From the perspective of clarity, The Revolutionary Center: The Lost Genius of Liberalism is a breath of fresh air. The author, Adrian Wooldridge, offers a clear, erudite history of liberalism as a philosophy and movement.
Here’s someone who has done his homework. One may not agree with liberalism, but at least Mr. Wooldridge tells its story forthrightly. He does not deny its history that he traces back to Erasmus. He acknowledges the seriousness of the present crisis inside liberalism. His desire to see liberalism return to prominence is no secret.
This is not an easy story to tell, because liberalism so often changes its program. Indeed, Mr. Wooldridge relates how liberalism “has suffered from several near-death experiences only to revive and come back stronger than ever.” It must now stage a very difficult renaissance if it is to survive.
A Dynamic Sensibility
This revival is complicated because liberalism cannot be reduced to a rigid dogma or an economic program. The author claims liberalism has always had an intangible note. It cannot be fixed by tweaking a program or crafting an agenda. Liberalism was an attitude “before it was a philosophy.” It was “a way of being before it was a set of ideas.” It represented a “dynamic sensibility” rather than a party platform.
Thus, liberalism has always been hard to pin down. However, it does have a core “revolutionary center” that characterizes and orients this intangible movement.
This liberal way of being has three characteristics that it always upholds. The first is an individualism that breaks with the old world commitments to family, collective groups and communities. The second is a sensibility that is skeptical toward power and favors limited government. It relies more upon laws than personal relationships. Finally, liberalism is committed to a spirit of diversity, tolerance and pluralism. Each person must find a separate truth and path to happiness, regardless of its social or moral consequences.
Upending the old Order
Within this loose, messy framework, liberalism pursues its goals. At times, it follows contradictory paths. It can be conservative, moderate or progressive; governmental or libertarian; left, center or right. It can destroy what it has built, controlling both sides of the process.
Critics have noted that the essence of liberalism is a spirit that favors the right to think, feel and do everything the unrestrained passions of the times demand. Despite its vacillations, the result always tends leftward.
To survive the present crisis, it must return to its radical yet revolutionary core of ideals and pursue its destructive goal.
Subverting the World
Mr. Wooldridge’s thesis about the goals of this revolutionary core explains the mystery of the crisis surrounding the movement today. Liberalism is frequently seen as a moderate, centrist or even “third way” solution because it often combines free-market economics with more left-leaning social programs. Most people do not realize that it is a broad, dynamic, and radical process that must continuously reinvent itself while staying true to its roots.
Thus, the author rejects the “moderate” label. He affirms that liberalism is above all “a revolutionary philosophy—a philosophy that tried to subvert the old world. That set of beliefs has remained radical and revolutionary. When liberalism fell into decadence, it examined itself, subverted itself, and became once again a revolutionary faith.”
This morphing process is what makes liberalism so hard to fight—and even advance. It subverts the successive orders it creates, pushing ahead by identifying and dismantling the next layer of limits remaining in social bonds, governing structures and personal restraints. It must be in a constant state of slow revolution, yet resist the temptation to become the next establishment.
The Old World Order
Liberalism’s subversion especially applies to the deeply entrenched classical European and Catholic worldview. Thus, liberalism can be seen as a relentless struggle to subvert the remnants of this old world order, in one form or another.
The author’s explanation makes it clear that most liberals see this subversion as a liberation from moral norms and structures. Liberals mix inside their program positive elements like rule of law, free markets and other things that favor prosperity. However, it paved the way for the introduction of modernity’s individualistic, materialistic and secular world, dedicated to science and progress and devoid of anything spiritual or supernatural.
Thus, the liberal world views this new world order positively and celebrates the gradual subversion of the old order throughout its history.
Looking for Solutions
Mr. Wooldridge believes the liberal core is now splintered and decadent. To regain its dynamism, liberalism must return to its “revolutionary center,” which will unite and regenerate it.
Hence, he appeals to the “lost genius” of liberalism in the final part of his book. He calls upon liberals to subvert again what they have created and offers a “liberal blueprint” to “rebalance” liberalism.
This rallying cry is less compelling than the earlier parts, which are grounded in his excellent history. The decay of society today weighs heavily on his optimistic outlook. There is no longer any point of unity on which to build.
Nevertheless, the author cannot admit that liberalism has reached the point of exhaustion. He insists upon a program that no longer captures the imagination of those it once held in thrall.
An Exhausted Order
Any reinvention presupposes new energies that seem unlikely today. He imagines this “rebalancing” as borrowing planks from the platforms of both the left and right to reach a synthesis that will satisfy neither side in the present state of polarization. He suggests returning to more classical liberal ideals long left behind.
The book’ conclusion becomes frustrating since it assumes that liberalism can go on forever subverting without consequences. Society cannot survive when if all ties are eventually broken, structures deconstructed and passions unbridled.
When an individual cannot even determine a sexual identity, perhaps things have reached a point of no return. The revolutionary center is then hollowed out, and the expectations for this lost genius are much too high.
A False Dilemma and a New Center
However, the author doubles down on liberalism because the alternatives are too terrifying to imagine. Thus, he sees a false dilemma with two choices: a regenerated yet even more unrestrained liberalism or a frightful postliberalism in which strong men impose order. He paints the terrible picture of liberalism’s “dark shadows” in the form of populism on the right and left that propose alternatives that do not bode well for the future.
What is needed is a new center to replace the empty one, which no longer works. Unfortunately, the author lacks the imagination to think outside the liberal box. He cannot envision a return to a Christian order in which family ties, structures and morals serve as helpful guardrails rather than hateful restrictions. He cannot imagine individuals finding solace and support, not oppression, in families and communities.
This center should address spiritual needs that liberalism has long suppressed. It should return to its Western roots, not its liberal past.
Christian order has a proven record of transforming society, filling it with charity and virtue. Beyond the materialistic, individualistic and secular world, there lies a marvelous alternative for those who dare to put God, not revolution, at the center.
First published on TFP.org.
Photo Credit: © foto-select – stock.adobe.com