Can CST help clarify some of these concepts and ideas?
Whereas Deaton’s analysis centers on economic and political factors and their effects on individuals, opting for an institutional approach based on solidarity, Deneen focuses on a rejection of liberalism, its institutions, and its priority of individual freedom over other values, replacing it with what he calls a common-good conservativism. This opposition as well as the somewhat disturbing idea that morality can be brought about by force clearly runs counter to CST, which combines the notion of individual dignity and freedom with the call for solidarity and the common good.
Differentiating between moral, economic, and political branches of liberalism, the following remarks are meant to serve as a first impulse for a much-needed wider debate.
Personal morality is constitutive for any society and the well-being of its members. Structures are not sufficient. A good fleet must consist of good ships (per C.S. Lewis).[2] The lack of knowledge and practice of the ten commandments constitutes a problem for everybody. It is obvious, however, that personal virtues cannot be commanded and are susceptible to changes by law only to a limited degree. They are the always-fragile result of long-term cultural and educational processes for which the family, educational institutions, and, last but not least, religious communities and churches bear responsibility. The moral standards of a society, moreover, depend on material and working conditions. Poorer groups in general have less material and social capital and fewer cultural resources, particularly if they are not organized religiously or politically. Religious communities tend to further the common good because they assure a moral basis and social networks and give life transcendental meaning. How to give people a sense of moral agency and self-respect (per John Rawls) are major social questions that liberalism hardly addresses, particularly in times of social change. Here Deneen has a point, even if his assumption that morality can be forced on humans is dystopian.
An economic liberalism centered on belief in an unregulated market mechanism has always been sharply criticized by CST. Such a laissez-faire liberalism, as already reflected in the introductory paragraph of Rerum Novarum (1891) leads to “enormous fortunes of individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses,” creating social tensions and not allowing the poor classes to develop their human potential. Moreover, the negative influence of wealthy actors over politics and political institutions has been a recurrent theme in CST (for example, in Quadragesimo Anno, issued in 1931). The aim of economic activities is the realization of the common good—that is, of material conditions that allow people to live decent lives. This sober usage of the term common good in CST distinguishes its social vision fundamentally from what has been formulated in a fascist slogan as “Common good goes before individual good!” The ultimate aims are individual well-being and dignity, which require solidarity but also individual rights.
Finally, political liberalism: Since Vatican II (and, with regard to social rights, before Vatican II), CST has stressed the centrality of human rights, seen democracy as the best form of government, and emphasized the importance of international institutions and cooperations. (See, for example, Gaudium et spes (1965) and more recently Laudate Deum (2023)). Moreover, throughout its history the Catholic Church has been at odds with nationalism, including Christian nationalism, despite the importance of nation states for the common good being an oxymoron.
Such principles do not offer simple political solutions, but they do outline a framework for them, whereby the person/individual and the common good are the cornerstones—which must not be played against each other. As ultimate values, they have to be realized in a densely populated world of more than eight billion people aspiring toward well-being and freedom. Although CST is not progressist in an ideological sense, this simple fact does not allow for backward-looking ideals but requires technology and differentiated and enhanced processes of international cooperation.
Some Conclusions
A witty Hungarian colleague has called the debates by new conservatives “turbulences in the void” (a physical nonsense). The 1989 Velvet Revolutions had as their aim the establishment of a liberal political and economic order. This aspiration also guides countries today, like Ukraine, that want to join the bloc of liberal democracies, at great sacrifice. Thus, liberalism is not a “light that failed.[3] It has flaws that need to be addressed by CST, as well as by other frameworks, institutions, and individuals, and that must be corrected by political and social action. However, this fact should not lead to intellectual experiments that offer little guidance for the future.
References:
[1] PATRICK J. DENEEN, REGIME CHANGE: TOWARD A POSTLIBERAL FUTURE 167 (2023).
[2] C.S. LEWIS, MERE CHRISTIANITY 71 (2001).
[3] IVAN KRASTEV & STEPHEN HOLMES, THE LIGHT THAT FAILED: A RECKONING (2019).