Another point of disagreement here could be that democratic decision-making is an element of liberalism. Paul Cartledge's recent book on the political history of democracy makes the point cogently that this attempt to graft on democracy as a term to liberalism is a recent rhetorical flourish that doesn't really make sense either etymologically of philosophically. Democracy is a Greek word that means, essentially, the grasp of power (kratos) by the people (demos). In Athens, the people exercised power through the assembly (what we would call a direct democracy today), through juries (their jury system was different from the Anglo-Nordic-Germanic system but same basic concept) and by the assignment of important offices through lottery.
J.S. Mill's On Liberty is inflected with the classical critique of democracy; quoting Cartledge on p. 303: "Mill . . . greatly feared what he envisaged as the tyranny of the unenlightened, ignorant, fickle majority, and he was therefore, like Grote, much keener on representative than direct democracy." In the context of Athenian democratic political institutions, it doesn't really make sense to call representative government "democracy" at all: that's one of the overarching points in Cartledge's book.
My point here is just that political writers should take seriously Cartledge's points about word choice. He argues in his book that contemporary authors tend to use "democracy" as a term to disguise how kratos actually operates in our system as it actually functions. Kratos does not mean a mere consultation; rather it means that when the jury votes to kill Socrates, Socrates will be executed. So when authors like Rausch try to make the point that liberalism prizes the kratos of the demos, it's a straw man argument, but perhaps one that the supposed lions of liberalism have invited by shabby vice of promoting a pretense of popular control of the state.
Just want to complement you guys on a great discussion here.
If I were to reformulate an argument for liberalism for a modern (somewhat ignorant audience) I would tie the modern sense of "democracy" to the original classical liberal notion of freedom.
That is, the classical liberal notion of a democratic republic was one with a representative government (indirect Demos) wielded strictly limited powers (Kratos). Freedom came from the strict limitations upon Kratos, which led the individual to remain sovereign over most matters of life.
If you want to explain this to a modern audience, ask them whether it's "democratic" to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. In the mechanical sense, it certainly is. What was once off limits (and a matter of individual choice) is now a matter of literal democratic voting.
But most folks, especially those who prefer abortion rights will immediately grasp that something "democratic" has been lost. Certainly, democracy is misused and has too many competing meanings in the modern use, but perhaps there is still a consistent meaning to be found where:
The ability to act based on individual choice > the ability to participate in collective decision-making (Kratos) > the imposition of non-participatory collective decision-making.
In the modern sense, a liberal democracy is one in which every individual is, as much as possible, a democracy of one. Literally, an autocrat over their own lives.
Using "liberal democracy" to mean representative government is like saying "non-democracy democracy." If the people are not exercising power directly with no intermediaries, it's confusing to use the term. This is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why the people are losing faith in liberalism, which is the issue that Rauch is complaining about. I have other disagreements with what Rauch wrote (I don't agree that the founders, Locke, and Kant are all really part of the same strain of the liberal tradition), but I wanted to advance this point and promote Cartledge's book as an antidote.
Liberalism is not a democratic ideology. There's been an unfortunate ~2 century trend of liberals trying to cloak this inherently elitist ideology with democratic legitimation. This unfortunately leads to a lot of confusion and disappointment. The people understandably become upset when they press the "kratos" button and nothing happens while oligarchs (using the term in its original, non-pejorative sense) rule the political system. When people are told they will get something and then they do not get it they leave the political equivalent of a 1 star review.
I think also that taking Cartledge's point of view seriously would be helpful to liberal reformers who want to find an appropriate venue for the people to exercise power. Judge Rakoff, as a left-wing example, has advanced arguments about why plea bargaining should be curtailed as unconstitutional. If hypothetically liberal elites stopped promising the people that voting is a real way for them to wield power, but return the power of life and death back to them within real trials in their community, you would be increasing the amount of real democracy in the country without having negative effects on larger policies that should not really be the business of the people.
I think you are generally right, although I think the focus on "democracy" the word as being what is driving the confusion and disappointment is attributing your (our) care for etymology to other people.
It is true we have a republic, not a democracy, and nearly all modern "democratic states" are in fact republican states, or even oligarchies of a sort. However, the real issue is the limited government aspect, I believe. Generally people forget that part, that government isn't supposed to touch our lives daily and rule on every aspect of our behavior. The kratos exerted by the state, whether via representatives or the people directly, is severely curtailed, and in the case of the US Constitution circumscribed to very specific realms. The limits on government power are the focus of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers when it comes to government policy, but moderns want to see their will be done by force of arms regardless, and as predicted their will is often very bad.
This issue is a big part of the debate between the liberal strains that emphasize liberty and those that emphasize equality of rights, as dramatized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book. In the 19th century US up until the overturning of Lochner (the doctrine that prevented governmental interference with contract) and the old interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the US government was firmly on the "liberty" side of the intra-liberal divide.
Most modern day educated people would say that, to reify the principle of equality of rights under the law, the state must intervene in private affairs to guarantee some level of material equality as well ("a chicken in every pot," the right to counsel in criminal cases established by the Gideon case, Social Security, the Great Society, etc.). Unless there is some minimal level of material equality, that equality of rights is just a guarantee on paper.
So right, this kratos by the state you're describing is usually justified as something done for the people by the state, which holds itself out to be by the people and of the people in Lincoln's terms.
As an aside, our education system is very good at creating a false sense among people that the system guarantees true material equality under the law when they become subject to their first civil case. It's typical for college-educated people to be shocked that they must spend a lot of money to actualize their rights to assert certain defenses in court or even to wriggle out of false claims that have been asserted against them. The system creates an impression among people that rights are free floating assertions that you can just shout out like a sovereign citizen and then the judge will say "by god, it's your right" and then you'll be acquitted and all the children will clap.
"If the people are not exercising power directly with no intermediaries, it's confusing to use the term."
Confusing or not, it is common. It is as close to universal as it gets.
"Liberalism is not a democratic ideology. There's been an unfortunate ~2 century trend of liberals trying to cloak this inherently elitist ideology with democratic legitimation."
Maybe I shouldn't add another issue but it sure sounds like you are equating what Rauch calls liberalism to liberals of the Democratic party. I'm pretty sure they are not at all the same thing.
Maybe, but I think the real problem is that liberalism is actually completely unchallenged by alternatives.
1. Authoritarians almost always claim and justify power on liberal grounds. Even Kim Jong Un pays obiesance to the concepts of liberalism.
