The Demons of Liberal Democracy

by Adrian Pabst

Liberals blame the global retreat of liberal democracy on globalisation and authoritarian leaders. Only liberalism, so they assume, can defend democratic rule against multinationals or populists at home and abroad. In this provocative book, Adrian Pabst contends that liberal democracy is illiberal and undemocratic - intolerant about the values of ordinary people while concentrating power and wealth in the hands of unaccountable elites.

Under the influence of contemporary liberalism, democracy is sliding into oligarchy, demagogy and anarchy. Liberals, far from defending open markets and free speech, promote monopolies like the new tech giants that undermine competition and democratic debate. Liberal individualism has eroded the social bonds and civic duties on which democracy depends for trust and cooperation. To banish liberal democracy's demons, Pabst proposes radical ideas for economic democracy, a politics of persuasion and a better balance of personal freedom with social solidarity.

This book's defence of democratic politics against both liberals and populists will speak to all readers trying to understand our age of upheaval.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

160 pages, Paperback

Published April 22, 2019

About the author

Adrian Pabst is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Kent at Canterbury, UK, and teaches political economy at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Lille (Sciences Po), France. He is the author of Metaphysics: The Creation of Hierarchy (2012).

Reviews

[Somia · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing is easy to read. I like the fact the author didn’t use convoluted language and it doesn’t feel like the author swallowed a dictionary - thank goodness – I love learning new words, but when I spend most of my time with my nose in a dictionary looking up the words located in the book I am reading – the joy of the read usually bleeds out.

This book covers a lot of the points already highlighted by individuals such as Paul Baran and Ernest Mandel, so it doesn’t add anything new to the debate from what I can see/remember (although my memory is worse than a goldfish’s). I didn’t feel myself drawn into the topic, the writing and arguments didn’t ensnare my attention as similar books in the past have done. However, there were some points in this that I agreed with and I liked how they were articulated, although there were times when I wasn’t entirely clear on the authors key point/argument, and I wasn't overly keen on the layout of things.

An ok read, but not one that will stay potently in my memory, there are books I always remember and can refer students to, but this one I know I won’t recall. That being said I will be making a note of it to highlight to first year students as somewhere they want to start when critically considering what is said about liberal democracies and their darker facets, but when doing so I’ll be emphasising the need to critically consider what the author says and most importantly doesn’t say - as there are certain things I fell he misses.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Think Patrick Deneen, but less polemical and more solution-oriented. Many of Pabst's criticisms resemble Deneen's--that liberalism leads to both an atomized individual and a creepingly large state and so on. Much of the book explains these paradoxically destructive consequences. Pabst's big idea is that we need to rebuild and fortify the mediating institutions of civil society, a common trend in communitarian political philosophy. The importance of these institutions cannot be understated. Even in a development context, as I studied in undergrad, civil society is an important prerequisite to a lasting democracy. Pabst, however, looks at its importance in reining in not authoritarianism but unfettered capitalist liberal democracy. Sure, his case might seem overstated at times, but don't judge the book by its title and leap to the conclusion that Pabst is promoting illiberalism. Instead, he supports a post-liberal model that seeks to uphold the better elements of the tradition.

For Pabst, liberalism itself is not the root of the ills he identifies, but rather a hyper-acceleration of aspects of the liberal democratic project that brings forth its demons. These demons? Oligarchy, demagoguery, fragmentation, and a rather nebulous (at first) "tyranny of voluntary servitude". Unmooring people from tradition and local networks leaves them rudderless and ensures a state of general anomie. This anomie in turn fuels discontent and division which in turn undermine democracy. To support this, "The Demons of Liberal Democracy" is exceptionally cited. Just flip through a few pages and you're likely to see references to De Tocqueville, Burke, Maurice Glasman, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor. Additionally, Pabst delights in the complexity of his own writing. On the flip side, the fact that I sometimes have to read a sentence twice to internalize it reflects how much he packs into a short work.

