Since 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron has been the de facto leader of the Western liberal democracies. By comparison, Trump is too nationalist, Biden too old, British politics have been too turbulent, Trudeau is too vapid, and Scholz too pliable. However, Macron’s prominence in the international community is more than leadership by default. He stands taller than any other world leader because he is the living embodiment of liberal internationalism – a defiant voice of reason and prudence in a world increasingly dominated by the hard-headed nationalism of Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. In short, Macron is the firmest advocate on the world stage for the principles of modern democracy. Yet for all his brilliance and international importance, Macron’s liberal coalition is crumbling domestically. Despite his competent management of France’s economy, Macron’s Renaissance Party was recently trounced in the European elections and faces a tough road to victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Through all of this, France is not unique. No matter how successful liberal centrism may be in the policy realm, politicians are unable to transform these victories into lasting political popularity. Throughout the free world, nationalists have convinced the most prosperous voters in human history to turn against the policies that have led to such unprecedented material well-being. Why?
The political theorist Francis Fukuyama offers one explanation. In his most famous work The End of History and the Last Man, he argued that:
“[E]xperience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause … They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom. For they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle. And if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, then they will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy.”
The truth at the heart of this quote is that man does not live by bread alone. Contemporary liberalism (“neoliberalism,” some would say) cannot comprehend the importance of non-material and non-utilitarian factors. Macron and Biden may tout their economic achievements, but an over reliance on such arguments gives the impression that they only understand voters in terms of homo economicus rather than as fellow members of a shared polity.
Where is the morality? Where are the principles to spiritually strive after? Where is the happiness and meaning that material prosperity ought to come with? These are the pressing questions for the liberal center which have gone unanswered for at last a decade. At their very best, liberals argue that they are standing up to the specter of nationalism and hate, but still struggle to articulate such a moral crusade in the terms of dry policy-making.
The lack of a clear moral objective in much liberal policy leads to the general belief among many, such as Patrick Deneen, that liberalism represents the total negation of all transcendent principles. Such an accusation rests on a small grain of truth. Many liberal intellectuals and politicians seem to have embraced a thoroughly materialist worldview. In the eyes of such figures, material comfort is the highest good politics can aim at. Such rhetoric is an utter slap in the face to the millions of relatively well-off citizens who are nevertheless anxious, depressed, or spiritually adrift. To put it bluntly, liberalism sometimes seems to stand for nothing in particular because its contemporary advocates really do stand for very little of moral worth.
Right-wing nationalists, on the other hand, have no problem proffering a substantive vision for the future of humanity, just not the right one. The nationalist’s primary concern is not good governance (just look at the United States House of Representatives) but providing purpose to a purposeless world. They see in liberal internationalism the erosion of national affinities and causes. They argue that the principle of equality produces a soft, greedy, people and destroys the true peaks of human greatness.
As in ages past, these challenges must be acknowledged to be of political importance. The hard truth which many liberals will not acknowledge is that liberalism does lead to many of the consequences reactionaries describe. Yes, liberalism often erodes local differences and blurs social hierarchies. Yes, liberalism does lead to a less conventionally masculine society. Yes, liberalism results in weakened traditions and attenuated connections with the past. Denying these results of liberalism is only foolish and counter-productive. Yet for all its foibles, liberalism is still worth it. No philosophic movement in history places such an emphasis on the dignity of the individual human and, consequently, no political movement in history has been so in accordance with the inalienable dignity of individual human beings.
Liberalism, at its best, throws off unjustly imposed identities, hierarchies, and other human conventions, liberating us as individuals to follow our conscience in thought, word, and deed. Our backgrounds and upbringing still inevitably shape us, but liberalism means that such things do not have to be totally binding. At the same time, localities, religions, gender differences, and the like will always matter. Where we’re from will always play a mysterious yet essential role in the process of becoming fully human. Even so, loving where you’re from shouldn’t have to entail being completely defined by the circumstances of your birth; this is the difference between illiberal local customs and liberalism.
When faced with the illiberal, nationalist ideology of the Nazis, Winston Churchill managed to rally the British people around the positive principles of liberalism. Proudly declaring the British Isles to be a “nation of shopkeepers,” he embraced the dignity of everyday people making a living for themselves, weaponizing British identity against totalitarianism. Likewise, across the Atlantic President Franklin Roosevelt appealed to the West’s Christian brotherhood and the universal brotherhood of man as reasons for Americans to uphold the principles of liberal democracy against atheistic materialist fascism.
Contemporary liberals should follow the example of their midcentury forebears. Liberalism should be articulated in reference to equality and freedom; as a crusade for human dignity that effects all people, not just particular minority groups. Liberals today should utilize the idea of God-given human rights as a cudgel against despotism by showing in plain language how rights taken away in one place can be removed at home as well. Such language should be minimally preachy and maximally unifying. A forceful liberalism should provide a spiritually meaningful foundation for politics which, in the final analysis, is the sustenance required by all us political animals.