2. Some authoritarians truly believe they're liberal. Just like guys who said "we have to destroy the town to save it" there are sizable groups of people who think they are "preserving democracy" by persecuting opponents, limiting free speech, obscuring election security procedures and so forth. Of course, there are lots of people here who know what they're doing too.
But the point is, there's no real "out group". "Authoritarianism" isn't an ideology. Every government is capable of being authoritarian. It's not a true "alternative" to liberalism, it's just the reversion to the usual way of doing things (coercion).
In contrast, with a truly fearful communism, there was a somewhat objective measure for what constituted "illiberal". Republicans and Democrats might have disagreed, but were united by preferring a competitive liberal order while under threat. With no external threat, there's nothing to unite us.
Your point about the reversion to coercion is a good one. I keep meaning to find the time to write an essay about how it is incorrect to think of liberalism as containing the seeds of its own destruction, and rather we should see things as authoritarianism as the default state societies only emerge and avoid returning to through constant effort. Sort of a "poverty is the default state of human kind; ask instead why some peoples become wealthy" argument.
I would argue, should I get a few hours to do so, is that humans always skip over the "limited government" part of liberalism, because deep down we all really want to force other people to stop liking what we don't like, or at least stop doing things we don't like, and so authoritarianism always has a way back in.
As used by Rauch and Kling, "liberalism" has the 18th century meaning - maximum individual liberty consistent with an ordered society. As used in 20th century US politics, "liberalism" means a vigorous state dedicated to regulating economic activity and redistributing economic rewards. These two meanings are mutually exclusive. 20th century US liberalism is necessarily authoritarian, because its purpose is to impose rules. It can follow democratic forms, but its heart is to constrain individual liberty in the interest of building a better society.
And… were it the subject here, I could give a pretty detailed explanation of how a particular strand of the former evolved into the latter.
Which kind of underscores the point I was making. Regardless of how we feel about it, many if not most modern liberals (at least the sincere ones) see themselves as the heirs and even protectors of the original liberalism
"the real problem is that liberalism is actually completely unchallenged by alternatives.”
This statement baffles me. In your reply to Brian above, you say you understand the difference between ‘liberalism’ as used by Rauch and ‘modern liberalism’ (which both Brian and I are pointing out is liberalism corrupted by authoritarian impulses), yet in this comment you’re clearly referring to ‘modern liberalism’. You’re simply not talking about the same thing as the rest of us. So real ‘liberalism’ has not only been ‘challenged’, it has been corrupted, rejected, replaced by ‘modern liberalism’. Furthermore, you’re insistence that people need something to be against in order to be for something, adds to my bafflement. It might provide more cohesion, but it’s certainly not a prerequisite.
Continuing: ‘Claiming', 'paying obeisance', 'believing oneself' to be liberal are not the same things as actually being liberal. A classical liberal government is certainly less capable of being authoritarian (to the extent that it enforces the values it espouses) than others.
It appears that several people understood my point just fine but let me try another approach.
The sort of “classical liberalism” that you are trying to separate out from modern liberalism can’t be done because the former is a philosophical ideal and the latter is an operational political ideology.
To the former point, the American founding fathers, and the various thinkers they admired - Smith, Montesquieu, Locke, Hume and so forth, developed a theory of governance based on liberal ideas.
But operationally, we can admit that the US government at the founding, or the British government of JS Mill’s time, while owing something to classical liberalism, were in practice not so in a variety of obvious and important ways. The founders themselves differed greatly on how to actually govern.
Let’s not mythologize the past.
And let’s understand that ideals, when put into political practice, are going to look worse than ideal under the best circumstances.
That is, classical liberalism was never “pure” didn’t gradually become “corrupt”.
So anyway, I’d obviously agree and say that today’s “liberals” are too tolerant of authoritarian rule and have a Hobbesian or maybe worse Athenian view of democracy that looks to me like mob rule. But, I don’t doubt that a great many of them are sincere.
Now getting back to my point, the question is why are people who sincerely believe themselves to be in the classical liberalism tradition so willing to behave illiberally?
My hypothesis, I confess, is no better than the Watchmen or any other sociology theory or folk theorem that says we need an outgroup to define us.
To be clear: Without a true alternative or threat to scare us into cooperation and tolerance of a diverse in-group, we turn to fighting among ourselves.
People can think they understand without understanding.
"The sort of “classical liberalism” that you are trying to separate out from modern liberalism can’t be done because the former is a philosophical ideal and the latter is an operational political ideology.”
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. First of all, ‘I’ didn’t separate anything. Second, this is tantamount to saying, “You can’t talk about theory without also talking about implementation.” Third, you already agreed with Brian’s separation of the two.
In your reply to Brian, you agreed that 18th century liberalism is very different from ‘modern liberalism’ and wrote that "the former evolved into the latter”, but now you write that it "didn’t gradually become 'corrupt’”. Agreed it wasn’t originally implemented in ideal form (which no one ever claimed - straw man), but it certainly did gradually become more corrupt. And the fact remains that the authors (Rauch and Kling) were both talking to 18th century liberalism (whether ideal or as implemented) and you keep insisting on talking about 'modern liberalism’, simultaneously claiming they can’t be separated.
People can understand without being able to clearly express their understanding.
> you already agreed with Brian’s separation of the two.
No, Brian said that philosophical "classical liberalism" is mutually exclusive from "modern liberalism".
I pointed out that they are not. Mutually exclusive, that is. They are separate but related concepts with a lot of overlap and a couple hundred year historical relationship.
It's important to understand this, because ultimately we want to understand how and why "theory" and "practice" have diverged, and yet those that we might think are "not liberal" in the classical sense nonetheless often believe themselves to be so.
To me, you guys are begging the question when you just say, "MikeDC, you're confusing the issue because the modern liberals aren't "true liberals" in the classical sense. Well no, they're not (IMO), but in their opinion they (at least the sincere ones) believe themselves to be.
Which, again, is relevant because the authors aren't just "talking to 18th century liberalism". They're talking to the current state of philosophical liberalism. Which is simultaneously a "separate" thing from "modern liberalism" and a thing that cannot be separated.
"liberalism sits back and lets the deterioration take place.”
I really don’t like the anthropomorphism of concepts, ideologies, etc. It completely obscures the real, underlying dynamics caused by actual people. In this case, the natcons would be avoiding admitting that the people calling themselves liberals have been corrupted, not liberalism itself. The reason for that corruption lies completely outside the idea of liberalism (as described).
