I don’t support Deneen, but this is a very flimsy critique. It takes the benefits of liberalism as a given and argues that since Deneen denies them, he’s wrong.
>According to Deneen, liberal societies express no “gratitude to the past.” But the U.S. is the world’s most powerful liberal state, and the embrace of history is a core element of its civic and legal culture. American law is largely built upon precedent, and it is grounded in the Constitution—a document for which most Americans have almost religious reverence.
This is the entire rebuttal to Deneen’s claim. One country that uses a common law system.
>Deneen also argues that liberals feel no “obligations to the future.” The American Founders carefully built a political system around robust checks and balances, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed—a system that has lasted for a quarter of a millennium. However, the Founders also recognized that they couldn’t account for every future challenge and development, which is why they created a highly adaptable system capable of self-correcting and accommodating the diverse and evolving views of American citizens.
Again, a very simple rebuttal to a complex claim. And one that’s pretty weak, given that amendments to the Constitution are seen as basically impossible nowadays.
>Deneen declares that the spread of liberal market reforms around the world—which enabled billions of people to escape extreme poverty over just a few decades and has led to unprecedented prosperity in the developed world—has destroyed traditional communities built around local production and consumption.
And again. Market reforms have improved standards of living, therefore they haven’t had a negative effect on local communities. Both of those things can be true at once; if you’re arguing for the benefits of liberalism, you have to argue that the improved standards of living are worth the loss of cultural cohesion and tradition.
1 Comment
I don’t support Deneen, but this is a very flimsy critique. It takes the benefits of liberalism as a given and argues that since Deneen denies them, he’s wrong.
>According to Deneen, liberal societies express no “gratitude to the past.” But the U.S. is the world’s most powerful liberal state, and the embrace of history is a core element of its civic and legal culture. American law is largely built upon precedent, and it is grounded in the Constitution—a document for which most Americans have almost religious reverence.
This is the entire rebuttal to Deneen’s claim. One country that uses a common law system.
>Deneen also argues that liberals feel no “obligations to the future.” The American Founders carefully built a political system around robust checks and balances, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed—a system that has lasted for a quarter of a millennium. However, the Founders also recognized that they couldn’t account for every future challenge and development, which is why they created a highly adaptable system capable of self-correcting and accommodating the diverse and evolving views of American citizens.
Again, a very simple rebuttal to a complex claim. And one that’s pretty weak, given that amendments to the Constitution are seen as basically impossible nowadays.
>Deneen declares that the spread of liberal market reforms around the world—which enabled billions of people to escape extreme poverty over just a few decades and has led to unprecedented prosperity in the developed world—has destroyed traditional communities built around local production and consumption.
And again. Market reforms have improved standards of living, therefore they haven’t had a negative effect on local communities. Both of those things can be true at once; if you’re arguing for the benefits of liberalism, you have to argue that the improved standards of living are worth the loss of cultural cohesion and tradition.