Epstein Files Full PDF

Postliberalism is a political ideology and movement that critiques and opposes classical and social liberalism, particularly as developed in the late 20th and 21st centuries. Proponents argue liberalism's focus on individual rights, free markets, and limited government has eroded social cohesion, community, and traditional moral frameworks, as well as income inequality, a critique that opponents often characterize as a projection of the social fragmentation and economic nationalism endemic to postliberal politics itself. They advocate for a communitarian politics centered on social conservatism, social solidarity, and a stronger state role in shaping culture, often drawing on traditionalist conservative or religious thought.^[1]

Critics, including prominent political philosophers, historians, and democratic institutions, argue that postliberalism serves as an intellectual framework for democratic backsliding and illiberalism. They contend its critique of liberal democratic institutions, liberal individualism, and minority protections aligns it with authoritarian and national conservative projects, most notably the self-described "illiberal state" of Viktor Orbán's Hungary.^[2][3] The movement is associated with policies of economic nationalism, localism, and populist criticism of democratic norms.

Postliberals advocate for a communitarian approach that emphasizes social conservatism and social solidarity, often drawing on traditionalist conservative and religious frameworks. They are generally skeptical of liberal individualism, instead viewing individuals as being connected to networks of obligations within families, communities, tribes, and religious institutions. Postliberal thinkers support a greater role for the state in influencing culture and reinforcing shared values. The movement is associated with ideas such as economic nationalism, localism, and criticism of liberal democracy.^[4]

Postliberalism emerged in the United Kingdom from a movement within the Labour Party called Blue Labour.^[5][6] Early British theorists included John Gray, Maurice Glasman, Phillip Blond, Adrian Pabst, John Milbank, and Jon Cruddas.^[6][7] Initially, British postliberalism developed as a center-left ideology with roots in Christian socialism.

In the United States, postliberalism gained influence primarily among conservatives critical of fusionism. Figures associated with this perspective include Patrick Deneen, Rod Dreher, and Adrian Vermeule, as well as the Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony.^[8][9][10]

Postliberalism contends that liberalism, in both its economic and social forms, weakens social and communal bonds that contribute to human well-being. A central idea in postliberal thought is that individuals are shaped by their social and cultural contexts rather than existing as purely autonomous agents. Postliberals argue that the liberal emphases on individual rights and freedoms have diminished the roles of community, family, and tradition in fostering meaning and belonging. They posit that a stable society requires a shared sense of purpose and commitment to the common good, which they claim liberalism has not sufficiently provided.

Postliberals reference social contract theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, as well as figures like John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, to argue that liberalism promotes an individualism that they see as incompatible with human sociability.^[11] Patrick Deneen contends that liberalism encourages individuals to approach commitments and relationships with flexibility, treating them as interchangeable and subject to renegotiation, leading to weaker social ties.^[12]

Postliberals critique the liberal conception of the state as a neutral mediator, arguing instead that it should actively promote an ideal vision of social well-being grounded in the values and traditions of the community it serves. They promote political opposition to immigration and cultural diversity while advocating for conservative institutions like the nuclear family and religion. Postliberals reject a value-free state, arguing it should actively foster social cohesion and the common good.^[13]

Liberal theorists such as John Rawls have framed liberalism as a system in which the state remains neutral on personal values. In contrast, Deneen argues that neutrality is an illusion, asserting that every social order is built on fundamental beliefs and commitments.^[14]

Postliberals emphasize a political approach centered on the common good, seeking to balance individual and group rights with social responsibilities. Some critique economic liberalism, advocating for greater regulation and social embeddedness, while others emphasize the role of cultural traditions and national identity in maintaining social cohesion.

Postliberal critics of economic liberalism argue that economic liberalism has contributed to the concentration of wealth and power among a small segment of society, leading to economic stratification between elites and the working class. They advocate for market intervention by the state, including protectionist policies and measures aimed at reducing economic inequality, protecting labor rights, and community development.

