Liberalism as a way of life is a rare attempt to bring political theory to a wider audience, and the book’s overall aim is noble: it seeks to rethink liberalism not just as a structure but as a way of life, thus transforming not only our understanding of philosophy but also our actions in the world. Alexandre Lefebvre does not water down the intellectual content; this is a serious book that articulates a clear and accessible vision for a new kind of society. However, we must question both the diagnosis Lefebvre makes and the realism of the vision he lays out.
Lefebvre’s book is a beautifully written account of a world I wish I could have recognized. Lefebvre sees the world as one where liberal values are lived out and is optimistic about the human condition, believing we can be much better than we currently are. Lefebvre embraces a sense of “liberalism” – his term for the predicament where our instinctive liberal attitudes are not fully realized – and sees people and the world as ripe for positive change. It is this optimism and hope for the world that forms the basis for this book as a positive source of hope, as opposed to a fear-based approach that is all too common today.
It is a book by a liberal for liberals. While Lefebvre does provide arguments for why liberalism is superior to its rivals, these arguments are not central to the seventeen reasons he offers for why the reader should be a liberal. Liberalism is presented as good in itself. However, if you are a socialist or conservative and you read this book, you may be frustrated by Lefebvre’s focus on liberalism at the expense of other philosophies and their criticism of his position.
The lack of antagonism, however, allows for a full articulation of liberalism. Justice, liberty, and fairness are the three key pillars upon which this deeper liberalism rests. The most consistent and deepest relationship with a philosopher in the entire book is with John Rawls. Lefebvre sees Rawls partly as a secular theologian, and deftly weaves old and new texts to present a detailed picture of the analytical master who goes beyond the hackneyed focus on the veil of ignorance. The excessive focus on Rawls and other thinkers such as De Tocqueville allows for a deeper understanding of the authors presented by Lefebvre than is usual.
The book is subtle, complex and simple at the same time, giving the reader an insight into the reasons why these authors were chosen without overdoing it with pretentiousness. The best example of this is the use of Leslie Knope from the sitcom Parks and Recreation. Lefevbre points to Knope as a model for this expanded liberalism—an optimistic, compassionate, honest, and engaged citizen. The use of Knope as a model also underscores the book’s connection to the wider cultural landscape.
Lefebvre ultimately comes across as a romantic, arguing what liberalism should do and explaining why it is uniquely beneficial to humanity as a doctrine. This romanticism undermines the book’s arguments. Towards the end of the book, Lefebvre quotes Rawls’ admission that one’s religion is probably no better or worse than the person, and this is reflected in a person’s liberalism. So the book is not just about societal improvement, but also personal improvement. We can improve not only as a group, but also with each other.
The book is an ode to joy and duty – an assertion that being more just, fair and open is intrinsically good and that we should strive for it. Liberalism in Rawls’ sense is not just an esoteric theory, but something that should be lived, with freedom and fairness as the two cornerstones. Lefebvre is a convincing author who makes you want to believe even if you ultimately don’t agree with everything.
More could have been written about those who dispute Rawls’s views. For example, when introducing the difference principle, there is little discussion of why some academic philosophers have criticized it. Perhaps, because this is a hopeful and ideological work, such a question would undermine the approach of the book itself.
But that’s not the book’s only problem. A particular problem was the way Lefebvre described the cultural waters we swim in. It makes sense to be portrayed as liberal in our background assumptions and to instinctively use such reasoning. Yet if we look deeper, we can and should examine those assumptions. Are we instinctively liberal, or is this the prism through which Lefebvre himself sees the world? When we see liberal arguments, we can often see other forms of logic as well. Putting pronouns in our email signatures is one example. The argument for this is usually that it does little harm and makes work a more inclusive and welcoming place for those whose gender does not correlate with their sex. It would be easy to mistake this for a liberal claim, as Lefebvre seems to do, given his focus on inclusion and recognition.
At its core, however, the argument is utilitarian. The real appeal is not simply inclusion and recognition, but the question of what it costs to include your pronouns in your email signature. It is precisely because it costs you so little and potentially benefits those affected so much that it is encouraged. Ultimately, this is not a demand that fully conforms to liberal values, but relies on utility as a justification.
This is just one example, but there are many others. While it is easy to assume that the waters we swim in are inherently liberal, that would be a mistake. I see the world as a tangled web of values, with no single ideology holding cultural dominance. Instead, we are groping in the dark, grasping at any rope that will guide us forward.
We could also look at the impact of liberalism on society. We could ask: if there was a background of liberal values, why didn’t it already have the effect Lefebvre wanted? Lefebvre doesn’t completely absolve liberalism of responsibility, but he doesn’t say that ideology is entirely to blame, and he doesn’t give us much historical material on the subject to explain why that is. Perhaps the murky waters better explain why we live in an environment that is neither fully liberal nor conservative nor socialist, but a confused mix in which we take what we want from each ideology and try to piece it together into something coherent.
Although we are supposedly growing up in a liberal culture, the book recognizes that this has led to “liberality” rather than a truly liberal society. While we have the basic aspects of liberalism embedded in our instincts, our social, cultural and economic practices ultimately do not create a liberal society. One example of this is our practices in the economic sphere, such as the lack of appropriate redistribution of wealth, which undermines our instincts and our cultural pursuit of justice. Such practices override our liberal instincts and create a society in which we talk but do not act as liberals. To be real and true liberals, according to Lefebvre, we must adopt a more Rawlsian attitude toward our liberal instincts and consciously live them out in our daily lives as well as in our institutions.
The bigger question is whether we can escape liberalism. Isn’t liberalism simply a byproduct of the kind of instincts that Lefebvre wants us to build and develop? If we take him at his word, then no. The book doesn’t try to demand a conversion to liberalism from the disinterested; rather, it calls liberals to practice what they preach. However, one could argue that the culture of demanding the best for ourselves, hyper-competitiveness in all areas, and admonishing those who don’t live up to our hopes and expectations is what liberalism ultimately produces in practice. The result is ugly – a hypocritical, self-centered, biased society, divorced from the moral and social mores that should bind us together.
That is not to say that the book does not address some of these issues. The fear that society cannot overcome its current problems is firmly embedded in the book. Lefebvre does not claim that liberalism is inevitable, only that it is desirable. Nor does he refuse to acknowledge polarization, selfishness, power, or other political dynamics. They are scattered throughout and acknowledged even if not fully resolved.
Despite my hopes, I don’t think we will see Lefebvre’s vision realized on a large scale. Power will likely remain concentrated in the hands of the few, and the desire of the many to rise to the top and live a life of material prosperity will persist. I hope that a new kind of liberalism will emerge, as described in the book, which would undoubtedly lead to a better world, but I think that desire will probably remain something we strive for rather than something we put into practice.
The picture presented is Discuss ideasfrom the Oregon Department of Transportation