This is a great point. Although I am afraid that Dan Klein's mission to stop calling modern leftists "liberals" is Quixotic, I believe he is exactly correct that ceding them that title was a huge mistake. For the last 30-40 years at least, asking someone who self identifies as a liberal if they are big fans of Adam Smith or JS Mill almost certainly results in a "Ew, no." One might as well call people who worship Vishnu "Catholic Bishops"; it can only serve to cause confusion.
I the lefties started calling themselves liberals earlier. Late 1880's off the top of my head. By the time Limbaugh was using the term for them, they themselves had been using it for some time. Much like how they were Progressives till that got a bad name, or now Woke until that looked bad, the left relabels themselves pretty quickly.
Jonathan Rauch's eloquence is broadly illuminating, but might be blinding here and there. (Arnold notes that the decay of the university is a blind spot.) Let me touch on two points and a lacuna in Rauch's essay.
1) Re: "the current crisis […] is not so much a failure of liberalism as it is a failure of the institutions around liberalism. For all kinds of reasons beyond the scope of this article, society’s meaning-making institutions have not stepped up.”
Rauch ignores massive internal dynamics that foster big government, which then crowds out subsidiarity and civil society. See, for example, public-choice theory (the economics of government, James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock). Crony capitalism is built into liberalism.
2) Re: "Liberalism is not sufficient to make you happy or fulfilled. But it is necessary.”
A wildly implausible implication is that no one is happy or fulfilled in any other system!
3) A lacuna in the essay: Liberalism has no answer to the secular decline in the birth-rate. This is a fundamental long-term challenge to all mainstream cultures and systems today.
Now, crucially, Rauch (like Thomas Sowell) wisely reminds us always to ask: Compared to what?
Rauch totally fails to note that his US "liberals" are virtually all Democrats, and such folk are often willing to sacrifice any liberal principle in order to win the next election.
Notable was the dishonest AND illegal perjury of Pres. Clinton on his anti-Christian adulterous infidelity while being sued for sexual harassment. NOT trustworthy - yet Dems all opposed holding him accountable thru the impeachment process which is Constitutionally designed to correct anti-liberal actions.
In almost every case mentioned, Democrats, i.e. Liberals in power, have supported policies in opposition to the stated goals:
"if churches preach politics, if schools neglect citizenship, if businesses are mercenary, if politics becomes performative, if voters become cynical, if media becomes propagandistic, if communities crumble, and if families fragment—well, in that case, liberalism will not save us."
Dem liberals oppose, thru politics, the religious belief that homosexuals are sinners. Dems = liberals; Dem teachers oppose US citizenship education, Dems reward business cronies, Dem media is full of propaganda (against Trump and Jews most recently), Dem+Rep elite globalization has helped destroy many US factory town communities, Dem support for welfare helps families fragment, with Dem cities having few inner city intact husband-wife+kids families. Dem=liberal politicians are hugely performative, including Rauch.
Arnold is right that colleges are mess, but fails to note why -- because of ILLIBERAL, secret, illegal discrimination against hiring Republicasns. This won't change unless it's better identified and complained about. My own 30% Rep quota looks like a far better solution than anything Arnold or Rauch have proposed.
Neither Arnold nor Rauch note how the US gov't has been captured by partisan Dems who believe winning for Dems is more important than following the law. 8 year term limits for all Feds is a more solution oriented policy that reduces this problem.
[Add] Steve Sailer on IQ & heritability - liberals MUST claim Black-White IQ gap is not at all based on genes. A false claim.
Liberals who claim, against the evidence, that IQ gaps have no genetic basis discredit "Liberalism". As Rauch doesn't quite admit. The false equality of sexes is another Big Lie of Liberalism.
"Rauch totally fails to note that his US "liberals" are virtually all Democrats."
I think you are mistaken to equate what he calls liberals with US Democrats. It seems to me his description better fits classical liberals, which are not the same as US liberals.
Your failure to name even two real people Rauch calls, or would call, Liberal, weakens your claim to irrelevance.
You are correct that he is honestly describing classical liberals, but since the advent of Dem welfare liberals, “liberal” has come to mean ever bigger govt, supported by Dems.
Liberalism has not always existed in human history, although its roots have. The roots are that all men are created equal in their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lucky for us, some historical figures felt passionately about these rights. No social regime was liberal until the likes of Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Locke, Burke, Jefferson, the Framers, and many others created such a regime. That liberal society could spring from historical, illiberal regimes gives cause for optimism that liberal society can defend itself and grow even in the face of illiberal forces. Humankind has birthed liberal society from scratch before and can do so again. So, I am more optimistic than Arnold seems to be.
I know a lot of people like to denigrate the Strauss-Howe Generations Theory but your observations align pretty well with their concept that societies, specifically the US, oscillate between periods of strong institutions/weak individualism and weak institutions/strong individualism. The later is true of a Crisis period like the one we find ourselves in based their predictions. Authoritarianism seems on the horizon likely because the resolution of the current Crisis period will result in a return to a society with strong institutions and weak individualism, something that only the Silent generation members still alive have experienced as adults. Given the decline in religious observance and the politicization of mainline denominations noted by Rauch plus the expansion of government functions it does seem increasingly likely that unlike the High following WWII the strongest institutions are going to be government-driven.
One thing the both the defenders and critics of liberalism have forgotten are the character deforming defects of democracy. It's been too long since Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter and Garrett Jones's 10 Percent Less Democracy. Democratic fundamentalism is the protestant church of our time. And lest we forget, democracy and liberty are two different things. It's only takes 51 percent majorities to install despots, however soft. I wonder if the word democracy ever appears in Patrick Deneen's books on the failures of liberalism.
"Another thought I have about institutions is that decay is natural."
I think this is right, and absolutely unavoidable, unless the organization is dominated by a person who has a clear vision of the organization's purpose and methods, and holds everyone accountable for following the vision. In many cases, this is the organization's founder. Once the founder leaves (dies, retires, is forced out, quits to do something else), the organization is almost always taken over by people who have worked their way up in the organization, and the organization and its processes becomes the focus.
It's possible for a new visionary to rise to the top, dominate the organization, and revitalize it. I think of Jack Welch, who took over a very hidebound General Electric and transformed it into an accountable, growth-driven, profit-earning juggernaut. He tried to institutionalize everything he did, but it all fell apart when he retired and was replaced by Jeff Immelt.
I'm trying to think of an organization that's larger than 50 people and has lasted more than 2 generations without decay. I can't think of any offhand, but there may be some. Kongo Gumi of Japan might be an example, lasting over 1400 years as a family-owned business. But it fell on hard times and was acquired in 2006 by a large construction corporation.
"... unless the organization is dominated by a person who has a clear vision of the organization's purpose and methods, and holds everyone accountable for following the vision. In many cases, this is the organization's founder." This could be Xi Jinping, yet rot is what China is enduring with more to come. Some institutions are more susceptible to decay than others.
Of course, Xi Jinping thinks he is *stopping* the rot. That the Chinese Communist Party had lost its revolutionary bearings and he is righting the ship.
True. And as Arnold frequently says, results matter than intentions. Currently, China is facing a crippling depopulation trend, a parade of catastrophic infrastructure disasters, tunnel collapses, floods, as well as a serious recession. It's just not working, and more and more Chinese are noticing.
The current, global neo-feudalist system is over. Their financial system is collapsing, the brics nations are going back to a gold backed currency forecasting the impending collapse. Integration of hoards of military-aged economic migrants is at catastrophic levels for the west and the current surge of neo-nationalism will peak all over Europe this year with the result of new systems being born. I am the founder of the IPA otherwise known as the Irish peoples association with the whole intention of its creation to make Ireland prosperous. Global, corporate greed and outrageous dystopian ideology has brought the west to the brink of collapse but that will, I believe, reinvigorate and revitalise the necessary middle class into the realisation that we have to fully re-invent how we support our communities. It has nothing to do with race, religion or nationality. That’s what the globalists want you to focus all of your intention on. Divide and conquer. Older than the Roman invasion of Gaul.
" if politics becomes performative, ... if media becomes propagandistic (liberalism will not save us.)"
Rauch misunderstands media. Politics necessarily becomes performative in the age of media. Performance can extend democratic participation, but best does so with substantive, honest, and (beneath the appealing surfaces) complex workable solutions to political challenges.
To ask whether or not liberalism can save us from media propaganda is like asking if humanity can save itself from itself. A liberalism fully freed from exclusionary ideological bias just might.
“My view of academia is that it will not renew itself. The rot is too deep.“ As a father of three kids under 12, I’ve come to terms with this. I ask, what incentives within academia are worth keeping?
The renewal will come from families adapting to the rot by making creative adjustments in their selection and participation of academic services. A lot of little bottom-up changes will occur.
The traditional pathways that Arnold and others have followed through the Ivies, blue cities and blue institutions is broken. As a result, the situation looks really scary from Arnold’s perspective. But there are many other options. Families will game the rotten system just fine but likely along purple and red paths.
Liberalism is a vague term which in modern life is often used to simply mean "everything good" - but it's certainly *not* all good; and in particular the meaning that Rauch chooses - that all are born "equal" (not sure what being born "free" means or could mean, so I'll leave that) - is a plainly false belief, and certainly not "self-correcting".
Interestingly, Catholicism - despite its role in birthing liberalism as part of the “set” (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) - clearly had a self-correcting mechanism going on, at least at one time - with its looking to the pagans to derive some of the best of its ethics and metaphysics, and to make Christianity more practical. To ready it for sale, so to speak.
Trollope has a line in one of his Palliser books - the Prime Minister, a thorough Whig whose life is as thoroughly ordered by tradition - muses - admonishes really - that “the beautiful view” of the future should always remain far off, should always lie fifty years ahead. (Paraphrasing. I love Trollope but realized this is what the library was made for; I don’t own any of his books.)
This was just to add a little color to his character; Trollope was entirely in sympathy with Palliser.
But it raises a not-insignificant question - if it is good in fifty years, why is it not good now? What will have changed about human animals in that time?
I imagine you've discussed Rauch's book The Constitution of Knowledge at some point (I haven't been reading your Substack for long). It's very good. The most important idea there in my opinion is this: the greatest damage caused by the "firehose of falsehood" is not that people start to believe lies, it is that they start to disbelieve the truth. AI generated media is accelerating this process.
We disagree about higher education. There are many problems, especially related to free expression and self-censorship, and I have written about these. But the sector remains a major export engine and magnet for global talent, like the movie, music, finance and technology industries. It produces products for which there is strong global demand. There is a lot of attention to what is wrong with it but critics tend to overlook the fact that it is one of the few industries where we continue to enjoy global dominance.
I’ve been reading Jonathan Sacks recently. Sacks and Rauch both define three basic institutions of society. For Rauch it is liberalism, capitalism, and science. For Sacks, the first two are similar but the third illuminates a key divergence. For Sacks it is the state, the economy, and the “moral system.” There is some overlap - for science to work there must be honesty, egalitarianism (ideas are what must be argued, not the status of the people who defend them), and a culture of hard work. But there are some gaps - most notably, science does not explicitly care about people or families, especially children and non-elites who aren’t involved in the work, or personal behavior. A liberal society that cares about government, economy, and science but not so much personal behavior and families sounds a lot like the one that got us into the mess we are in now.
Rauch credits Locke (who cited explicitly Christian assumptions as founding principles of his political philosophy) as an originator of the liberal idea, but then refers to Christianity as an enemy to liberalism. I think this reflects an irrational blind spot toward morality and religion that weakens his (otherwise strong) defense of liberalism.
Has Protestantism invaded political territory or has politics invaded Protestant territory? Are Protestants supposed to be silent as progressives push abortion and homosexuality, attack the nuclear family, and strip God and prayer from public spaces?
Rauch isn’t talking about the leftist turn of mainline Protestantism. He aims his ire at Evangelicals who defend their beliefs. One of the tenets of Rauch’s Constitution of Knowledge is that religious ideas should be banned from the public discourse, unless they can be defended in purely secular terms. He falsely attributes this idea the John Locke.
Or perhaps, as many have asserted, Marxism is a Christian heresy, or to be less judgmental, an ideology that flows out of Christianity and retains many of its characteristics. Remembering that there are many Christianities. To say that there is only one is to commit the "one true Scotsman" mistake.
Another point of disagreement here could be that democratic decision-making is an element of liberalism. Paul Cartledge's recent book on the political history of democracy makes the point cogently that this attempt to graft on democracy as a term to liberalism is a recent rhetorical flourish that doesn't really make sense either etymologically of philosophically. Democracy is a Greek word that means, essentially, the grasp of power (kratos) by the people (demos). In Athens, the people exercised power through the assembly (what we would call a direct democracy today), through juries (their jury system was different from the Anglo-Nordic-Germanic system but same basic concept) and by the assignment of important offices through lottery.
