Liberalism's Erosion and Reclaiming Its Core Principles

The liberal order, once seemingly inevitable, is now under siege from populist and authoritarian forces, both domestically and abroad. This conversation with Adrian Wooldridge reveals not just the erosion of liberal values but the insidious ways in which liberalism has become a pejorative term, even among its supposed adherents. The hidden consequence is a profound loss of intellectual clarity and a dangerous vacuum filled by illiberal ideologies. Those who understand this erosion--and the core principles liberalism must reclaim--will be better equipped to navigate the coming political landscape, offering a robust defense against the rising tide of authoritarianism. This analysis is crucial for anyone seeking to understand the deep currents shaping modern politics and the potential for a revitalized liberalism.

The Perilous Erosion of Liberalism's Core

The contemporary political discourse is marked by a peculiar paradox: while liberalism, as a philosophy, underpins much of the modern world, the term itself has become an insult, a pejorative label tossed about by its opponents. Adrian Wooldridge argues that this decline is not merely a semantic shift but a symptom of a deeper malaise, where liberals themselves have become a "guilty establishment" hesitant to defend their own foundational principles. This paralysis creates a vacuum, allowing passionate, albeit often illiberal, ideologies to fill the void. The consequence is a world yearning for control, yet adrift without a coherent liberal framework to provide it.

Wooldridge identifies three pillars of liberalism: skepticism about power, a belief in tolerance through open debate, and an unwavering focus on the individual. These tenets, he contends, are what critics like Putin and Orbán grasp more clearly than many self-proclaimed liberals. The erosion of these principles, particularly tolerance and the emphasis on the individual over the collective, has led to a "frozen orthodoxy" within liberal circles. This orthodoxy, characterized by a blend of market-favoring conservatism and moral laissez-faire on the left, has lost its dynamism and ability to inspire.

"What we have is a strange situation in which liberals have become the establishment in this country, and they've become a rather guilty establishment, guilty for certain good reasons, the financial crisis and the war in Iraq and various other things that they were largely responsible for. So they're a guilty establishment that keeps its power, keeps its privileges, but it isn't willing to really fight and articulate for its beliefs, particularly its fundamental belief in pluralism."

The decline is exacerbated by a perceived overreach of liberal policies since the 2008 financial crisis, including deregulation, unchecked business freedom, and a weakening of the nation-state. This has created fertile ground for populists who promise order and control, often by demonizing liberalism as elitist and out of touch. The insidious consequence is that the very ideas that fostered prosperity and freedom are now seen as the source of societal problems.

The "Woke" Contagion and the Loss of Individualism

A particularly damaging development, Wooldridge argues, is the rise of what he terms the "identitarian left," often associated with "woke" ideology. While not inherently illiberal to be left-wing, this faction, he contends, has shifted from a focus on individual rights to an obsession with group rights based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. This collectivization, where identity is fixed by group affiliation, directly contradicts the liberal emphasis on the individual as the ultimate component of society.

"I think that the essence of one of the three fundamental things about liberalism is its focus on the individual. It must always start with the individual."

This shift has created a "mirror world" to old feudal structures, where identity was fixed by birth. The consequence is a society where individuals are perceived as imprisoned by their group affiliations, hindering their ability to self-create and evolve. While acknowledging that collective wrongs may require collective solutions, Wooldridge stresses that this should not override the fundamental liberal tenet that individuals can and should define themselves. The danger lies in a system that prioritizes group identity over individual agency, a path that, paradoxically, leads to a loss of the very freedom liberalism seeks to champion.

The American Paradox: From Liberal Beacon to Post-Liberal Threat

The United States, founded on explicitly liberal principles, now finds itself at the forefront of a "post-liberal" movement that actively seeks to dismantle the liberal order. Wooldridge traces this phenomenon from Ronald Reagan's successful demonization of the term "liberal" to the rise of figures like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, who embody an illiberal philosophy rooted in the ideas of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt's concept of politics as a division between "friends and enemies" and the power to declare emergencies has become a blueprint for this new movement.

