View Cart

    Subtotal: $

    Checkout
    linocut illustration of wheat

    After Liberalism – What?

    A PloughCast/Wisdom of Crowds Joint Episode

    By Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic

    September 3, 2022
    3 Comments
    3 Comments
    3 Comments
      Submit
    • Linda wilson

      According to Wikipedia this is the definition of Classical Liberalism. “Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.” By this definition “liberals” and “conservatives” in America are “liberals.” The problem comes with differing views of the limit of government, what constitutes the extension of civil liberties. The essence is self government and any conservative or liberal movement that does not recognize this is outside the American view of democracy. One purpose of our form of government is to “provide the domestic tranquility.” Liberals in the classical sense are supposed to argue and work towards consensus. No one gets it all their own way. It is not Un-American to be liberal, conservative, or anything else. What is Un-American is to be any one of those things and call those that disagree Un-American. That goes against liberal tradition. We have to learn to respect each other as we disagree with each other. Discontent is the mark of a working democracy, because it is human nature to take for granted what we get and become discontent over what we didn’t get. Democracy requires each side to give up some things so that consensus can be reached. This is probably not what the folks here had in mind, but for American democracy it needs, I think, to be part of what we mean by post-liberalism. Do we want to move away from democracy towards something more authoritarian. Liberal and liberty are cognates, but then so is libertine. This might suggest that as a nation, where is the border between liberty and community?

    • J. D. Wilson, Jr.

      According to Wikipedia this is the definition of Classical Liberalism. “Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.” By this definition “liberals” and “conservatives” in America are “liberals.” The problem comes with differing views of the limit of government, what constitutes the extension of civil liberties. The essence is self government and any conservative or liberal movement that does not recognize this is outside the American view of democracy. One purpose of our form of government is to “provide the domestic tranquility.” Liberals in the classical sense are supposed to argue and work towards consensus. No one gets it all their own way. It is not Un-American to be liberal, conservative, or anything else. What is Un-American is to be any one of those things and call those that disagree Un-American. That goes against liberal tradition. We have to learn to respect each other as we disagree with each other. Discontent is the mark of a working democracy, because it is human nature to take for granted what we get and become discontent over what we didn’t get. Democracy requires each side to give up some things so that consensus can be reached. This is probably not what the folks here had in mind, but for American democracy it needs, I think, to be part of what we mean by post-liberalism. Do we want to move away from democracy towards something more authoritarian. Liberal and liberty are cognates, but then so is libertine. This might suggest that as a nation, where is the border between liberty and community?

    • Harold Miller

      I just listened to the 'hour long' discussion by the three discussants. Fascinating, but simply astonishing that there was no mention of what all humans have in common: water, air, weather, natural environment, etc. We hummus are integral with those realities Morality, life, relationships, everything eventually depends on the human respect for and engagement with the natural world

    Peter Mommsen and Susannah Black Roberts speak with Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic.

    Listen and subscribe to The PloughCast

    Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | iHeartRadio

    About This Episode

    Susannah, Peter, Shadi, and Damir talk about Yoram Hazony’s National Conservative Statement of Principles, John Milbank’s Open Letter, and what postliberalism means.

    They talk about what the NatCon statement implies about what state power should be used for, and then find themselves discussing abortion, and the future of the country given the profound differences that exist.

    They talk about whether slavery and abortion are fundamentally different kinds of questions, about the nature of law, about assisted dying in Canada, whether and how progress happens.

    The conversation then turns to the nature of religious truth, and on what politics is based on – sociability, justice, or love?

    Recommended Reading

    Contributed By ShadiHamid Shadi Hamid

    Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic.

    Learn More
    Contributed By a portrait of Damir Marusic Damir Marusic

    Damir Marusic is a resident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.

    Learn More
    3 Comments