Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
-11% $16.99$16.99
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
$12.15$12.15
$3.99 delivery May 23 - 30
Ships from: HPB Inc. Sold by: HPB Inc.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
Audible sample Sample
Why Liberalism Failed (Politics and Culture) Paperback – February 26, 2019
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Purchase options and add-ons
"Why Liberalism Failed offers cogent insights into the loss of meaning and community that many in the West feel, issues that liberal democracies ignore at their own peril."—President Barack Obama
"Deneen's book is valuable because it focuses on today's central issue. The important debates now are not about policy. They are about the basic values and structures of our social order."—David Brooks, New York Times
Of the three dominant ideologies of the twentieth century—fascism, communism, and liberalism—only the last remains. This has created a peculiar situation in which liberalism’s proponents tend to forget that it is an ideology and not the natural end-state of human political evolution. As Patrick Deneen argues in this provocative book, liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history. Here, Deneen offers an astringent warning that the centripetal forces now at work on our political culture are not superficial flaws but inherent features of a system whose success is generating its own failure.
- Print length264 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherYale University Press
- Publication dateFebruary 26, 2019
- Dimensions8.2 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
- ISBN-100300240023
- ISBN-13978-0274757046
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Deneen's book is valuable because it focuses on today's central issue. The important debates now are not about policy. They are about the basic values and structures of our social order."—David Brooks, New York Times
"Bracing. . . . Deneen comes as a Jeremiah to announce that Tocqueville's fear that liberalism would eventually dissolve all [its] inheritances . . . may now be fully upon us."—Ross Douthat, New York Times
"Mr. Deneen has written a serious book offering a radical critique of modernity, and he has taken the trouble to do so both concisely and engagingly. His insights as well as his crotchets in pursuit of his argument are often arresting. He writes compellingly on the growth of government in tandem with the spread of liberal market principles, for example, noting that a supposed preference for 'limited government' has been no match for the demand for expanding government enforcement of individual rights."—Tod Lindberg, Wall Street Journal
“One of the most talked-about books of the moment.”—Scott Reyburn, The New York Times
"[Deneen's] exhortations to embrace the local over the global and the cultural over the political are sound and well expressed."—Barton Swaim, Wall Street Journal, Books on Politics: Best of 2018
"Few books challenge the core assumptions of modern liberalism as unapologetically as the suggestively titled Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen."—Shadi Hamid, TheAtlantic.com
“The most electrifying book of cultural criticism published in some time, and it’s hard to imagine its radicalism being surpassed anytime soon.”—Damon Linker, Week
“Vitally important for understanding the present crisis in Western politics.”—Gene Callahan, American Conservative
"Today is the publication date of Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen’s much-anticipated book, Why Liberalism Failed. I read an advance copy of it late last fall, and knew at once that it would be one of the most important political books of 2018. Not just among conservative books, but among political books, period."—Rod Dreher, American Conservative
"This is an essential book as we contemplate the future. Few readers will agree with everything in it, but even fewer will . . . fail to be informed and edified by it. . . . [T]he questions Deneen raises . . . are perhaps the deepest questions about our liberal politics and culture: Can liberalism be saved? Should it?"—Nathanael Blake, Federalist
"Bold and provocative. . . . Why Liberalism Failed takes up the always necessary, increasingly urgent task of locating the deeper intellectual and cultural traditions that shape our everyday lives."—Fred Bauer, National Review
"A timely and radical book."—Samuel Goldman, University Bookman
“Why Liberalism Failed is a sobering look at an ideological turning point in history. It’s one of the few books deserving of being called revelatory. It’s a rare opportunity for a look at where we’re going. If liberalism is indeed on the way out, then it’s time to look ahead, past the end of history and beyond.”—Medium
“Reading Deneen, I found myself thoroughly engaged, and I wish more books like this would come from the editorial offices of university presses.”--Alan Wolfe, Commonweal
"Perhaps the most influential book to emerge so far from this anti-liberal ferment is Patrick J. Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, published in January by Yale University Press."—Park MacDougald, New York Magazine Daily Intelligencer Blog
"Deneen’s masterful study provides a compelling, clear, and scholarly analysis that helps people understand the failure of liberalism. He starts a much-needed conversation about America’s post-liberal future."—John Horvat, Imaginative Conservative
"In showing that radical individualism is in the water we drink and the air we breathe, Deneen may spur us to imagine a third way, an alternative that is neither 'liberal' nor 'conservative,' but more than either."—Anthony B. Robinson, Christian Century
“Why Liberalism Failed is an eminently worthy read. Today’s culture wars did not start in the 1960s or ’80s. They go back to the Founding, and Deneen offers us a useful doorway into that more difficult conversation.”—Jonathan Leeman, Christianity Today
“A persuasive contribution to the ongoing political debate in North America.”—David Koyzis and Bruce Ashford, The Gospel Coalition
"I commend Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed to anyone seeking an honest account of our current political, economic, and cultural predicaments. This book will not confirm the standard conservative narrative of events. However, it will challenge and enlighten any serious reader."—Allan Carlson, Chronicles
"In our apparently transitional political moment, Deneen’s book should encourage both Left and Right to reevaluate long-held social, political, and economic assumptions whose time may have passed."—Alexander Stern, RealClearPolitics
“A must read for all scholars who seek to understand the roots of our current, dreary socio-political landscape.”—Paul Allen, Reading Religion
"The flame of the Anti-Federalists’ position has never been fully extinguished. But not for 160 years has it burned as brightly as it does in Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed."—Jerome C. Foss, Catholic Social Science Review
Finalist for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s 2018 Conservative Book of the Year prize, the Paolucci Book Award.
