Liberalism as a Way of Life

by Alexandre Lefebvre

Why liberalism is all you need to lead a good, fun, worthy, and rewarding life―and how you can become a better and happier person by taking your liberal beliefs more seriously

Where do you get your values and sensibilities from? If you grew up in a Western democracy, the answer is probably liberalism. Conservatives are right about one liberalism is the ideology of our times, as omnipresent as religion once was. Yet, as Alexandre Lefebvre argues in Liberalism as a Way of Life , many of us are liberal without fully realizing it―or grasping what it means. Misled into thinking that liberalism is confined to politics, we fail to recognize that it’s the water we swim in, saturating every area of public and private life, shaping our psychological and spiritual outlooks, and influencing our moral and aesthetic values―our sense of what is right, wrong, good, bad, funny, worthwhile, and more. This eye-opening book shows how so many of us are liberal to the core, why liberalism provides the basis for a good life, and how we can make our lives better and happier by becoming more aware of, and more committed to, the beliefs we already hold.

A lively, engaging, and uplifting guide to living well, the liberal way, Liberalism as a Way of Life is filled with examples from television, movies, stand-up comedy, and social media―from Parks and Recreation and The Good Place to the Borat movies and Hannah Gadsby. Along the way, you’ll also learn about seventeen benefits of being a liberal―including generosity, humor, cheer, gratitude, tolerance, and peace of mind―and practical exercises to increase these rewards.

You’re probably already waist deep in the waters of liberalism. Liberalism as a Way of Life invites you to dive in.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

304 pages, Hardcover

Published June 4, 2024

About the author

I teach and research in political theory, the history of political thought, modern and contemporary French philosophy, and human rights. I grew up in Vancouver, Canada, studied in the United States (PhD, The Johns Hopkins University, Humanities Center 2007), and now call Sydney home.

Reviews

[Einzige · Rating 2 out of 5]

A solid concept, in a book that just isn’t up to the task

Taking a criticism of liberalism and seeking to make it positive the author combines Hadot’s idea of philosophy being a way of life with the liberalism of John Rawls. They believe that liberalism is capable of providing a comprehensive world view (eg a person can be just a liberal as opposed to a liberal humanist or liberal Christian) and that through embracing this identity and practising spiritual exercises (essentially reflecting on liberal thought experiments) one can enrich their lives and even become funnier and more cheerful.

In an era of liberal retreat and the resurgence of illiberal beliefs it is a very relevant topic, however despite the title, the author’s focus very narrow in that the liberal way of life offered by the author is only for those who intuitively hold liberal values, live in liberal societies, and who are do not care about questions of meaning or truth. So while the author’s heavy focus on a tv sit com character as the exemplar of liberal life might be tiresome it is disappointing to see an advocate of the liberal lifestyle portray it as so limited and unable to justify itself beyond intuition with spiritual exercises that even the author admits could fortify any ideology.

[Paul Womack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following the political philosophy of John Rawls, this book offers both an overview of the philosophy (fairness) and series of steps to embed a liberal approach in one’s existence. I took pages of notes and imagine to this I shall return in these heady months to come.

[Justinas Mickus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book whose parts are greater than the whole. The central insight that liberalism offers itself as a full way of life is solid, and the focus on the final parts of A Theory of Justice offers a fresh perspective into Rawls at a time when it’s a bit surprising there are any fresh perspectives into Rawls left. At the same time, while using Hadot’s spiritual exercises for modern liberalism is novel and productive, what it produces is less exciting and more intuitive than one may expect. Similarly, while there’s a plethora of fun examples that memorably illustrate the author’s key ideas, the use of slightly past-its-prime pop culture references perhaps contradicts, rather than supports, the message that liberalism is *the* cultural background of our day. There’s quite a bit of word padding, which strengthens the impression a full book was not necessary to convey the key ideas, however excellent they are. But excellent, fresh ideas are always welcome, and so is this book — fun, flawed, helpful, much like the liberalism it celebrates.

[Piers · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

Lefebvre is the first author I've come across who defends liberalism as it actually exists (as a hegemonic moral/political doctrine) rather than a set of discrete institutions. But his case for why it actually can function as a guiding ethos, as a comprehensive moral doctrine, did not convince me.

Also, a certain n-word haunts the book - neoliberalism - and it cannot be swatted away by merely claiming its inclusion in the group of liberalisms is tenuous, as the author does.