J.S. Mill's On Liberty is inflected with the classical critique of democracy; quoting Cartledge on p. 303: "Mill . . . greatly feared what he envisaged as the tyranny of the unenlightened, ignorant, fickle majority, and he was therefore, like Grote, much keener on representative than direct democracy." In the context of Athenian democratic political institutions, it doesn't really make sense to call representative government "democracy" at all: that's one of the overarching points in Cartledge's book.
My point here is just that political writers should take seriously Cartledge's points about word choice. He argues in his book that contemporary authors tend to use "democracy" as a term to disguise how kratos actually operates in our system as it actually functions. Kratos does not mean a mere consultation; rather it means that when the jury votes to kill Socrates, Socrates will be executed. So when authors like Rausch try to make the point that liberalism prizes the kratos of the demos, it's a straw man argument, but perhaps one that the supposed lions of liberalism have invited by shabby vice of promoting a pretense of popular control of the state.
Just want to complement you guys on a great discussion here.
If I were to reformulate an argument for liberalism for a modern (somewhat ignorant audience) I would tie the modern sense of "democracy" to the original classical liberal notion of freedom.
That is, the classical liberal notion of a democratic republic was one with a representative government (indirect Demos) wielded strictly limited powers (Kratos). Freedom came from the strict limitations upon Kratos, which led the individual to remain sovereign over most matters of life.
If you want to explain this to a modern audience, ask them whether it's "democratic" to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. In the mechanical sense, it certainly is. What was once off limits (and a matter of individual choice) is now a matter of literal democratic voting.
But most folks, especially those who prefer abortion rights will immediately grasp that something "democratic" has been lost. Certainly, democracy is misused and has too many competing meanings in the modern use, but perhaps there is still a consistent meaning to be found where:
The ability to act based on individual choice > the ability to participate in collective decision-making (Kratos) > the imposition of non-participatory collective decision-making.
In the modern sense, a liberal democracy is one in which every individual is, as much as possible, a democracy of one. Literally, an autocrat over their own lives.
Who disagrees with whom? While Rauch uses the term "Democratic decision-making," he also mentions the checks on true democracy that you do.
Using "liberal democracy" to mean representative government is like saying "non-democracy democracy." If the people are not exercising power directly with no intermediaries, it's confusing to use the term. This is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why the people are losing faith in liberalism, which is the issue that Rauch is complaining about. I have other disagreements with what Rauch wrote (I don't agree that the founders, Locke, and Kant are all really part of the same strain of the liberal tradition), but I wanted to advance this point and promote Cartledge's book as an antidote.
Liberalism is not a democratic ideology. There's been an unfortunate ~2 century trend of liberals trying to cloak this inherently elitist ideology with democratic legitimation. This unfortunately leads to a lot of confusion and disappointment. The people understandably become upset when they press the "kratos" button and nothing happens while oligarchs (using the term in its original, non-pejorative sense) rule the political system. When people are told they will get something and then they do not get it they leave the political equivalent of a 1 star review.
I think also that taking Cartledge's point of view seriously would be helpful to liberal reformers who want to find an appropriate venue for the people to exercise power. Judge Rakoff, as a left-wing example, has advanced arguments about why plea bargaining should be curtailed as unconstitutional. If hypothetically liberal elites stopped promising the people that voting is a real way for them to wield power, but return the power of life and death back to them within real trials in their community, you would be increasing the amount of real democracy in the country without having negative effects on larger policies that should not really be the business of the people.
I think you are generally right, although I think the focus on "democracy" the word as being what is driving the confusion and disappointment is attributing your (our) care for etymology to other people.
It is true we have a republic, not a democracy, and nearly all modern "democratic states" are in fact republican states, or even oligarchies of a sort. However, the real issue is the limited government aspect, I believe. Generally people forget that part, that government isn't supposed to touch our lives daily and rule on every aspect of our behavior. The kratos exerted by the state, whether via representatives or the people directly, is severely curtailed, and in the case of the US Constitution circumscribed to very specific realms. The limits on government power are the focus of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers when it comes to government policy, but moderns want to see their will be done by force of arms regardless, and as predicted their will is often very bad.
This issue is a big part of the debate between the liberal strains that emphasize liberty and those that emphasize equality of rights, as dramatized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his book. In the 19th century US up until the overturning of Lochner (the doctrine that prevented governmental interference with contract) and the old interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the US government was firmly on the "liberty" side of the intra-liberal divide.
Most modern day educated people would say that, to reify the principle of equality of rights under the law, the state must intervene in private affairs to guarantee some level of material equality as well ("a chicken in every pot," the right to counsel in criminal cases established by the Gideon case, Social Security, the Great Society, etc.). Unless there is some minimal level of material equality, that equality of rights is just a guarantee on paper.
So right, this kratos by the state you're describing is usually justified as something done for the people by the state, which holds itself out to be by the people and of the people in Lincoln's terms.
As an aside, our education system is very good at creating a false sense among people that the system guarantees true material equality under the law when they become subject to their first civil case. It's typical for college-educated people to be shocked that they must spend a lot of money to actualize their rights to assert certain defenses in court or even to wriggle out of false claims that have been asserted against them. The system creates an impression among people that rights are free floating assertions that you can just shout out like a sovereign citizen and then the judge will say "by god, it's your right" and then you'll be acquitted and all the children will clap.
"Using "liberal democracy" to mean representative government is like saying "non-democracy democracy.""
And that is how it is used.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/government-type/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
"If the people are not exercising power directly with no intermediaries, it's confusing to use the term."
Confusing or not, it is common. It is as close to universal as it gets.
"Liberalism is not a democratic ideology. There's been an unfortunate ~2 century trend of liberals trying to cloak this inherently elitist ideology with democratic legitimation."
Maybe I shouldn't add another issue but it sure sounds like you are equating what Rauch calls liberalism to liberals of the Democratic party. I'm pretty sure they are not at all the same thing.
Rauch confuses cause and effect. liberalism has been captured by authoritarians.
Liberalism doesn’t need the visible hand of government to prevent a drift into authoritarian rule.
The visible hand of government IS the authoritarian rule we see when enough of the polity seeks and tolerates authoritarian rule.
I liked, but I would say rather that liberalism has been rejected and replaced by authoritarians.
Maybe, but I think the real problem is that liberalism is actually completely unchallenged by alternatives.
1. Authoritarians almost always claim and justify power on liberal grounds. Even Kim Jong Un pays obiesance to the concepts of liberalism.