Above all, Adrian Pabst seeks a return to a politics and culture that recognizes the limits of nature and humanity. He calls for a "cultural renewal" (108) above all. In this sense, he espouses a beautiful conservatism. However, he also challenges monopolization, calls for a higher minimum wage and sees an active role for the state in promoting his notion of the good, which includes equal opportunity for all. These seem to place his policy alignment more with the left. Pabst makes an effective case for the Blue Labour tendency he's active in without necessarily discussing it here. Red Tories like Phillip Blond bring a number of similar ideas to the table. Within an American context, this is harder to find, perhaps because of our deep-seated individualism and history of racial division. The left-conservative tradition best slots into Pabst's ideals. In fact, I encourage others familiar with the tendency to read this. Even outside a government context, you can find elements of Pabst's approach in Catholic Social Thought. I think the fundamental familiarity of these ideas made this work so impactful. Pabst put words to so much I've thought about. A renewed vision of the common good, localism, rebuilding mediating institutions -- together these can subsume the market and state to the ties of family and community. I sometimes look to the left and right and sadly see what Deneen scorns as a liberalocracy, but this book restores my hope for change, for a better future.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

“I argue that liberalism which has failed is not the whole liberal tradition but, rather, a contemporary radicalization of special ideals, in particular (1). freedom without social solidarity (going back to John Locke and Immanuel Kant ); (2). the primacy of the individual underwritten by the collective power of the state over civic associations (going back to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau); and (3). faith in a better future underpinned by a secular metaphysics or progress (going back to August Comte and J.S. Mill).” 5

The problem: “..the inherent tendency of liberal democracies to descend into oligarchy, demagogy and anarchy: first of all, the rise of the new oligarchical class that wields power over parliament and people; second, the resurgence of demagogic politics linked to the multiplication of public debate by ruling elites and insurgents - for example, supposedly enlightened elites armed with technocratic facts versus apparently fake news peddled by those defending the ‘will of the people’; And third, the emergence of anarchic society connected with the fragmentation of everyday life and a weakening of civic bonds . In consequence, liberal democracy risks sliding into a system that maintains the illusion of free choice whilst generating Tocqueville's tyranny of voluntary servitude.”16

Whilst writing from a "Blue Labour" perspective, which I do not share, there is much that a "Burkean conservative" will resonate with.

1. The concern for the loss of freedom to oligarchies of state and business power;
2. The threat of Transhumanism and technological dehumanisation.
3. The shared underlying "libertarianism" and individualism that underpins both the Far Right and Hard Left.
4. A concern for the nation, a people, purpose and place over against globalisation and the loss of identity.
5. The integrity of work and the dehumanisation of modern life and society.
6. the atomisation of society.

“In the final instance, liberal democracy is caught in a tension between the positive freedom of popular self-government and the negative freedom of ever greater individual choice and between the equal status of all before the law and the reduction of equality to sameness. ” 149

[Robert Stout · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adrian Pabst main thesis is that modern liberalism ruthlessly atomizes individuals while the state continues to grow out of control. Pabst is not arguing for illiberalism but that both the state and monopolist companies need checks and balances. Pabst argues that liberalism in its current form leads to oligarchy and demagoguery. The book is well researched and contains many foot notes. Pabst main thrust is to return politics and culture to the people by establishing guard rails to provide checks and balances. For example, Pabst argues for living wages and to break up monopolies such as Big Tech in Silicon Valley. In the end Pabst believes that a better future is possible, and he is spot on.

[I Read, Therefore I Blog · Rating 2 out of 5]

Adrian Pabst is a Reader in Politics at the University of Kent and a leading thinker in the ‘Blue Labour’ movement. In this disappointing polemic that relies on straw man arguments, generalisations and doesn’t define what he means by “liberal democracy”, he parrots the known arguments about the rise of populism and the disconnect between voters and politicians and offers a “solution” of return to grassroots mutualism that no one is asking for.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be a very interesting read. I like how it’s laid out and it’s written in an easy to read manner so that I didn’t become bored, some politically based books are boring to read, this one is not.