Thanks for including the reference to my piece! I was going to suggest the note was great before it improved with my shout out! Seriously, on post liberalism, I would include this polemic - getting to the heart of the matter
I don't know. Creating a category, naming it, and then seeing what fits in it seems to be why everyone is running in circles rather than building anything that lasts. An abundance of categories and subcategories will not promote human flourishing. Sorry to be a pill.
I wouldn’t consider Ahmari post-liberal since he still trusts institutions and generally speaking wants to conserve rather than accelerate. His critique of corporate power is more in line with the populist conservatism of Josh Hawley and Matt Taibbi. I’ve always perceived post-liberal to treat liberalism as a step on the way to something else which we’re just now getting past. Nick Land seems quintessentially this. Seems like there is also a less intellectual movement, more vibes and culture, of “now that we’ve tried liberalism and gotten sick of it, let’s explore what’s next,” maybe best represented by Red Scare.
James R Wood and Peter Leithart host the Civitas podcast, in which they discuss “ecclesiocentric postliberalism,” which is a distinct and thoughtful approach to the topic. It’s worth exploring.
Good round-up! If post-liberalism is as Douthat suggests a reaction to the neo-Reaganite regime of 2000-2008, it strikes me as a severe overaction. I think it is important not to confuse liberalism with neoconservatism (especially on foreign policy) and the need for sensible regulation of systemically important financial institutions with the death of capitalism. Liberalism is like Tinkerbell, if we all stop believing in it then it will indeed go away. But we don't have to stop believing.
Thanks for including the reference to my piece! I was going to suggest the note was great before it improved with my shout out! Seriously, on post liberalism, I would include this polemic - getting to the heart of the matter
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/all-human-conflict-is-ultimately-theological/
I don't know. Creating a category, naming it, and then seeing what fits in it seems to be why everyone is running in circles rather than building anything that lasts. An abundance of categories and subcategories will not promote human flourishing. Sorry to be a pill.
I wouldn’t consider Ahmari post-liberal since he still trusts institutions and generally speaking wants to conserve rather than accelerate. His critique of corporate power is more in line with the populist conservatism of Josh Hawley and Matt Taibbi. I’ve always perceived post-liberal to treat liberalism as a step on the way to something else which we’re just now getting past. Nick Land seems quintessentially this. Seems like there is also a less intellectual movement, more vibes and culture, of “now that we’ve tried liberalism and gotten sick of it, let’s explore what’s next,” maybe best represented by Red Scare.
James R Wood and Peter Leithart host the Civitas podcast, in which they discuss “ecclesiocentric postliberalism,” which is a distinct and thoughtful approach to the topic. It’s worth exploring.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1LW1i2wY7KoY86cvx6TSbT?si=eGKnnOisSAaZGSGJ8lsxVw
Good round-up! If post-liberalism is as Douthat suggests a reaction to the neo-Reaganite regime of 2000-2008, it strikes me as a severe overaction. I think it is important not to confuse liberalism with neoconservatism (especially on foreign policy) and the need for sensible regulation of systemically important financial institutions with the death of capitalism. Liberalism is like Tinkerbell, if we all stop believing in it then it will indeed go away. But we don't have to stop believing.