Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future

The book “Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future”, was written soon after the assault on the US Capitol Hill building on 06 January 2021, when a herd of supremacist demonstrators, sincerely sought to forcefully subvert the legitimate processes of the country’s presidential election. The transformation of political systems by violent revolutions and uprisings is a well-recognised recurring phenomenon. Such scenarios had frequently been enacted in many countries during the preceding 1-2 decades. Yet, the performance of this Julius Caesar style saga of insurrection in the US capital was unique in its tempo and style. Such an orchestration in one of the oldest and largest democracies of the modern age, which was still the dominant political and economic power of the World and perceived as a role model for several democracies, was bound to raise many eyebrows. This episode prompted the need for a comprehensive multi-disciplinary investigation into the reasons that unleashed such a fiasco, and propose a bold plan of action to avoid such unpleasant recurrences.
Patrick J. Deneen PhD, a Notre Dame University professor of political science, came forth to confront this immense scholarly challenge. Deneen is a renowned American author and political theorist well acknowledged for his meticulous analysis of liberalism (contemporary democracy) and its influence on modern society. He specialises in the interplay of history, political philosophy, liberalism, and classical & current political ideologies. In addition to multiple edited volumes, Deneen had authored three prior books: “The Odyssey of Political Theory”; “Democratic Faith”; and “Why Liberalism Failed”. Of these, the third book, published in 2018, had accurately diagnosed the issue by presenting a critical evaluation that: “Liberalism, in both its Modern and Enlightenment manifestations, has failed America.” Therefore, Patrick Deneen was well positioned to investigate the Capitol Hill event and propose a viable solution. The book under review, presents a solution by suggesting an alternative framework for engaging in politics.
Deneen begins the book by developing a historical context of his narrative. He emphasises the presence of a long-standing division that sets apart the “minority of haves” from the “majority of have-nots”. The initial portion of the book comprises the typical revolutionary enthusiasm for toppling the existing ruling class, comprising the globalists and digital nomads, with the expectation that a more effective constitutional system will embrace the principles of equilibrium, organisation, and constancy. The book’s middle part presents suggestions for shifting authority from the current elite class to a prospective elite class. In the author’s reckoning, the new elite will not be chosen based on merit, skills, and capacity to develop ground-breaking products and services. In a rather generalised way, Patrick imagines a typical urban individual with a degree, earning around US$ 60000 a year at a menial job, and embracing mainstream cultural beliefs and interests as a member of the prospective elite.
Deneen explores the possibility of substituting democratic liberalism within the context of a nation-state with a post-liberal conservatism that aims to achieve collective welfare. A typical nation-state comprises four essential components: “territory, population, government, and sovereignty”. He advocates inserting the ‘crucial absent’ element that may be called ethics, religion, ideology, morality, faith, or conviction. In this context, he appears inclined towards the Christian interpretation of these terms, without acknowledging so. He promotes a “nation” that conceptually prefers local forms of association over today’s dominant nation-state governance. He argues that the ‘nation’ should prioritise efforts to maintain, nurture, and assist the communities that constitute it, and counteract, whenever feasible and appropriate, the contemporary forces that have been highly detrimental to those communities. He thinks that liberalism has exacerbated social isolation, political fragmentation, and economic disparity; hence, there is a need for enhanced civic, consumer, and environmental corporate accountability.
In the concluding part of the book, Deneen presents a discussion about the future. He presents an audacious, yet feasible strategy for displacing the present liberal social class and the prevailing World view. He also outlines a strategic plan for these transformations, envisioning “advancement following progress” and “freedom following liberalism”. He rolls out a series of processes which could evolve a postliberal system.
Deneen proposes a methodology to establish an alternative ruling ideology, cultural values, and social hierarchy that has the potential to revolutionise the current fragmented system that exclusively benefits the limited class of self-proclaimed “meritocrats”. He does not propose completely supplanting the existing ruling class and political order. He considers such an approach devoid of ‘sophistication’. Instead, he endorses a deliberate establishment of a new elite class committed to a “pre-postmodern conservatism”, in line with the welfare of the “many.”
Patrick floats some radical proposals. He suggests that all individuals, including elites, the working class, and oligarchs, should comply with a compulsory military service of at least one year to bring people from different regions and walks of life together to promote societal and community-level cohesion. He advocates that the US should withdraw from the global economy and prioritise local self-reliance. He further recommends: the provision of one Representative in the lower House of Congress for every 50,000 constituents, thus expanding the House membership from the current 435 to around 6,000; the adoption of public policies focused on the interests of “estates” rather than individuals; the “breaking up” of major metropolitan areas, which have increasingly monopolised economic, technological, and cultural capital; and the creation of a “two-track” system of higher education giving students a choice between a traditional four-year baccalaureate education or occupational training.
Struggling to keep a balance between Socialist and religious thoughts, as well as his romanticism for Greek era “city state” concepts, Deneen articulates some radical, yet correct and pertinent arguments to reunite the fragmented aspects of liberalism. The concepts presented are intriguing and thought-provoking. He contends that we should “restore traditional moral principles of family”. He denounces racism. Deneen’s dominant concept is that of a mixed constitution. The envisaged mixed constitution comprises a set of processes to integrate different social groups, interests, or “estates” at all levels of social structure.
Deneen harbours significant scepticism over the feasibility of directly reconstructing such an arrangement using the compromised institutions of contemporary Western civilisation. He proposes top-down efforts to form a new governing philosophy, ethos, and class that could transform the existing fractured regime. He dismisses grass-roots populist efforts to destroy the ruling class altogether as naive; and looks up to the strategic formation of a new elite devoted to a “pre-postmodern conservatism” and aligned with the interest of the “many.” He even favours using Machiavellian strategies for transferring the power from existing to prospective elites, and its subsequent retention by the latter. As he puts it, we must employ “Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends”.
The book was published at a suitable moment when the global order had turned anarchic at all levels of political hierarchy. A course adjustment is urgently required at this critical moment. The book equips the readers with ample tools to elucidate their respective political and social perspectives and recognise the obstructive issues at the State and World levels. The current circumstances are highly favourable for expressing a fresh political narrative that effectively addresses the requirements and ambitions of the future. The book is a breeze of cool fresh air under stuffy circumstances.
However, Deneen fails to acknowledge that as political processes progress towards maturity, the structure of society inevitably transforms resulting in a lesser proportion of individuals cumulating greater wealth and a greater mass of people ending up with lesser riches. And any system that attempts to balance this, would be unable to progress due to its inherent inflexibility. Deneen seems so excessively reductionist regarding the issue of ‘few versus many’ that some of the phases appear directly borrowed from Marxism–Leninism treatises.
The book also carries a streak of populist approach. It is an effort towards appeasing the younger generation and the marginalised segments of the present mass of low-performing segments of liberal society, maybe the angry portion of it. It also gives hope for betterment to the working class, who did not complete their college education; or perhaps those who did but are considered ‘fallen professionals’. Some of the suggestions floated in the book appear regressive. It may not be possible to reverse the progress in certain areas like globalisation, urbanisation, and secular governance. Overall, it’s a good read for postgraduate students of political science and international affairs. It is also a must-read for the practitioners of statecraft at the policy level.