John Gray has argued that free markets and globalization have weakened the foundations of modern market economies. Similarly, Patrick Deneen contends that liberalism leads to a cycle of state expansion to manage social fragmentation, requiring legal and administrative mechanisms to replace communal institutions such as schools, healthcare, and charitable organizations, ultimately diminishing a shared sense of community and collective identity.^[14]

Postliberal perspectives on international relations and global politics have been developed by scholars such as John Milbank, Adrian Pabst, and Patrick Deneen.^[6] Postliberalism attributes contemporary challenges in international relations to what it sees as an intensification of liberalism. In contrast to John Ikenberry's view that the liberal international order is threatened by illiberal forces and requires further liberalization to counteract these challenges, postliberals interpret the rise of illiberal movements as a reaction to what they perceive as contradictions within liberalism itself.^[6]

Pabst suggests that the emergence of populism and civilizational states reflects a response to global politics that, in this view, prioritizes utopian ideals over national and local concerns, emphasizing individual identity at the expense of collective belonging. From this perspective, liberalism no longer advances a substantive common good, resulting in ambiguity that both promotes individual freedoms and struggles to manage their broader consequences at national and international levels.^[11]

Some scholars argue that the United States-led liberal order, established after World War II, follows a trajectory similar to domestic liberalism. Milbank and Pabst argue that U.S. imperialism promotes liberal principles to nation-states, influenced by American individualism and voluntaryism, and is pursued through imperial means to achieve national objectives. They argue that since the 1970s, global governance has strengthened state power and expanded individual freedoms while reducing local decision-making and distancing authority from national democratic institutions. According to their analysis, "Enlightenment liberalism" has the potential to frame conflict as an unlimited struggle against perceived enemies of civilization—an idea associated with Carl Schmitt.^[6][11] They suggest that this universalist liberal expansion has contributed to the formation of civilizational blocs.^[6][11]

Critics of postliberalism argue that defining a common good in pluralistic societies presents challenges. Liberal critics argue that more statist versions of postliberalism risk unduly restricting individual liberty by using state power to enforce a particular vision of the good, while some postliberals advocate for a more pluralistic approach.^[15]

Critics from the political left oppose the socially reactionary positions of postliberalism. Socialist historian Chris Wright asserts that the political right primarily serves the interests of the ruling class, capitalism, and businesses rather than the common good. He contends that "because of its alleged interest in the public good but its conservative (Republican) orientation, postliberalism is ultimately incoherent".^[16] Similarly, socialist critic J. J. Porter argues that postliberalism undermines its own foundations, stating that "it wants to preserve many of the fruits of liberalism while doing away with the structure from which they grow".^[17]

Critics from the free-market right argue that postliberalism's support for economic planning, regulation, and skepticism toward free markets could damage economic growth.^[18] Other conservative critics maintain that postliberalism underestimates the significance of individual freedom and the economic advantages of market capitalism.^[19]

Elements of postliberal political thought have been integral to the development of national conservatism and the ideology of various factions within the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom.^[20][21][22] Analysts have also identified Catholic social teaching as a significant influence on postliberalism.^[23][24] Some scholars have noted the impact of Christopher Lasch on postliberal thought.^[6][16]

Reactionary feminists aligned with postliberalism, including Louise Perry, Nina Power, Christine Emba, and Mary Harrington, argue that the sexual ethics and norms emphasizing individual autonomy, reproductive rights, and sexual freedom—emerging from the sexual revolution of the 1960s—have led to negative consequences for women.^{[6][25][26][27][28]}

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his political party, Fidesz, have been described as postliberal and national conservative.^[23][29] In a speech on September 14, 2023, Orbán stated: "The postliberal era we look forward to, which will replace the current progressive-liberal era, will not come automatically. Someone has to make it happen. And who will make it happen, if not us?"^[30]

In the United Kingdom, members of the New Conservatives faction of the Conservative Party, including Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates, have either identified with postliberalism or been associated with it. The Blue Labour tradition has included figures such as Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman. Writers Adrian Pabst and Sebastian Milbank have suggested that Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown some interest in policies associated with Blue Labour.^[31][32]

In the United States, several Republican politicians have been linked to postliberal and national conservative ideas, including Vice President JD Vance^[33] and Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio.^[34][35][36]

• John Gray^[21]
• Patrick Deneen^[21]
• John Milbank
• Adrian Pabst^[21]
• Yoram Hazony
• Sohrab Ahmari
• Adrian Vermeule
• Christine Emba
• Andrew Willard Jones

• Viktor Orbán
• Balázs Orbán
• Jon Cruddas
• Maurice Glasman
• Danny Kruger
• Miriam Cates
• JD Vance^[36]
• Josh Hawley^[36]
• Marco Rubio^[36]
• Ryszard Legutko^[37]

• Blue Labour
• National conservatism
• Neo-nationalism
• Illiberal democracy
• Syncretic politics
• Radical orthodoxy
• Integralism
• Common good constitutionalism