2. Some authoritarians truly believe they're liberal. Just like guys who said "we have to destroy the town to save it" there are sizable groups of people who think they are "preserving democracy" by persecuting opponents, limiting free speech, obscuring election security procedures and so forth. Of course, there are lots of people here who know what they're doing too.
But the point is, there's no real "out group". "Authoritarianism" isn't an ideology. Every government is capable of being authoritarian. It's not a true "alternative" to liberalism, it's just the reversion to the usual way of doing things (coercion).
In contrast, with a truly fearful communism, there was a somewhat objective measure for what constituted "illiberal". Republicans and Democrats might have disagreed, but were united by preferring a competitive liberal order while under threat. With no external threat, there's nothing to unite us.
Your point about the reversion to coercion is a good one. I keep meaning to find the time to write an essay about how it is incorrect to think of liberalism as containing the seeds of its own destruction, and rather we should see things as authoritarianism as the default state societies only emerge and avoid returning to through constant effort. Sort of a "poverty is the default state of human kind; ask instead why some peoples become wealthy" argument.
I would argue, should I get a few hours to do so, is that humans always skip over the "limited government" part of liberalism, because deep down we all really want to force other people to stop liking what we don't like, or at least stop doing things we don't like, and so authoritarianism always has a way back in.
I think you're confusing terms.
As used by Rauch and Kling, "liberalism" has the 18th century meaning - maximum individual liberty consistent with an ordered society. As used in 20th century US politics, "liberalism" means a vigorous state dedicated to regulating economic activity and redistributing economic rewards. These two meanings are mutually exclusive. 20th century US liberalism is necessarily authoritarian, because its purpose is to impose rules. It can follow democratic forms, but its heart is to constrain individual liberty in the interest of building a better society.
I understand this pretty well. 🙂
And… were it the subject here, I could give a pretty detailed explanation of how a particular strand of the former evolved into the latter.
Which kind of underscores the point I was making. Regardless of how we feel about it, many if not most modern liberals (at least the sincere ones) see themselves as the heirs and even protectors of the original liberalism
"the real problem is that liberalism is actually completely unchallenged by alternatives.”
This statement baffles me. In your reply to Brian above, you say you understand the difference between ‘liberalism’ as used by Rauch and ‘modern liberalism’ (which both Brian and I are pointing out is liberalism corrupted by authoritarian impulses), yet in this comment you’re clearly referring to ‘modern liberalism’. You’re simply not talking about the same thing as the rest of us. So real ‘liberalism’ has not only been ‘challenged’, it has been corrupted, rejected, replaced by ‘modern liberalism’. Furthermore, you’re insistence that people need something to be against in order to be for something, adds to my bafflement. It might provide more cohesion, but it’s certainly not a prerequisite.
Continuing: ‘Claiming', 'paying obeisance', 'believing oneself' to be liberal are not the same things as actually being liberal. A classical liberal government is certainly less capable of being authoritarian (to the extent that it enforces the values it espouses) than others.
It appears that several people understood my point just fine but let me try another approach.
The sort of “classical liberalism” that you are trying to separate out from modern liberalism can’t be done because the former is a philosophical ideal and the latter is an operational political ideology.
To the former point, the American founding fathers, and the various thinkers they admired - Smith, Montesquieu, Locke, Hume and so forth, developed a theory of governance based on liberal ideas.
But operationally, we can admit that the US government at the founding, or the British government of JS Mill’s time, while owing something to classical liberalism, were in practice not so in a variety of obvious and important ways. The founders themselves differed greatly on how to actually govern.
Let’s not mythologize the past.
And let’s understand that ideals, when put into political practice, are going to look worse than ideal under the best circumstances.
That is, classical liberalism was never “pure” didn’t gradually become “corrupt”.
So anyway, I’d obviously agree and say that today’s “liberals” are too tolerant of authoritarian rule and have a Hobbesian or maybe worse Athenian view of democracy that looks to me like mob rule. But, I don’t doubt that a great many of them are sincere.
Now getting back to my point, the question is why are people who sincerely believe themselves to be in the classical liberalism tradition so willing to behave illiberally?
My hypothesis, I confess, is no better than the Watchmen or any other sociology theory or folk theorem that says we need an outgroup to define us.
To be clear: Without a true alternative or threat to scare us into cooperation and tolerance of a diverse in-group, we turn to fighting among ourselves.
Ok, it’s clear we agree in substance. However...
People can think they understand without understanding.
"The sort of “classical liberalism” that you are trying to separate out from modern liberalism can’t be done because the former is a philosophical ideal and the latter is an operational political ideology.”
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense. First of all, ‘I’ didn’t separate anything. Second, this is tantamount to saying, “You can’t talk about theory without also talking about implementation.” Third, you already agreed with Brian’s separation of the two.
In your reply to Brian, you agreed that 18th century liberalism is very different from ‘modern liberalism’ and wrote that "the former evolved into the latter”, but now you write that it "didn’t gradually become 'corrupt’”. Agreed it wasn’t originally implemented in ideal form (which no one ever claimed - straw man), but it certainly did gradually become more corrupt. And the fact remains that the authors (Rauch and Kling) were both talking to 18th century liberalism (whether ideal or as implemented) and you keep insisting on talking about 'modern liberalism’, simultaneously claiming they can’t be separated.
People can understand without being able to clearly express their understanding.
> you already agreed with Brian’s separation of the two.
No, Brian said that philosophical "classical liberalism" is mutually exclusive from "modern liberalism".
I pointed out that they are not. Mutually exclusive, that is. They are separate but related concepts with a lot of overlap and a couple hundred year historical relationship.
It's important to understand this, because ultimately we want to understand how and why "theory" and "practice" have diverged, and yet those that we might think are "not liberal" in the classical sense nonetheless often believe themselves to be so.
To me, you guys are begging the question when you just say, "MikeDC, you're confusing the issue because the modern liberals aren't "true liberals" in the classical sense. Well no, they're not (IMO), but in their opinion they (at least the sincere ones) believe themselves to be.
Which, again, is relevant because the authors aren't just "talking to 18th century liberalism". They're talking to the current state of philosophical liberalism. Which is simultaneously a "separate" thing from "modern liberalism" and a thing that cannot be separated.
"liberalism sits back and lets the deterioration take place.”
I really don’t like the anthropomorphism of concepts, ideologies, etc. It completely obscures the real, underlying dynamics caused by actual people. In this case, the natcons would be avoiding admitting that the people calling themselves liberals have been corrupted, not liberalism itself. The reason for that corruption lies completely outside the idea of liberalism (as described).
