What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Postliberalism Failed
Why Postliberalism Failed offers an indictment of one of the most consequential ideological movements reshaping American and European conservatism today. With leading politicians among its adherents and major conservative institutions captured by its agenda, postliberalism demands serious scrutiny and this book delivers it.
Drawing on deep historical research, the book traces postliberalism's intellectual roots to two an extreme papalism that subordinates all political authority to Church power, and a reactionary European tradition that explained liberal modernity through conspiracy theories blaming Jews and Freemasons for the downfall of throne and altar. These traditions fused into an ideology that powered authoritarian regimes across Europe and Latin America during the interwar years. These regimes, the actual embodiments of integralist aspirations, were marked by poverty, religious persecution, Nazi collaboration, and genocide.
Thomas D. Howes and James M. Patterson demonstrate how today's postliberals rely on these same poisoned wells. The postliberal vision of Catholic integralism, already repudiated by the Second Vatican Council, promises not a renewal of faith but empty churches and filled cemeteries.
Yet this is ultimately a book of hope. By exposing postliberalism's deadly history and intellectual bankruptcy, the authors present a compelling defense of the authentic American Catholic political tradition, one that has always found in the ordered liberty of constitutional republicanism not an enemy of the faith, but its surest protector.
From the
"This book is written especially for those young Catholics who are still open to learning-who sense that something is wrong but are willing to be shown that illiberal church-state regimes are not the solution."
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone
Archdiocese of San Francisco
"Postliberalism failed for a reason more fundamental than bad politics or bad history, though it has plenty of both. It failed because it lacks an adequate account of human nature and civil society."
Catherine Ruth Pakaluk
The Catholic University of America
Drawing on deep historical research, the book traces postliberalism's intellectual roots to two an extreme papalism that subordinates all political authority to Church power, and a reactionary European tradition that explained liberal modernity through conspiracy theories blaming Jews and Freemasons for the downfall of throne and altar. These traditions fused into an ideology that powered authoritarian regimes across Europe and Latin America during the interwar years. These regimes, the actual embodiments of integralist aspirations, were marked by poverty, religious persecution, Nazi collaboration, and genocide.
Thomas D. Howes and James M. Patterson demonstrate how today's postliberals rely on these same poisoned wells. The postliberal vision of Catholic integralism, already repudiated by the Second Vatican Council, promises not a renewal of faith but empty churches and filled cemeteries.
Yet this is ultimately a book of hope. By exposing postliberalism's deadly history and intellectual bankruptcy, the authors present a compelling defense of the authentic American Catholic political tradition, one that has always found in the ordered liberty of constitutional republicanism not an enemy of the faith, but its surest protector.
From the
"This book is written especially for those young Catholics who are still open to learning-who sense that something is wrong but are willing to be shown that illiberal church-state regimes are not the solution."
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone
Archdiocese of San Francisco
"Postliberalism failed for a reason more fundamental than bad politics or bad history, though it has plenty of both. It failed because it lacks an adequate account of human nature and civil society."
Catherine Ruth Pakaluk
The Catholic University of America
358 pages, Paperback
Published June 22, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 3, 2026
This is a thorough and illuminating critique of the quixotic, Catholic integralist movement. Patterson and Howes demonstrate convincingly that that attempts at establishing Catholic confessional states in the 20th century were universally disastrous; in the best cases, they were merely impoverished dictatorships and in the worst cases, outright Nazi collaborationist regimes. A useful corrective to the gobbledygook of the “real aristocracy who languish in obscure places like Harvard Law School and the University of Notre Dame.”
June 30, 2026
Happy to be one of the first reviewers of this excellent book! This is actually by Patterson and Thomas Howes, who is at Princeton's Madison Institute. This more a takedown of Catholic integralism than of post-liberalism in general, which I'd describe as a broader movement. The book operates within Catholic teachings and history of which I am generally familiar, as someone who went K-12 Catholic school. If that sounds too specific for you, then you might want to start with a more general work like Laura Fields' Furious Minds.
Still, this is a very effective and concise takedown of post-liberal integralism, which in general is a quasi theocratic, minority Catholic doctrine that believes the government should promote Catholic doctrine in a partnership with the Church in which the Church is usually seen as superior. Pat Deneen is the most famous integralist intellectual today; others include Adrian Vermuele, Chad Pecknold, and to some extent JD Vance. Integralism is illiberal in that it does not accept religious pluralism and freedom of choice. INstead, there is a single, highly traditional conception of "the good" that the state either favors or outrightly enforces on the population. Integralists vary in their severity, but they all endorse the subjugation of government to a single faith and reject the basic constitutional structure of our liberal democracy.
Patterson and Howes attack integralism in two primary ways. First, they attack it from a Catholic philosophical level, arguing that it is not required by Catholic dogma nor suited for a modern, pluralistic society. They discuss how American Catholicism in particular has always been more pluralistic and pro-republican than the Vatican, which was highly anti-liberal and pr0-authoritarian until the 20th century. The picking apart of Deneen and other integralists' tortured arguments is very effective; they show that their work is more about providing a rationale to seize power and enforce their notion of the good on others than seriously thinking through the problems of modern society.
