Liberalism on Its Own Terms: Alexandre Lefebvre's "Liberalism As a Way of Life"

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 a noble one: trying to re-imagine liberalism not merely as a structure but as a way of life, transforming not only our understanding of philosophy, but also our actions in the world.  Alexandre Lefebvre does not dilute the intellectual content; this is a serious book articulating a clear and accessible vision for a new type of society. However, we must question both the diagnosis Lefebvre makes as well as the realism of the vision he sets out. 

Lefebvre’s book is a wonderfully written account of a world I wish I recognized. Seeing the world as one inhabiting liberal values, Lefebvre is optimistic about the human condition, believing we can be much better than what we currently are. Occupying a sense of “liberaldom”—his term for the predicament in which our instinctive liberal attitudes fail to be fully realized—Lefebvre sees people and the world as ripe for change in a positive way. It is this optimism and hope for the world which lays the foundation for this book as a positive source of hope as opposed to a fear based approach which is all too common today. 

It’s a book by a liberal for liberals. While Lefebvre offers claims for why liberalism is superior to its rivals, these claims are not central to the seventeen reasons he presents for why the reader ought to be a liberal. Liberalism is presented as good on its own terms. Yet, if you are a socialist or a conservative reading this book you may become frustrated at Lefebvre’s focus on liberalism at the expense of other philosophies and their critiques of his position. 

However, the lack of antagonism allows for a full articulation of liberalism. Justice, freedom, and fairness act as the three fundamental pillars upon which this deeper liberalism is founded. The most consistent and deepest relationship with a philosopher throughout the book is with John Rawls. Seeing Rawls in part as a secular theologian, Lefebvre cleverly interweaves old and new texts presenting a detailed picture of the analytic master moving beyond the well-worn focus on the veil of ignorance. The hyper-focus on Rawls and other thinkers like De Tocqueville allows for a deeper than usual understanding of the authors Lefebvre introduces. 

The book achieves subtlety, complexity and simplicity simultaneously, giving the reader a window into precisely why such authors have been chosen without dressing it up in pretension.  The best example of this is the use of Leslie Knope from the sitcom Parks and Recreation. Lefebvre points to Knope as a template for this enlarged liberalism—an optimistic, compassionate, honest, and engaged citizen.  Using Knope as a model also highlights the book’s connection to the wider cultural landscape. 

Lefebvre ultimately comes across as a romantic soul, arguing what liberalism should be doing and explaining why, as a doctrine, it is uniquely beneficial for mankind. This romanticism cuts across the book’s arguments. Towards the end of the book, Lefebvre cites Rawls’ acknowledgement that one’s religion is likely no better nor worse than the person, and this is reflected in a person’s liberalism. Thus, the book is not merely about societal improvement but also personal improvement. We can do better not only as a group but also amongst ourselves. 

The book is an ode to joy and duty—a claim that to be more just, more fair, and more open is a good in itself and something we should strive to do. Liberalism, in the Rawlsian sense, is not merely an esoteric theory but something that should be lived with freedom and fairness as the dual foundation stones. Lefebvre is a convincing writer and makes you want to believe, even if ultimately you don’t agree with everything. 

More could have been written about those who contest Rawls. For instance, when the difference principle is introduced there is little attention given to why some academic philosophers have critiqued it. Perhaps, because it is a hopeful and ideological work, to ask this would be undermining the very approach of the book.

But this is not the only problem with the book. A particular issue was the way Lefebvre described the cultural waters in which we swim. Painted as liberal in our background assumptions and using such reasoning instinctively makes sense. Yet, if we look closer we can and should investigate these assumptions. Is it the case that we are instinctively liberal or is this the prism through which Lefebvre see’s the world himself? Often, when we see liberal arguments we can easily detect other forms of logic too. Putting pronouns in our email signatures is one example of this. The argument for doing so typically claims that it does little harm to do it and it makes work feel like 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, due to its focus on inclusion and recognition. 

However, the argument is utilitarian at its core. The real appeal is not simply one of inclusion and recognition but asking what the cost is to put your pronouns in your email signature. Precisely because it costs you so little and it potentially gives much to those affected it is encouraged. Ultimately, this is not a claim fully sitting within liberal values but relies upon utility as its justification. 

This is just one example but there are many others. While it may be easy to assume that the waters in which we swim are naturally liberal this would be an error. I find the world to be a convoluted mess of values with no single ideology taking the mantle of cultural supremacy. Instead, we are groping around in the dark, taking whatever guide rope will move us along. 

We could also look at the effects of liberalism on society. We could ask: If there has been a background of liberal values then why hasn’t it already had the effect Lefebvre desires? Lefebvre does not let liberalism entirely off the hook, but neither does he say the ideology is entirely to blame either, and he doesn’t give us much in the way of history on the subject for why this is. Perhaps the murky waters better explain why we exist in an environment that is neither fully liberal nor conservative nor socialist but a convoluted mix where we take what we want from each ideology and try to piece it together into something coherent. 

Even though we supposedly marinate in a liberal culture, the book recognises this has resulted in “liberaldom” as opposed to a truly liberal society. We may have the underlying facets of liberalism that are embedded in our instincts but our social, cultural, and economic practices ultimately fail to provide us with a liberal society. Just one example might be seen in our practices in the economic sphere, such as the lack of adequate redistribution of wealth, which undermines our instincts and cultural celebration of fairness. Such practices override our liberal instincts creating a society where we talk the talk as liberals but fail to walk the walk. For Lefebvre, to be true and proper liberals we must take a more Rawlsian attitude toward our liberal instincts and act them out consciously in our day-to-day lives as well as our institutions. 

The bigger question is whether we can escape liberaldom? Is liberaldom not simply a byproduct of the kind of instincts Lefebvre wants us to build upon and expand? If we were to take him at his word then no. The book does not seek to demand conversion to liberalism from those uninterested, rather it asks liberals to practice what they preach. However, the culture of demanding the best for ourselves, hyper-competitiveness in every field, and admonishment of those who fail to live up to our hopes and expectations could be argued to be what liberalism ultimately produces in practice. The result is an ugly one—a hypocritical, self-centered, judgemental society, disconnected from the moral and social mores that should bind us together. 

This is not to say the book does not address some of these problems. The fear that society cannot move past current predicaments is hardwired into the book. Lefebvre does not claim liberalism is inevitable, merely that it is desirable. Neither does he refuse to acknowledge polarisation, selfishness, power, or other political dynamics. They are littered throughout and acknowledged even if not fully resolved. 

Despite my hopes, I don’t believe we will see Lefebvre’s vision enacted in any grand way. Power will likely continue to be concentrated in the hands of the few, and the desires of the many to reach the top and have a materially prosperous life will continue. I hope a new type of liberalism will emerge, the one the book articulates would undoubtedly make for a better world, but I think this wish will likely remain something we will aspire to rather than enact. 

Featured image is Discussing Ideas, from the Oregon Department of Transportation