“Liberalism is clearly in everybody’s sights, and Why Liberalism Failed will be an important contributor to the conversation, suggesting that we cannot work within the existing paradigm anymore. The philosophers will not solve our problems; working with our neighbors will.”—Joshua Mitchell, Professor of Political Theory, Georgetown University
"Deneen writes with clarity, candor and superior scholarship to create one of the most absorbing political philosophy books of the past decade. No one who reads it, no one who considers its substance, will be able to think about the dynamics and the consequences of the American democratic experiment in quite the same way."—Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, author of Author of Strangers in a Strange Land
"This courageous and timely book is a major contribution to understanding the rude awakening in the Trump moment. It shows that we must transcend the death grip of the two oscillating poles of classical liberalism (of Republican and Democratic parties) and examine the deep assumptions that hold us captive. It also reveals that if we remain tied to liberalism's failure, more inequality, repression, and spiritual emptiness await us."—Cornel West, Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy, Harvard
"Patrick Deneen is a probing and gifted cultural critic, afire with controlled moral passion. Why Liberalism Failed provides a bracing antidote to the pieties of left and right by showing how an impoverished, bipartisan conception of liberty has imprisoned the public life it claims to have set free. One could not ask for a timelier or more necessary enrichment of our depleted political discourse."—Jackson Lears, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History, Rutgers University
“A path-breaking book, boldly argued and expressed in terms that might justifiably be called prophetic in character.”—Wilfred M. McClay, G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty, University of Oklahoma
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Yale University Press; Reprint edition (February 26, 2019)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 264 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0300240023
- ISBN-13 : 978-0274757046
- Item Weight : 9.6 ounces
- Dimensions : 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #48,670 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #77 in Political Philosophy (Books)
- #107 in History & Theory of Politics
- #153 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Patrick J. Deneen is Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame. He has previously taught at Princeton University and Georgetown University.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
In the United States today, we use the word “Liberal” to mean the Progressive Liberals. But this is not what Professor Deneen means: Liberalism includes both the “Conservatives” and “Liberals!” Both Conservatives and Progressives are the opposite sides of the coin called Liberalism. To understand this, we need a definition of what Liberalism is in Deneen’s usage.
Deneen’s definition is, “Liberalism … is understood to be the greatest possible freedom from external constraints, including customary norms. The only limitation on Liberty, in this view, should be duly enacted laws consistent with maintaining order of otherwise unfettered individuals. Liberalism thus disassembles a world of customs and replaces it with promulgated laws.” (italics in the original) From the Preface to the Paperback Edition. Whereas the Conservatives insist on the liberty to free the individual man through opportunity to access free markets globally, the Progressives insist liberty to free the individual man through economic and social equality.
The three major ideologies of the world are Communism, Fascism, and Liberalism. Francis Fukuyama in the 1989 essay, “The End Of the World,” used Hegel’s definition of the end of the world where all ideologies would finally be resolved into the only and correct one. He declared the End of World when Liberalism successfully stood alone in the world after the flaws were exposed of both Communism and Fascism lead to the destruction of states based on those ideologies. Much of this book is a refutation of Fukuyama's premise. I think a reader would have difficulty understanding what Deneen is arguing against without having read Fukuyama.
The founders of the United States built a republic based on a philosophy of Classical Liberalism. Today, a solid majority of Americans believe that the United States has and is moving in the wrong direction. Nearly every premise of Classical Liberalism has been destroyed through the construction of the government of the United States as it exists today. There is almost no aspect of human life for an American that isn’t somehow impacted by the US government, and most Americans feel that they are powerless to change the situation. Liberalism promised the limitation of government and the liberation of the individual from arbitrary political control. Liberalism has produced just the opposite of what Liberalism initially promised. This is part of the evidence of why Professor Deneen claims Liberalism failed.
According to Deneen, Liberalism ultimately fails because it has a false concept of human nature which results in the state growing through its agencies removed from the electorate, the regulations enforce the removal of some constraint on freedom (in itself an oxymoron,) and the laws imposed to create human equality. In politics, government, economics, education, and technology, Liberalism is bankrupting freedom. Liberalism gives the citizens of the United States politicians that have no power other than figureheads of the nation, a massive government structure, an economic system borrowing on the future with debts to be paid by our grandchildren left with a supposed plan, “they will figure it out,” an educational system that rejects the history of the world including the United States while providing a “servile” education to placate the needs of the economic and technologic systems and rejecting the study of its own culture, and a technology system that uses massive amounts of resources, unbounded by the loss of morals and virtues of the US citizen while trying to fill the unsatisfiable appetites for more by the peoples. (“WOW: A long sentence for me but well documented in Deneen’s analysis.) A conclusion is drawn by Deneen and I agree with it: Liberalism is unsustainable!
