{"id":147535,"date":"2026-09-25T07:48:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-25T11:48:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=147535"},"modified":"2026-09-25T15:54:21","modified_gmt":"2026-09-25T19:54:21","slug":"pd-postliberalisms-rebellion-against-reality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=147535","title":{"rendered":"(PD) John F. Doherty–Postliberalism\u2019s Rebellion Against Reality\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The title of James Patterson\u2019s and Thomas Howes\u2019s book Why Postliberalism Failed<\/em><\/a> is not inspired by a belief that the contemporary American postliberal movement (made most famous in Patrick Deneen\u2019s book Why Liberalism Failed<\/em><\/a>) has collapsed. Quite the contrary: the authors believe that, in spite of an apparent retreat<\/a> of postliberalism, the movement continues to influence contemporary American political discourse. Indeed, people who have publicly endorsed it (and who continue to defend postliberal positions<\/a>) are in positions of the highest power in the U.S. government. All the more reason, Patterson and Howes argue, to understand what makes postliberalism tick. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors helpfully summarize the whole postliberal platform (not just its integralist wing, the subject of Kevin Vallier\u2019s excellent book All the Kingdoms of the World<\/em><\/a>), which is diffused throughout hundreds of articles, social media posts, and several books. Postliberals reject liberalism\u2019s protection of individual liberty as a precursor to communism, atheism, and other ills; they instead \u201cadvocate for restoring a divinely ordained hierarchy, with the Church providing spiritual rule and the state political rule.\u201d (In theory the state submits to the Church if the two bodies disagree.) Demoting individual freedom means centrally organizing the economy (\u201cin collaboration with state-approved guilds or cartels\u201d) and concentrating all political power in a unitary executive that governs through bureaucracy (hence many postliberals\u2019 sympathy for China\u2019s present government<\/a>). Unlike conservatives, who (out of respect for everyone\u2019s freedom and dignity) try to effect political change through constitutional processes, postliberals employ cultural Marxist tactics<\/a>, \u201cus[ing] political power to reward their friends and crush their enemies.\u201d They accept the administrative state and seek to populate it with their own numbers, \u201cput[ting] that bureaucracy to work providing a kind of right-wing welfare state.\u201d Whereas progressives use federal bureaucracy to advance sexual liberationism, many postliberals would use it to advance patriarchy<\/a>. Finally, postliberalism rejects America\u2019s responsibility for helping to uphold the law of nations; the United States should be neutral in all global conflicts, they say, even if that means allowing stronger countries to annex weaker ones<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the book\u2019s greatest achievements is to show in detail the similarity between contemporary postliberal theory and dozens of regimes that have actually existed in relatively recent history (although not in the memory of young postliberals), all of which failed to usher in the Christian society they promised (hence the book\u2019s title). Contemporary postliberalism is not a discovery made by the American New Right in the last two decades; postliberalism has been a constant temptation of Western conservatives, especially religious ones, at least since the French Revolution. We\u2019ve been through all this before, and it has always ended badly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>

John Doherty of @WitherspoonInst<\/a> reviews @ThomasDHowes<\/a> and @McGillPatterson<\/a>\u2019s Why Postliberalism Failed @PublicDiscourse<\/a> \u2014 https:\/\/t.co\/ME7aLT2aOF<\/a><\/p>— Matt Franck (@MatthewJFranck) September 24, 2026<\/a><\/blockquote>