The consequence of this intellectual project is a direct assault on the foundational checks and balances that define American governance. Post-liberals, including intellectuals like Adrian Vermeule, advocate for a "unitary executive," a strongman president empowered to bypass democratic institutions and impose moral orthodoxies. This is a direct inversion of the American republic's founding principles, designed precisely to guard against tyranny.

"So you have a very peculiar thing that what starts off as a political strategy of demonization has actually become a movement which is turning the world's greatest liberal country against liberalism."

This post-liberal agenda, amplified by the perceived failures of liberalism to address societal ills like homelessness and drug addiction, offers a seductive narrative of control and order. However, its embrace of an "us vs. them" mentality and its willingness to suspend liberal restraints pose a grave threat to democratic societies worldwide. The intellectual underpinnings of this movement, far from being mere Trumpian impulses, represent a coherent, albeit dangerous, ideology seeking to replace the liberal world order with an illiberal one.

Reclaiming Liberalism's Lost Genius: Judgment, Home, and Control

Wooldridge argues that liberalism's decline is not an inevitable death knell but a call for a revolution within its own ranks. The "lost genius" of liberalism lies in its adaptability, its capacity to confront new problems by re-emphasizing its core tenets. This requires a move away from a "soggy center" and a "frozen orthodoxy" towards a more judgmental, community-oriented, and less absolutist approach to freedom.

The consequence of a liberalism that has become too non-judgmental is a society that struggles to offer a compelling vision. Wooldridge advocates for a return to the idea of "liberal education" as envisioned by thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Matthew Arnold, which emphasizes developing higher selves and anchoring individuals in cultural traditions that provide meaning and identity. This is not about imposing an elite's will but about fostering a sense of "home" and belonging, a crucial antidote to the atomization that populists exploit.

"The only way to stop that is through executive power, the strongman, and through some way of imposing moral orthodoxies on a fallen population."

Furthermore, liberalism must re-engage with the concept of "control." In an age where populism thrives on a sense of powerlessness, liberalism must offer a liberal means of restoring agency. This involves making moral judgments about what constitutes a better way of life and acting to discourage harmful behaviors, as seen in successful public health campaigns against smoking. It also means confronting the immense power of digital companies, whose profit-driven algorithms foster addiction and disinformation, thereby eroding individual control and creating a yearning for strongman rule. By rediscovering its suspicion of concentrated power, whether public or private, and by offering a vision that balances individual freedom with community and cultural meaning, liberalism can begin to reclaim its lost genius and offer a viable alternative to the rising tide of illiberalism.

Key Action Items

• Reaffirm Core Liberal Tenets: Publicly and vigorously defend the principles of skepticism towards power, tolerance, and individual rights. Distinguish these from the "frozen orthodoxy" of recent decades.
• Embrace Moral Judgment (Selectively): Reintroduce the concept that some ways of life and cultural values are more conducive to human flourishing than others, without resorting to illiberal imposition. This requires careful articulation and a focus on demonstrable societal benefit.
• Rebuild a Sense of "Home" and Identity: Invest in liberal education and cultural institutions that provide individuals with a sense of meaning, belonging, and connection to enduring values, countering atomization.
• Confront Digital Power: Develop robust regulatory frameworks for large tech companies to curb algorithmic manipulation, disinformation, and the erosion of individual control over attention and information. (Immediate Action)
• Champion Adaptability and Renewal: Foster internal debate and a willingness to reconsider outdated assumptions within liberal thought to meet contemporary challenges, rather than clinging to a "frozen orthodoxy." (Ongoing Investment)
• Advocate for Checked Power: Re-emphasize the historical liberal suspicion of concentrated power, applying it rigorously to both state actors and powerful private entities, especially tech giants. (This pays off in 12-18 months by building public trust and a more resilient system.)
• Distinguish Individualism from Atomism: Articulate a nuanced understanding of the individual that emphasizes self-creation and higher aspirations, rather than pure consumer choice, thereby offering a more robust vision of freedom that requires patience and effort to implement. (This requires sustained effort over the next 1-2 years.)