Aristopopulism and Its Discontents

Patrick Deneen, Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame and noted author of Why Liberalism Failed, has published a new book, Regime Change, which purports to explain how to put Western culture back on its feet and redirect it toward its proper destination—anywhere but liberalism. Deneen, you see, is a charter member of the “postliberalism” movement, about which you can discover more at the Substack site, The Postliberal Order.

For Deneen, moving on from liberalism entails “the strategic formation of a new elite devoted to a “pre-postmodern conservatism” and aligned with the interest of the “many.” Their top-down efforts to form a new governing philosophy, ethos, and class could transform our broken regime from one that serves only the so-called meritocrats.” Deneen himself has accepted the term “aristo-populism” for his project, as if that makes it either more understandable or more palatable.

Deneen’s book has been highly anticipated, to say the least. At least two websites—Law & Liberty and Real Clear Books—have featured symposia on Regime Change. Surprisingly, the reviews have been mixed. Oliver Bateman, for one, in “Yearning for Collapse,” says that “Deneen is forced to employ a host of sophisticated circumlocutions to get around the fact that he is arguing for something akin to the 1932 Italian essay “The Doctrine of Fascism”.”

Bateman, mind you, does not call Deneen a Fascist; he merely notes that “Deneen's proposed solution to liberalism’s seemingly self-evident failures is an "aristopopulism" led by the newly-minted "self-conscious aristoi who understand that their main role and purpose in the social order is to secure the foundational goods that make possible human flourishing for ordinary people: the central goods of family, community, good work, and an equitable social safety net supportive of these goods, constraints upon corporate power, a culture that preserves and encourages order and continuity, and support for religious belief and institutions.” In the end, Bateman suggests, how one assesses Deneen’s proposals depends on whether one agrees with his premise—that liberalism has failed, that America’s socio-cultural sky is falling, and that regime change is our only hope. ¹

Jarod Facundo is more accepting of Deneen’s premise but concludes that “Regime Change is frustrating because we do have what feels like a pathetic ruling class doing everything possible to preserve its status from critique, in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” But I’m not convinced that sexuality or gender fluidity are why we cannot have nice things. And my inner-Marxist tendencies tell me that even as Deneen cites various decreasing quality of life indicators, the only way out of this is through mass politics, which requires raising class consciousness—not a restrained, passive working class whose noble vibes rub onto the elites ruling over them.” ²

You would expect reviewers at Law & Liberty to be more sympathetic to Deneen’s opus, but Timothy Fuller is having none of it: 

Deneen’s “conservatism” is a revolutionary movement promoting a new elite to transform our lives. In rejecting existing American conservatism as a constrained form of liberalism, Deneen is appropriating the word in support of a revolution: “To constitute a political and social order worth conserving, something revolutionary must first take place: the priority of the liberal progressive agenda must be displaced for one that seeks stability, order, and continuity.” Revolution first, then preservation. How is this to occur? How is the spirit of his revolution to create a coherent, stable, non-revolutionary culture? Initiating radical change cannot ensure control of the consequences.” ³

Lastly, Elizabeth Kaufer Busch is thoroughly skeptical of Deneen’s analysis, his premise, and his proposals:

Deneen’s postliberal order embraces the need to moderate, train, and uplift the many, but who will moderate, uplift, and train the aristoi when they fall into error, as they inevitably will? Deneen’s regime change fails to provide adequate guardrails for them. Moreover, to what extent will the superficial maintenance of our liberal institutions dismantle the guardrails that do exist? While his common-good conservatism does not advocate physical rebellion, it explicitly circumvents constitutional and legal norms, and explicitly calls for “Machiavellian means” to produce the ends he seeks. At the very least, ruling out violence while advocating Machiavellianism is a contradiction in terms. But his apparent hope that the elite will arise via covert means may be even more insidious.” ⁴

It must be discouraging for Deneen to find his seeds of regime change falling on such stony ground or choked by weeds of skepticism; his ideas for hijacking the American experiment have even been referred to as “right-wing Marxism”! Still, we should give credit where credit is due; Deneen’s book is being read and it is provoking reaction, discussion, and disagreement even among his erstwhile allies. The extremism (or at least the implausibility) of his solutions is giving pause to many who admired Why Liberalism Failed. What author would not want to be at the center of such controversy? I would suspect that, so long as no angry mobs of critics carrying torches and pitchforks show up at his office at Notre Dame, Patrick Deneen will be content to know that his ideas as put forward in Regime Change are having consequences—if not necessarily the consequences he had in mind.

______________________________________________

Patrick Deneen (author) - Wikipedia

¹ Yearning for Collapse | RealClearBooks

² Ending Systemic Liberalism | RealClearBooks

³ Reactionary and Revolutionary – (lawliberty.org)

⁴ Renewal or Regime Change? – (lawliberty.org)