Deneen then builds his argument supporting these conclusions by examining what the various political philosophers had observed and proposed. Then, he comparing the outcomes of the growth of the state, the construction of the free market, the destruction of the culture of the United States, the effects of technology and the loss of freedoms as a result of technology, the destruction of an educational system that allowed critical thinking and introspection of Liberalism while fostering a false sense of value to STEM education, the building of an elite aristocracy cutoff from the electorate, and the loss of freedom for the citizenship.
So where does this all lead? What comes after Liberalism? The scions of the slaves produced under Liberalism will produce populist movements and revolution. There may be hope for a new ideology that is better, but it is more likely that this will lead to authoritarianism: It has in the past: one only needs to look the probability of where past revolution produced. To avoid these grim outcomes, Deneen suggests that we need to engage in the negotiation between the Utopia and the realistic as was initiated by Plato. We need to acknowledge what Liberalism achieved and have the desire to eschew a return to a “preliberal age.” We can not go back. We must outgrow the “age of ideologies” and foster a culture of household economics and polis life where the focus is on events near and local to us rather than far away and conducted by the massive, impersonal government(s) which are now the outcomes of Liberalism. And finally, there might emerge a better theory of politics.
Professor Patrick J. Deneen is the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Chair of Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame. This book is erudite and is well referenced. It is based on the studies of various pollical philosophers including Plato, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Francis Bacon, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edwin Burke, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, John Dewey, Friedrich Hayek and many, many, more. In part, this is what makes this book, while readable, difficult to fully understand. While almost all readers will come away from this book with an appreciation for the argument Deneen is making, I doubt anyone unfamiliar with the major arguments of these philosophers will understand Deneen’s logic. While I consider myself well read in Philosophy, I found myself referring back to original sources to comprehend Deneen’s arguments. Of most importance, in my opinion, was the concept of “freedom” from Hegel’s “Philosophy of History.”
All in all: this book which probably began as a series of essays when taken together, creates a book worth thinking about.
The overall argument is straightforward. Both modern and classical liberalism are about liberty but they are about radically different ideas of liberty. In antiquity (and for much of western thought) liberty turns on virtue. To be free and to enjoy liberty is to have control of one's appetites. Otherwise, you are enslaved by those appetites, desires and drives. That means constraining yourself and disciplining yourself. We receive help in this process from institutional structures and cultural traditions. 'Mores' and customs—so important, e.g., for Tocqueville play an important role here. Modern (i.e. post 17th-c) liberalism is just the opposite. It entails the ability to pursue all of one's desires and it is, basically, license. This is the liberalism that has failed us and the unchained sexuality which it promotes has taken us to Sodom and Gomorrah, not to utopia and certainly not the city of God. In combination with the satisfaction of other material desires (basically, consumerism) we have found ourselves within a soulless society where individuals are lonely and wracked by anomie and alienation. So long as we pursue this course we will become increasingly frustrated, lonely and lost. Since the human imagination (as Samuel Johnson pointed out) can always conceive of more and more things to be desired we can never really be satiated. For Johnson we must find our stability in the truth and in faith, recalling Augustine's famous comment that our hearts are restless until they rest in God.
The most active area for modern liberalism has been the area of sexuality (always the first chain to be cast off, as Blake notes) and it has left us with a world of pornography, delayed or disregarded family formation, out-of-wedlock births, and so on. The world of the hookup is a lonely one.
Related to the 'liberation' with regard to sexuality is the desire to control nature. Men who feel as if they are women can actually attempt to become women. The author locates the beginning of this process with Bacon (very important for the progressive liberal, Dewey) who advocates the control and exploitation of nature. This is ultimately in conflict with human nature, the author argues, and he looks instead to a writer like Wendell Berry who traces many of our social ills to our detachment from nature. This control of nature/modern liberalism connection is probably the least developed section of the book, though many points are made. The author is very concerned, e.g., about global warming and the despoiliation of nature and sees it in parallel with the endless indebtedness incurred by the government to satisfy our desires for instant gratification and to keep any thoughts of sacrifice or personal discomfort at a distance.
He sees Mill as another principal culprit in the development of modern liberalism and argues that the founding fathers were themselves complicit in ultimately arguing for a strong central government which would be distant from the people and undercut the kinds of local associations that were so important to Tocqueville and his understanding of the essential American character. Many would dispute this particular argument (re: the founders and the Federalist papers), but he develops it in some detail.
Bottom line: a thoughtful book, largely but not exclusively conservative in its thrusts, arguing for a new localism, a new agrarianism and perhaps even for a new Benedictine model (via Rod Dreher). It is always provocative and it would make a great 'common read' for newly-matriculated college students (though its very title would doubtless disqualify it, despite the nuanced nature of the argument).
Highly recommended.