[Filipe Martins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Viver como um Liberal dececiona por tentar ressuscitar o pensamento já datado de Rawls. Em vez de atualizar o liberalismo aos desafios do século XXI, o autor refugia-se numa visão teórica e moralizante, distante da liberdade prática e da responsabilidade individual que deveriam estar no centro de uma perspetiva verdadeiramente liberal.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was meh and also totally missed the moment. Liberaldom is a watered down exploration of the NIMBY-In This House and it’s very clear that liberalism is not the assumption for America anymore. Sad but true

[Travis Buell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent work in modern liberal philosophy, building upon the ancient Greeks through Bentham, Mill and Tocqueville to John Rawls. Lefebvre poignantly identifies our current state of affairs as what he calls “liberaldom”, where certain elements of liberal political philosophy permeate society, but other core liberal tenants have failed to come to fruition. The last section of the book provides liberal “spiritual practices” that I feel can greatly aide the lives of liberals reeling from the recent US elections. In the end, for liberals through and through, liberalism is expressed in how you live your life, not who is currently in a political office.

[Sahar Gulzar · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than anything else the book helps to realise how any of us are incapable of thinking outside of the liberal way of life. Even the anti-liberals have co-opted the ideas and language of liberalism. However, none of our current polities and societies fully conforms to the ideals of liberalism.

[barb howe · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is the most inspiring book I've read so far this year, very thought-provoking and what a neat way to describe John Rawls' work! Makes me kinda want to go back and re-read that guy, but you don't need to be familiar with Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Political Liberalism to get a lot out of Lefebvre's book (btw, for English-speakers, apparently that 'b' in Lefebvre is silent so I'll spell it phonetically in this review). It all hinges on the idea that instead of being liberal plus some other group identity (say, religious), Lefevre says you can be liberal "all the way down." In a world where so many are rejecting institutionalized religion, this actually makes the most sense and we should think of it as an option. Lefevre argues that our society is steeped in liberal values (despite not living up to those values much of the time, a fact which only reinforces his point: that we get so outraged about injustice is itself indication that we really value justice). Liberalism is, Lefevre says, our "background culture."

That's the first part of the argument. The second part (the so-called "self-help" part) is about how to actually do that, that is, if you're going to fully embrace liberalism and liberal values, that means you have to actually work towards achieving a more fair and just world. In other words, don't be a hypocrite (and we're all hypocrites in this sense). When we tolerate injustice, we're not being good liberals. We can learn and practice being better, just like learning how to swim. Lefevre is great at metaphors. (There's a reason the picture on the cover is of people swimming!)

I'm not sure what I think about the fact that I now know (from reading a political theory book of all things!) what the most popular type of pornography is, but there is that factoid in this book too! (I won't spoil it for you but personally I had no idea! lol) Lefevre uses lots of examples from popular culture to make his points. Some may enjoy that more than others. I don't mind.

Two points: One, this book pairs well with Jason Stanley's book How Propaganda Works and also with Adam Gopnik's A thousand small sanctities. Two, for those interested in political theory, there's an extra reward in reading the subtext here: political theory should be normative. That is its purpose: to figure out how to live. This is how the ancients thought about philosophy and it's very different from the way modern thinkers think about it. Most recently, in the past hundred years or so since the rise of behavioralism in political science there has been an attempt to make our field more "science-y" and "objective" "descriptive rather than prescriptive." It led many people to despair in the 1950s about the death of political theory. Nowadays people talk about the death of liberalism in much the same way. I think they are talking about the same thing (when the latter aren't confusing liberalism with US hegemony): it is the loss of what Sheldon Wolin calls "vision" for the future, an imagining of how to make our world better. Humans need this sort of thing and we've thrown it away. Lefevre is telling us liberalism can help with this problem, if we embrace it. I agree.

Needless to say, this book, like others before it, is taking on the laudable Sisyphean task of trying to define liberalism, a word which seems to encompass so many things (sometimes contradictory things) that no one seems to know what it means anymore. I think it succeeds. Lefebvre gives us a more concrete way to think about what liberalism is, using Rawls as a springboard. It's not just an intellectual treatise on liberalism, it's a sort of roadmap for how to live. I enjoyed this book and highly recommend it for anyone who feels disillusioned with modern life.

[Paul Sand · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought I would like this book better. (But as usual, I have forgotten my reason for putting it on my get-via-Interlibrary-Loan list.) But it's not awful. The author, Alexandre Lefebvre, seems to be going out of his way at times to make his argument accessible, with examples from the TV sitcom Parks and Recreation (he holds up Amy Poehler's character, Leslie Knope, as a hero); The Wire; Bird Box; The Good Place; … What's the most popular topic on Pornhub? ("The answer may surprise you!")

And he describes how he uses Legos in his classroom presentations to illustrate how people from different walks of life "fit in" to a social structure.

