‘Regime Change’: A Somewhat Reckless Solution to the West’s Problems
‘Regime Change’, by Patrick Deneen, reviewed.
Quite a provocative title, Regime Change; though the phrase is forever bound up in my mind with those who pressed for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus are among those that the present subject’s author, Patrick Deneen, attacks in his previous book. That book was Why Liberalism Failed, a runaway hit that aimed to diagnose the roots of our present discontent in the West. Regime Change tries to set out a vision, or at least, a direction of travel, that might get us back on track.
For those who are unfamiliar with Deneen (or cannot be bothered to read my review of his last book – don’t worry; I do understand) his critique of liberalism goes like this: whether classical or progressive – that is, whether inspired by Locke or Mill; whether inclined towards economic or social freedom – liberalism has failed because it has succeeded. The push towards freedom from constraint has created chaos which has, somewhat ironically though perhaps predictably, required the state to step in and manage things.
Whether classical or progressive – that is, whether inspired by Locke or Mill; whether inclined towards economic or social freedom – liberalism has failed because it has succeeded.
The argument runs that by stressing the individual and her wants and needs, liberalism has weakened communal bonds, shared values and traditional forms of solidarity, causing alienation and a widespread sense of meaninglessness. It has, for the same reason, promoted a consumerist culture in which short-term personal satisfaction is raised above collective well-being. Due to liberalism’s economic framework, the gap between rich and poor has widened, while, because of its emphasis on consumption and growth, liberalism has trashed the natural world. Better yet, after all of this, we are not even free: rather, we are enslaved: by advertising, by big business, and by technology.
Not ideal, you might think; so (assuming Patrick’s diagnosis is correct) what do we do about it? He proposes a ‘common-good conservatism’ which involves a greater role for the state in promoting social and moral order. This would involve (for example) supporting the manufacturing industries, setting up a Ministry of Family, restoring public spaces, taxing endowments to universities, honouring public holidays, and increasing funding for public schools – so long as they serve the interests of the public who pay for them. Since the state is already involved in public life, says Patrick, we should make it serve the common good.
Now, some will find this vision unappealing. Others will think it unworkable. Others still – and this is the best challenge to Patrick’s proposal – will worry that liberalism, for all its manifold flaws, is better than the alternative, since any alternative runs the risk of becoming authoritarian. Patrick has anticipated this response, and argues (pretty well, in my view) that liberalism is authoritarian – only in such a subtle way that it persuades those living within its frame that they are free. More still, he suggests that a ‘mixed constitution’, comprising a working class and a small aristocracy charged with embodying and defending the values of that working class, present the best defence against authoritarianism. Following Polybius, the Roman thinker, he encourages the working class to make their feelings known and hold that aristocracy to account.
He suggests that a ‘mixed constitution’, comprising a working class and a small aristocracy charged with embodying and defending the values of that working class, present the best defence against authoritarianism.
Patrick renders all nicely. His style is clear – refreshingly clear, in fact, given how clotted academic prose tends to be – and the general tone of his book is, I think, public-spirited and charitable. He suggests that the left and right are both – well, right. It is just that, in his view, they are also wrong. He seems concerned about the working class, about racism, about community. He writes elegantly and not insistently about values and religious faith – areas that tend to make even the most subversive writers sound ridiculously earnest. He is rigorously even-handed. His book is also structured well, which is something of a rarity.
Look: I quite like my life. But clearly something has gone a bit wrong in our particular corner of the world, given, you know, the massive inequality, the deaths of despair, the widespread sadness and worry, and all the rest of it. The interesting question is why, and how, and should something be done, and if so, what should be done. Patrick Deneen has had a crack at answering these questions, and those answers should get anyone who gives a damn thinking.