This is a great point. Although I am afraid that Dan Klein's mission to stop calling modern leftists "liberals" is Quixotic, I believe he is exactly correct that ceding them that title was a huge mistake. For the last 30-40 years at least, asking someone who self identifies as a liberal if they are big fans of Adam Smith or JS Mill almost certainly results in a "Ew, no." One might as well call people who worship Vishnu "Catholic Bishops"; it can only serve to cause confusion.
The term wasn't ceded; it was willingly given away. Limbaugh, Reagan, the act had a thousand fathers.
I the lefties started calling themselves liberals earlier. Late 1880's off the top of my head. By the time Limbaugh was using the term for them, they themselves had been using it for some time. Much like how they were Progressives till that got a bad name, or now Woke until that looked bad, the left relabels themselves pretty quickly.
Jonathan Rauch's eloquence is broadly illuminating, but might be blinding here and there. (Arnold notes that the decay of the university is a blind spot.) Let me touch on two points and a lacuna in Rauch's essay.
1) Re: "the current crisis […] is not so much a failure of liberalism as it is a failure of the institutions around liberalism. For all kinds of reasons beyond the scope of this article, society’s meaning-making institutions have not stepped up.”
Rauch ignores massive internal dynamics that foster big government, which then crowds out subsidiarity and civil society. See, for example, public-choice theory (the economics of government, James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock). Crony capitalism is built into liberalism.
2) Re: "Liberalism is not sufficient to make you happy or fulfilled. But it is necessary.”
A wildly implausible implication is that no one is happy or fulfilled in any other system!
3) A lacuna in the essay: Liberalism has no answer to the secular decline in the birth-rate. This is a fundamental long-term challenge to all mainstream cultures and systems today.
Now, crucially, Rauch (like Thomas Sowell) wisely reminds us always to ask: Compared to what?
I would say capitalism is perhaps built into liberalism, but cronyism is built into human nature.
Fair enough!
Rauch totally fails to note that his US "liberals" are virtually all Democrats, and such folk are often willing to sacrifice any liberal principle in order to win the next election.
Notable was the dishonest AND illegal perjury of Pres. Clinton on his anti-Christian adulterous infidelity while being sued for sexual harassment. NOT trustworthy - yet Dems all opposed holding him accountable thru the impeachment process which is Constitutionally designed to correct anti-liberal actions.
In almost every case mentioned, Democrats, i.e. Liberals in power, have supported policies in opposition to the stated goals:
"if churches preach politics, if schools neglect citizenship, if businesses are mercenary, if politics becomes performative, if voters become cynical, if media becomes propagandistic, if communities crumble, and if families fragment—well, in that case, liberalism will not save us."
Dem liberals oppose, thru politics, the religious belief that homosexuals are sinners. Dems = liberals; Dem teachers oppose US citizenship education, Dems reward business cronies, Dem media is full of propaganda (against Trump and Jews most recently), Dem+Rep elite globalization has helped destroy many US factory town communities, Dem support for welfare helps families fragment, with Dem cities having few inner city intact husband-wife+kids families. Dem=liberal politicians are hugely performative, including Rauch.
Arnold is right that colleges are mess, but fails to note why -- because of ILLIBERAL, secret, illegal discrimination against hiring Republicasns. This won't change unless it's better identified and complained about. My own 30% Rep quota looks like a far better solution than anything Arnold or Rauch have proposed.
Neither Arnold nor Rauch note how the US gov't has been captured by partisan Dems who believe winning for Dems is more important than following the law. 8 year term limits for all Feds is a more solution oriented policy that reduces this problem.
[Add] Steve Sailer on IQ & heritability - liberals MUST claim Black-White IQ gap is not at all based on genes. A false claim.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/vox-charles-murray-is-80-right-and
Liberals who claim, against the evidence, that IQ gaps have no genetic basis discredit "Liberalism". As Rauch doesn't quite admit. The false equality of sexes is another Big Lie of Liberalism.
"Rauch totally fails to note that his US "liberals" are virtually all Democrats."
I think you are mistaken to equate what he calls liberals with US Democrats. It seems to me his description better fits classical liberals, which are not the same as US liberals.
Your failure to name even two real people Rauch calls, or would call, Liberal, weakens your claim to irrelevance.
You are correct that he is honestly describing classical liberals, but since the advent of Dem welfare liberals, “liberal” has come to mean ever bigger govt, supported by Dems.
"You are correct that he is honestly describing classical liberals"
Great. We agree on the most important point. The rest of what you said makes no difference.
Liberalism has not always existed in human history, although its roots have. The roots are that all men are created equal in their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lucky for us, some historical figures felt passionately about these rights. No social regime was liberal until the likes of Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Locke, Burke, Jefferson, the Framers, and many others created such a regime. That liberal society could spring from historical, illiberal regimes gives cause for optimism that liberal society can defend itself and grow even in the face of illiberal forces. Humankind has birthed liberal society from scratch before and can do so again. So, I am more optimistic than Arnold seems to be.
I know a lot of people like to denigrate the Strauss-Howe Generations Theory but your observations align pretty well with their concept that societies, specifically the US, oscillate between periods of strong institutions/weak individualism and weak institutions/strong individualism. The later is true of a Crisis period like the one we find ourselves in based their predictions. Authoritarianism seems on the horizon likely because the resolution of the current Crisis period will result in a return to a society with strong institutions and weak individualism, something that only the Silent generation members still alive have experienced as adults. Given the decline in religious observance and the politicization of mainline denominations noted by Rauch plus the expansion of government functions it does seem increasingly likely that unlike the High following WWII the strongest institutions are going to be government-driven.
One thing the both the defenders and critics of liberalism have forgotten are the character deforming defects of democracy. It's been too long since Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter and Garrett Jones's 10 Percent Less Democracy. Democratic fundamentalism is the protestant church of our time. And lest we forget, democracy and liberty are two different things. It's only takes 51 percent majorities to install despots, however soft. I wonder if the word democracy ever appears in Patrick Deneen's books on the failures of liberalism.
"Another thought I have about institutions is that decay is natural."
I think this is right, and absolutely unavoidable, unless the organization is dominated by a person who has a clear vision of the organization's purpose and methods, and holds everyone accountable for following the vision. In many cases, this is the organization's founder. Once the founder leaves (dies, retires, is forced out, quits to do something else), the organization is almost always taken over by people who have worked their way up in the organization, and the organization and its processes becomes the focus.
It's possible for a new visionary to rise to the top, dominate the organization, and revitalize it. I think of Jack Welch, who took over a very hidebound General Electric and transformed it into an accountable, growth-driven, profit-earning juggernaut. He tried to institutionalize everything he did, but it all fell apart when he retired and was replaced by Jeff Immelt.
I'm trying to think of an organization that's larger than 50 people and has lasted more than 2 generations without decay. I can't think of any offhand, but there may be some. Kongo Gumi of Japan might be an example, lasting over 1400 years as a family-owned business. But it fell on hard times and was acquired in 2006 by a large construction corporation.
"... unless the organization is dominated by a person who has a clear vision of the organization's purpose and methods, and holds everyone accountable for following the vision. In many cases, this is the organization's founder." This could be Xi Jinping, yet rot is what China is enduring with more to come. Some institutions are more susceptible to decay than others.
Of course, Xi Jinping thinks he is *stopping* the rot. That the Chinese Communist Party had lost its revolutionary bearings and he is righting the ship.
True. And as Arnold frequently says, results matter than intentions. Currently, China is facing a crippling depopulation trend, a parade of catastrophic infrastructure disasters, tunnel collapses, floods, as well as a serious recession. It's just not working, and more and more Chinese are noticing.
The current, global neo-feudalist system is over. Their financial system is collapsing, the brics nations are going back to a gold backed currency forecasting the impending collapse. Integration of hoards of military-aged economic migrants is at catastrophic levels for the west and the current surge of neo-nationalism will peak all over Europe this year with the result of new systems being born. I am the founder of the IPA otherwise known as the Irish peoples association with the whole intention of its creation to make Ireland prosperous. Global, corporate greed and outrageous dystopian ideology has brought the west to the brink of collapse but that will, I believe, reinvigorate and revitalise the necessary middle class into the realisation that we have to fully re-invent how we support our communities. It has nothing to do with race, religion or nationality. That’s what the globalists want you to focus all of your intention on. Divide and conquer. Older than the Roman invasion of Gaul.
" if politics becomes performative, ... if media becomes propagandistic (liberalism will not save us.)"
Rauch misunderstands media. Politics necessarily becomes performative in the age of media. Performance can extend democratic participation, but best does so with substantive, honest, and (beneath the appealing surfaces) complex workable solutions to political challenges.
To ask whether or not liberalism can save us from media propaganda is like asking if humanity can save itself from itself. A liberalism fully freed from exclusionary ideological bias just might.
“My view of academia is that it will not renew itself. The rot is too deep.“ As a father of three kids under 12, I’ve come to terms with this. I ask, what incentives within academia are worth keeping?
The renewal will come from families adapting to the rot by making creative adjustments in their selection and participation of academic services. A lot of little bottom-up changes will occur.
The traditional pathways that Arnold and others have followed through the Ivies, blue cities and blue institutions is broken. As a result, the situation looks really scary from Arnold’s perspective. But there are many other options. Families will game the rotten system just fine but likely along purple and red paths.
Liberalism is a vague term which in modern life is often used to simply mean "everything good" - but it's certainly *not* all good; and in particular the meaning that Rauch chooses - that all are born "equal" (not sure what being born "free" means or could mean, so I'll leave that) - is a plainly false belief, and certainly not "self-correcting".
Interestingly, Catholicism - despite its role in birthing liberalism as part of the “set” (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) - clearly had a self-correcting mechanism going on, at least at one time - with its looking to the pagans to derive some of the best of its ethics and metaphysics, and to make Christianity more practical. To ready it for sale, so to speak.
Trollope has a line in one of his Palliser books - the Prime Minister, a thorough Whig whose life is as thoroughly ordered by tradition - muses - admonishes really - that “the beautiful view” of the future should always remain far off, should always lie fifty years ahead. (Paraphrasing. I love Trollope but realized this is what the library was made for; I don’t own any of his books.)
This was just to add a little color to his character; Trollope was entirely in sympathy with Palliser.
But it raises a not-insignificant question - if it is good in fifty years, why is it not good now? What will have changed about human animals in that time?
I imagine you've discussed Rauch's book The Constitution of Knowledge at some point (I haven't been reading your Substack for long). It's very good. The most important idea there in my opinion is this: the greatest damage caused by the "firehose of falsehood" is not that people start to believe lies, it is that they start to disbelieve the truth. AI generated media is accelerating this process.
We disagree about higher education. There are many problems, especially related to free expression and self-censorship, and I have written about these. But the sector remains a major export engine and magnet for global talent, like the movie, music, finance and technology industries. It produces products for which there is strong global demand. There is a lot of attention to what is wrong with it but critics tend to overlook the fact that it is one of the few industries where we continue to enjoy global dominance.
I’ve been reading Jonathan Sacks recently. Sacks and Rauch both define three basic institutions of society. For Rauch it is liberalism, capitalism, and science. For Sacks, the first two are similar but the third illuminates a key divergence. For Sacks it is the state, the economy, and the “moral system.” There is some overlap - for science to work there must be honesty, egalitarianism (ideas are what must be argued, not the status of the people who defend them), and a culture of hard work. But there are some gaps - most notably, science does not explicitly care about people or families, especially children and non-elites who aren’t involved in the work, or personal behavior. A liberal society that cares about government, economy, and science but not so much personal behavior and families sounds a lot like the one that got us into the mess we are in now.
Rauch credits Locke (who cited explicitly Christian assumptions as founding principles of his political philosophy) as an originator of the liberal idea, but then refers to Christianity as an enemy to liberalism. I think this reflects an irrational blind spot toward morality and religion that weakens his (otherwise strong) defense of liberalism.
Has Protestantism invaded political territory or has politics invaded Protestant territory? Are Protestants supposed to be silent as progressives push abortion and homosexuality, attack the nuclear family, and strip God and prayer from public spaces?
My answer would be that Marxists smuggled their vision of 'Immanentizing the eschaton' into mainline Protestant theology.
Rauch isn’t talking about the leftist turn of mainline Protestantism. He aims his ire at Evangelicals who defend their beliefs. One of the tenets of Rauch’s Constitution of Knowledge is that religious ideas should be banned from the public discourse, unless they can be defended in purely secular terms. He falsely attributes this idea the John Locke.
Or perhaps, as many have asserted, Marxism is a Christian heresy, or to be less judgmental, an ideology that flows out of Christianity and retains many of its characteristics. Remembering that there are many Christianities. To say that there is only one is to commit the "one true Scotsman" mistake.