But (for me) the warning signs come early when Lefebvre lists off the features of liberalism he's championing. Many are unexceptionable, but… "progressive taxation" is one of them? Also: early on, Lefebvre explicitly excludes "neoliberalism" from his Big Liberal Tent; he's also down on Mont Pelerin Society "classical liberals", who (he claims) invented the term as a mere "polemical tactic" to (presumably) bathe in the aura of early liberalism. For some reason.

The book heaps praise on John Rawls. (Which made me look in the index for "Nozick, Robert". Nope.) Lefebvre has done his meticulous research on Rawls, including digging out his unpublished works in dank Harvard archives. He uses what he finds to illustrate and illuminate Rawls' fuller views, beyond those set forth in A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. This assists Lefebvre in his advocaccy for adopting liberalism "all the way down", not just in advocating Rawls' well-known recipes for liberal legal and political structures.

In fact, he's generally critical of what he calls "liberaldom", which (my words) seems to be liberalism corrupted in numerous non-Rawlsian ways. This makes it easier for people to claim to be liberals, while in fact cooperating in all sorts of implicit and explicit illiberal ways in order to maintain their livelihood, wealth, and social status. Tsk! He points to a bad example in Australia, their tax-advantaged individually-owned retirement accounts. These are disproportionately used by the already well-off, hence maintaining structures of inequality? Double tsk!

Bottom line: Lefebvre seems like a nice enough bloke, but I didn't get much out of his book. That's on me, but I suspect that he wasn't trying to deal with my Rawls-skepticism.

[Brendan Shea · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book's basic premise is basically that:
1. Liberalism can/should be understood as a way of life, in addition to a political philosophy (which has to do with structuring a society that can tolerate different ways of living)
2. Liberalism is something the "background" philosophy that pervades much of our current culture and lives (for example, Parks and Rec). Many of us already live by (corrupted, not terribly well thought) version of this sort of liberalism-as-life choice, and it would be good for us to lean it to this and become better liberals.
3. John Rawls is apparently our religious text. We can sit around doing things like the original position thought experiment as spiritual development. There's a lot of quoting and summarizing of Rawls, along with some vague ideas on how this can make our lives better.

All in all, the idea is interesting, I guess (I did finish the book), but I didn't find the argument terribly well-thought-out. Lefebvre really, really wants to avoid anything that smacks of a prescriptive conceptions of the good (so, for example, he rejects Millian "perfectionist" liberalism, which sees liberal society as a way of "discovering" what is really good), and he never even mentions the various varieties of religious liberalism (which try to reinterpret Jewish-Christian-Buddhist in ways that respect and find value in both pluralism and scientific naturalism). Instead, his variety of liberalism-as-life-philosophy is really bare bones--just basically thinking (and respecting) plurality is apparently enough.

In the end, I never really got a sense of how this was supposed to work--while being a liberal in this way can be *part* of a good life, it certainly doesn't seem to be enough to give structure to one's day, determine how to educate one's children, or provide meaning/purpose (and I say this a committed liberal!). One needs other, more personal commitments. And I don't really think any of the thinkers he engages with--from John Rawls to the characters of Parks and Rec--would disagree.

[Mohammed omran]

الهري بتاع الكاتب ان الصراع الأساسي الذي يشهده العالم الآن هو الصراع بين الليبرالية والاستبدادية، بين من يؤمنون منا بالقيم الديمقراطية ومن لا يؤمنون بها، سواء كانوا شعبويين أشباه طغاة مثل دونالد ترمب وفكتور أوربان وناريندرا مودي ورجب طيب إردوغان، أو هم طغاة صرحاء من أمثال فلاديمير بوتين وشي جيبينغ، أو فاشيين دينيين مثل الرجال الذين يديرون إيران وحماس. ويجدر بنا نحن الليبراليين أن نسحق أولئك الرجال سحقاً، لكننا لا نفعل. فترمب يتقدم في الولايات المتأرجحة. ومودي يبدو قريباً من إعادة الانتخاب. وفي روسيا وإيران تتبدى علامات القوة".

حرب ضد الطغيان

هكذا ينتقل كتاب ألكسندر لوفيفر على يد بروكس، كاتب الرأي المخضرم في الـ"تايمز"، من كونه أغنية في حب الليبرالية، ليصبح بوقاً ونفيراً في حرب الليبرالية ضد الطغيان، إن قبلنا تصوير ديفيد بروكس لواقع العالم اليوم.