The second way they attack post-liberalism was historical, which resonated with me, as a historian. P and H review a number of post-liberal, integralist regimes in which Catholic rightists either A. aligned with/supported a dictator (Salazar, Franco, some Brazilian dude I don't remember) who promised to fight the Church's enemies (like the SPanish Republicans), expand its power, and spread its teachings/practices or B. sought a full on fusion of church and state where Catholic clergy are directly involved in governance (Father Tiso in Slovakia or Ante Pavelic in Croatia).
In all cases, P and H show, postliberalism and integralism were disastrous, even for integralists themselves. Frequently, dictators discarded the Church leadership when they no longer needed them or when their alliance became inconvenient. The closed nature of postliberal societies stymied economic growth and stifled education systems in every case. And worst of all, postliberal regimes were uniformly brutal, using secret police, concentration camps, and other tools of authoritarianism to crush religious and political minorities. It is no coincidence that many of these regimes, especially in Croatia, Hungary, and Slovakia, participated in or collaborated with the HOlocaust (btw, the Croation Catholic Ustase regime was one of the underrated monster regimes of the 20th century, approaching the Nazis in their levels of brutality and fanaticism).
These problems, P and H demonstrate, are built into the nature of postliberalism as an authoritarian, Catholic chauvinist ideology. Deneen and many of the modern integralists make lame efforts to distance themselves from this history, promising that their post-liberalism will seek the common good. There is no reason from history or philosophy to think this is the case and every reason to think this is a dangerous, extreme ideology.
This book's authors are considerably more centrist and/or conservative than me, and there are a few areas where I disagreed with the book's tenor, as in their occasional discussions of LGBT rights (I'd be interested in hearing more from them). I'm not a Catholic, although I have great respect for the Catholic social justice tradition, so I imagine there is plenty of space for kinship and cooperation with these authors. Anyways, I wouldn't say this is an easy read, but it is fairly short and worthwhile if you want to know more about postliberalism and why it sucks.
Still, this is a very effective and concise takedown of post-liberal integralism, which in general is a quasi theocratic, minority Catholic doctrine that believes the government should promote Catholic doctrine in a partnership with the Church in which the Church is usually seen as superior. Pat Deneen is the most famous integralist intellectual today; others include Adrian Vermuele, Chad Pecknold, and to some extent JD Vance. Integralism is illiberal in that it does not accept religious pluralism and freedom of choice. INstead, there is a single, highly traditional conception of "the good" that the state either favors or outrightly enforces on the population. Integralists vary in their severity, but they all endorse the subjugation of government to a single faith and reject the basic constitutional structure of our liberal democracy.
Patterson and Howes attack integralism in two primary ways. First, they attack it from a Catholic philosophical level, arguing that it is not required by Catholic dogma nor suited for a modern, pluralistic society. They discuss how American Catholicism in particular has always been more pluralistic and pro-republican than the Vatican, which was highly anti-liberal and pr0-authoritarian until the 20th century. The picking apart of Deneen and other integralists' tortured arguments is very effective; they show that their work is more about providing a rationale to seize power and enforce their notion of the good on others than seriously thinking through the problems of modern society.
The second way they attack post-liberalism was historical, which resonated with me, as a historian. P and H review a number of post-liberal, integralist regimes in which Catholic rightists either A. aligned with/supported a dictator (Salazar, Franco, some Brazilian dude I don't remember) who promised to fight the Church's enemies (like the SPanish Republicans), expand its power, and spread its teachings/practices or B. sought a full on fusion of church and state where Catholic clergy are directly involved in governance (Father Tiso in Slovakia or Ante Pavelic in Croatia).
In all cases, P and H show, postliberalism and integralism were disastrous, even for integralists themselves. Frequently, dictators discarded the Church leadership when they no longer needed them or when their alliance became inconvenient. The closed nature of postliberal societies stymied economic growth and stifled education systems in every case. And worst of all, postliberal regimes were uniformly brutal, using secret police, concentration camps, and other tools of authoritarianism to crush religious and political minorities. It is no coincidence that many of these regimes, especially in Croatia, Hungary, and Slovakia, participated in or collaborated with the HOlocaust (btw, the Croation Catholic Ustase regime was one of the underrated monster regimes of the 20th century, approaching the Nazis in their levels of brutality and fanaticism).
These problems, P and H demonstrate, are built into the nature of postliberalism as an authoritarian, Catholic chauvinist ideology. Deneen and many of the modern integralists make lame efforts to distance themselves from this history, promising that their post-liberalism will seek the common good. There is no reason from history or philosophy to think this is the case and every reason to think this is a dangerous, extreme ideology.
This book's authors are considerably more centrist and/or conservative than me, and there are a few areas where I disagreed with the book's tenor, as in their occasional discussions of LGBT rights (I'd be interested in hearing more from them). I'm not a Catholic, although I have great respect for the Catholic social justice tradition, so I imagine there is plenty of space for kinship and cooperation with these authors. Anyways, I wouldn't say this is an easy read, but it is fairly short and worthwhile if you want to know more about postliberalism and why it sucks.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews