Alexandre Lefebvre

think you're right. This is a great point. But isn't that true of everything? Like, doesn't everything become fat and sclerotic if it just has 20 years of kind of like unopposed? It just, it's just barnacles grows on stuff. So, but I definitely think that we see that so vividly because liberalism has been dominant for so long that we see the periodic crises and then liberalism reinvent itself and find another 10, 15 years of good time. so like from the new deal, for example, towards the kind of like, so, I mean, that was the new deal was a panic response because communism was about to take over the United States because people were about to burn down their commitment to the system. So, and…

Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Liberals, people attack liberals for being individualistic. Maybe we are. But the idea of fairness is an inherently relational and egalitarian concept. So, So, I mean, give me those things that you were just talking about and we can work with that.

there's two paths. Path number one is you go with the new right and say, fuck it, we're going to overthrow some version of that. If we're going to, we're going to move towards Christian integralism, we're going to re the Catholic church. Okay, so that's non-liberal. Fine. On the other hand, liberals like me are like, liberalism, let's do it. Let's try it. Let's, let's do this thing. So that would be the other option to give people a reason. So if you think that the dissatisfactions that spring up because of liberalism are just intrinsic, like no matter how well this thing ran, there would be. It would just eventually lose favor. I don't think that. I just think, yeah, that's, that's what I…

No, I agree with that. I would say that that's right. I would say, like, one of my very favorite books is Charles Taylor's A Secular Age. And, or if I, a version I know less well, it's just right there, though, is Tom Holland's Dominion. But the thesis of both of those books is that kind of Western secular liberalism emerges out of a series of internal developments within Western Christianity, particularly the Reformed Church, individualization of faith, all that stuff. And so that liberalism is individualistic, I think, is true, but I think that that is an inheritance of a Christian tradition that for hundreds of years since the Reformation had started pivoting in those kinds of directions…

I'm not, I'm not going to give away the farm. I, I have no farm to give yet. I'm writing it. Um, the super short version is, I just think that the oldest of political philosophy is back. And that was what I just said with Aristotle, that before liberalism, it was just, it was so obvious, you wouldn't say it out loud, that the point of the state was to help people or to bring people to live a good life. You have that in theocracies, you have that in ancient republics. You also have that cross-culturally, like Confucianism is all about a kind of moral virtue politics. And liberals like to think that this idea that we all get to make up our own life, our own sexuality, our own professions, our…

I'm not, I'm not going to give away the farm. I, I have no farm to give yet. I'm writing it. Um, the super short version is, I just think that the oldest of political philosophy is back. And that was what I just said with Aristotle, that before liberalism, it was just, it was so obvious, you wouldn't say it out loud, that the point of the state was to help people or to bring people to live a good life. You have that in theocracies, you have that in ancient republics. You also have that cross-culturally, like Confucianism is all about a kind of moral virtue politics. And liberals like to think that this idea that we all get to make up our own life, our own sexuality, our own professions, our…

depends how specific you want to be. if you mean liberalism as open-minded inquiry, then, yeah, Socrates is the goat, right? I mean, that's how he rolls. But on the other hand, Plato and Socrates did invent the first totalitarian regime where, like, all sex was arranged by lottery, kids were swapped out, like, it's fucking wild. Like, you get to book three four of the Republic, and that is, I mean, Karl Popper identified it as the first proto-totalitarian work for a reason. And then Aristotle was chiller, he didn't have his foot on the gas quite as much, but he still says, book one, politics, that the whole point of the state, the polis, is to promote the good life. No liberal, very few lib…

I think is a very deep, very important question that I have to reflect on. But here's my take. What I really don't want to say is that it's just like a pathology of liberals or that liberals suck, like their personality is somehow flawed. I really don't want to say that. I want to say that maybe there were good motivations in the evolution or development of the liberal tradition that led liberals to kind of fail in the way that they're failing right now. So, for example, one of the things that contemporary progressive liberalism is really focused on is the idea of justice and harm. And it wants to try to reduce harm, but also remediate, reconcile, recompense, what's the word I'm looking for…

I think is a very deep, very important question that I have to reflect on. But here's my take. What I really don't want to say is that it's just like a pathology of liberals or that liberals suck, like their personality is somehow flawed. I really don't want to say that. I want to say that maybe there were good motivations in the evolution or development of the liberal tradition that led liberals to kind of fail in the way that they're failing right now. So, for example, one of the things that contemporary progressive liberalism is really focused on is the idea of justice and harm. And it wants to try to reduce harm, but also remediate, reconcile, recompense, what's the word I'm looking for…

mean, look, that's the Denean thesis that is just kind of inherently uncontradictory, excuse me, inherently contradictory. We'll eventually kind of like eat the traditions that gave rise to it. I don't know. Look, my book, Liberalism is a Way of Life, is, and Co. want to say that liberalism is fatally flawed. I want to say that liberals are fatally flawed. And in particular, I want to say that liberals, by and large, suck at liberalism. And that we don't live up to the core demands of our creed, particularly around fairness. So the word liberal, this is the older history, meant two things. Like in the Latin, it means free on the one hand, but it also means generous. And I think liberals hav…

mean, look, that's the Denean thesis that is just kind of inherently uncontradictory, excuse me, inherently contradictory. We'll eventually kind of like eat the traditions that gave rise to it. I don't know. Look, my book, Liberalism is a Way of Life, is, and Co. want to say that liberalism is fatally flawed. I want to say that liberals are fatally flawed. And in particular, I want to say that liberals, by and large, suck at liberalism. And that we don't live up to the core demands of our creed, particularly around fairness. So the word liberal, this is the older history, meant two things. Like in the Latin, it means free on the one hand, but it also means generous. And I think liberals hav…

is just a basket case. So America was an apartheid democracy up until the mid-20th century. So until the civil rights movement, you had either formal slavery or informal apartheid discrimination through Jim Crow stuff. So I wouldn't point to any, I wouldn't point to America as a good paragon for any of these things. I think, listen, I think that any tradition that, Australia, you want to answer 2000s Australia, any tradition that try, any political system that tries to synthesize fairness on the one hand and freedom on the other hand, acknowledging that there's going to be trade-offs, deficiencies, da, da, da. If they're trying to do that earnestly, then I think in a full-throated sense, we…

look, so it's difficult for me to answer that, because I think that there's different liberal traditions and different liberal emphases. So some liberalisms are more kind of, let's say, I'm just caricaturing here, but let's say American style, libertarian, more freedom-centric. Other traditions, more kind of European, are more socialistic. And the term liberal socialism, for me, is not at all an oxymoron. And the two greatest liberal thinkers of the last two centuries, both concluded by landing on liberal socialism as their preferred political option. J.S. Mill on the one hand, John Rawls on the other hand. Both of them, that's what they argued for. so to point to the one true liberal state…

so I'm probably not, I think I'm more on the conservative side on this, so because I see liberalism as such a thick set of cultural, moral, psychological commitments, I do think that it takes, it takes a nation to breed a liberal, like you can't, liberals like to make this assumption, which is totally fatal to their foreign policy, to their industrial, that everyone in the world is either a liberal or a liberal in waiting. And I just a disastrous assumption. I think that it's a highly specific, highly acculturated, weird position to use the whatever, white, whatever, enlightened, you know, that thing. and so, listen, obviously I don't think either of us are going to go for kind of like a bl…

just call you, I think there's something useful here. So what I think is, that all right? Yeah, okay. What core to what we're saying here is, like, they go too hard on individual freedom. That sounds too abstract to me. Let me put it this way. But at the back, at core to the liberal doctrine is that everyone has a right of exit in of the groups and communities they're part of. So you are in an unhappy marriage, you have a right to exit. If your religion is no longer doing it for you, you have a right to exit. If your job is not good, you have a right to exit. If you want to push it, you can argue. If your gender is not cutting it for you, you can exit, right? But this idea is that there's a…

don't think it, I don't think it made me change my position with respect to liberalism. I just think that, look, if I can be a bit arrogant, I guess the word, I just think both drawing bright lines that exist. I think we're just looking at, we're like game recognizing game, like we're on different sides seeing the same thing. that's what I want see. It's like sometimes you get like, I won't go to that. So what I think is interesting, very interesting and powerful about the new right is that it's no longer an intra-liberal debate. So look, when you, for example, attack Abbott, not attack, but you know, the way you framed Abbott and Taylor, what you're saying is that basically these guys are…

That's interesting. Listen, I'm willing to defer to, let's just take your account as right, I'm not being skeptical, you know more about that axis than I do. But let's say you're right, then that does sound, on your terms, it does sound like the new right would be more in that Disraeli lineage than the Gladstone. But the big difference, I think, would be is that liberalism, it has had 150 years to work its dark magic for people like you, its magic, whatever, to work its way through the bloodstream of the culture. So when Disraeli would say that it's and attacking the customs, someone like a Deneen or Vermeule or the contemporary new right would say that a hegemony. I mean, it's already come…

you outline the Gladstonian?

great, gigantic question. We'll go back and forth on this for a few rounds, I'm sure. Okay, so the first thing is, since this is the National Conservatism Podcast, look, I'm going to bring up the kind of, the contemporary OG of the movement, Yoramazoni. he makes what I think is a very recognizable and fair, it's polemical, but I think it's fair distinction between ideologies that he calls nationalistic on the one hand, or ideologies that he calls imperialistic on the others. And by imperialistic, that's just a hard, critical term for what he means by universalism. And a whole bunch of ideologies are universal. They believe that the doctrines, the principles should apply to all human beings…

great, gigantic question. We'll go back and forth on this for a few rounds, I'm sure. Okay, so the first thing is, since this is the National Conservatism Podcast, look, I'm going to bring up the kind of, the contemporary OG of the movement, Yoramazoni. he makes what I think is a very recognizable and fair, it's polemical, but I think it's fair distinction between ideologies that he calls nationalistic on the one hand, or ideologies that he calls imperialistic on the others. And by imperialistic, that's just a hard, critical term for what he means by universalism. And a whole bunch of ideologies are universal. They believe that the doctrines, the principles should apply to all human beings…

That's a fair question. The question has punch because the word religion has so much charge. So, let me say yes and then walk it back in a sense. But just to be clear, I'm not trying to turn liberalism into a religion. I'm saying, effectively, it is a religion or pragmatically operates as if it were a religion for a whole bunch of people. So, very briefly, the way I start my book is by saying that, look, in 2020, I wrote in 2024, whatever, 2026, in countries like Australia, the United States, basically the Western world writ large, a whole bunch of people are seculars now. On a census, they would tick the no religion box. And so, where would those people who tick the no box claim to get the…

So, at a very basic level, I think liberalism means a commitment to a handful of concepts that I think a lot of Aussies sign up for. So, the idea of a fair go is basically our national motto, reciprocity, personal freedom. And taken together, while liberals might not be great at honouring that stuff, that, at least in principle, I think is a pretty attractive set of values to base a country on. And maybe also, as I argue, we can get into this, to base a life on, like a personal life on. But that's what I would say, if I have to go in minimal core, it's those things.

So, at a very basic level, I think liberalism means a commitment to a handful of concepts that I think a lot of Aussies sign up for. So, the idea of a fair go is basically our national motto, reciprocity, personal freedom. And taken together, while liberals might not be great at honouring that stuff, that, at least in principle, I think is a pretty attractive set of values to base a country on. And maybe also, as I argue, we can get into this, to base a life on, like a personal life on. But that's what I would say, if I have to go in minimal core, it's those things.

that's the claim. mean, the international bodies have all kinds of vulnerabilities right now, some around kind of institutional sludge. And so that's on the one hand. But on the other hand, yeah, sure, there's a big pushback against it. I mean, you saw a spark of this a long time ago. if you remember, remember the Asian values conversation that happened in, I don't know, early 90s whether or not human rights would be appropriate. And then you had like Lee Kuan Yew come out say, no, we have our own Confucian thing on. Then the Chinese jumped on that as well. So what we have now is a more aggressive, more concerted way of looking at this. And you really have these different non-liberal regime…