ويمضي بروكس فيقول إن الليبرالية تطورت على مدى القرنين الماضيين بوصفها نظاماً يحترم الكرامة الإنسانية ويحتفي بحرية الاختيار الفردية. "فبموجب الليبرالية الديمقراطية، لا نصدر أحكاماً على الطريقة التي تحددون بها الغرض من حياتكم، ولكن كل ما نرجوه هو أن نقيم أنظمة تعاون عادلة تستطيعون في ظلها أن تسعوا أحراراً إلى الأغراض التي تختارونها بحرية، مهما تكن هذه الأغراض. فالليبرالية تنزع إلى اللامبالاة بأغراض الحياة، مستعيضة عن ذلك بالتركيز على العمليات والسبل، من قبيل سيادة القانون، والفصل بين السلطات، وحرية التعبير، والمراجعة القضائية، والانتخابات الحرة، والنظام الدولي القائم على القواعد".

[Kenton Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alexandre Lefebvre sets out to argue that liberalism, as defined by John Rawls, is not merely a political framework but a complete philosophy of life—sufficient in itself, without reliance on religion or alternative ethical systems. It is a bold thesis, but in my view, one he does not fully deliver.

The book often reads more as a love letter to Rawls than as a balanced exploration of liberalism as lived practice. Lefebvre offers no engagement with competing theories—Nozick, communitarian critiques, or alternative definitions of liberalism are conspicuously absent. Instead, Rawls is treated as the unchallenged pinnacle of moral and political thought. For readers already convinced, this may be persuasive; for those looking for a genuine debate, it may feel incomplete.

That said, there is much of value here. Lefebvre provides a detailed account of liberalism’s influence on modern society and cites a wide array of sources—several of which have earned a place on my future reading list. Even if the central argument falters, the book succeeds as a scholarly guide to Rawlsian liberalism and its cultural reach. A worthwhile, if uneven, read.

[Sergio · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a profound exploration of liberalism, particularly emphasizing the concept of liberalism as generosity. This perspective was incredibly impactful, shedding new light on the values that underpin a liberal way of life.

Lefebvre also delves into the concerns of thinkers like Tocqueville, who feared that democracy might undermine the liberal way of life. This historical context adds depth to the discussion and highlights the ongoing relevance of these ideas.

However, I found the section on spiritual exercises somewhat disappointing. It felt reminiscent of a self-help book, which seemed out of place in this otherwise insightful work. As a true liberal, I would have appreciated the freedom to choose which exercises resonate best with me, rather than being presented with a prescribed set.

Overall, this book is a thought-provoking read that challenges and enriches our understanding of liberalism, despite some minor shortcomings.

[Adam Zuwerink · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars, if for no other reason than Mr. Lefebvre did the seemingly impossible - he wrote a book of political philosophy that I didn't hate and would actually recommend to others.

What I appreciated the most is that it is a fully-formed defense of liberal thought from a positive perspective, without devolving into negative criticism of other ways of thinking.

Nit picks: In many spots it felt too much like a fawning biography of John Rawls, and it lost steam towards the end.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the political theory and philosophy in this book more than the self-help ish stuff. But it is thoughtful and refreshingly optimistic. I particularly liked that he took popular culture stuff seriously as reflecting the liberal values of our society. Most likely going to review for a website, so I'll post the review later.

[Alexandre · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5/5
gostava de ter gostado mais deste livro, gostava de partilhar do seu otimismo, gostava de não ter tanto rancor pelo próximo tendo em conta o clima político nacional e global, se calhar é por isso que precisei de o ler e talvez reler no futuro, a ver se recupero algum do espírito apresentado e defendido nele

https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liber...

[Lachlan Anderson]

An interesting tour of lots of aspects of liberalism that I didn't know about, and a nice glimpse of the ideas of philosophy as a way of life, but the actual synthesis of the two left something to be desired. It didn't fully deliver on the task the blurb promises in the way I thought it would, but it was well written and informative.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author begins the book by observing how liberal culture is the default. In this regard, we already kinda do this. Then it gets a little deeper into specifics and into problems like pornography. But it doesn't really go as far as I'd like into becoming some sort of self-help book.

[Mr T · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seems to systematically ignore the role of the market in Liberal societies, and how this shapes out perception of ourselves as workers and owners.

[Ellen Bobellen]

never in my life have i read a book that felt so immediately outdated as soon as it was published. contender for least favorite thing ive had to read for class ever

[Anthony Bertucci · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too preachy and boring at some points.

[Morleena · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of this philosopher's most accessible books. Enjoyed it very much from start to finish--but then, I am a liberal.

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant argument that deserves a robust response from the prophets of postliberalism on the right.

[Siddhu Pachipala · Rating 3 out of 5]

“To see the world with the eyes of God—this, John Rawls says, is what liberalism can do.”