Deneen Is Wrong

Index to posts in this series.
I started this book hoping to find a sensible discussion from a conservative perspective of the problems we face as a nation and plausible solutions that could earn the support of non-MAGA conservatives. This is not that book. Deneen acknowledges some of the problems, including climate change and racism, but he claims the problems spring not from our sick version of capitalism, but from the intellectual framework under which capitalism arose, which he calls liberalism.
In each of my prior posts I’ve looked at some of my disagreements and pointed at things I think he got dead wrong. In this post I bring them together.
1. Deneen’s use of words is misleading. For example, here Deneen is discussing Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech in the section on meritocracy:
In this dream of “integration,” differences of race melt away, and only the natural distinctions of merit—“the content of one’s character”—remain. P. 199.
No. In Deneen’s usage, merit means a specific set of skills useful to the elites or necessary to gain and maintain elite status. Character takes into account all the good and bad and interesting and dull in a person. King is talking about full integration of all people into society — which is roughly what Deneen says should be the goal of combatting racism. Diminishing King’s “character” to Deneen’s “merit” perverts King’s meaning
One of Deneen’s tricks is to hide behind run-on sentences. Here’s an 89 word sentence from Chapter 4, The Wisdom Of The People:
One of the intended consequences of a social order that would generate unceasing change and even a constant “state of emergency” is the strong tendency to transfer political decision-making from those best placed to exercise political wisdom in conditions of relative stability—the “wisdom of the people”—to those not only with the incentive to dismiss such wisdom in the interest of generating more upheaval, but also most likely to benefit from unsettled conditions and to gain political, social, and economic power as a result of constant transformation. P. 108.
Who exactly are the people to whom the exercise of power is wrongfully transferred? Is it experts? Politicians? Tech bros or finance bros? The billionaires who Deneen doesn’t include among the elite? Some combination?
And how is it that the power is exercised? Is he talking about government support for LED light bulbs or vaccines or solar farms? Is this about pouring capital into AI and massive data centers instead of houing and health care? We don’t know, and there are no examples to help us decipher this riddle.
2. I think a major source of the problems Deneen raises is our ugly capitalist system. Capitalism relies on markets for capital allocation, which in our case means money is poured into AI, vanity projects, and corrupt politicians instead of meeting human needs. It encourages the elites to use racism and other sins to divert attention from actual problems. It refuses to pay a decent wage. As I said in this post:
If the bad things are the outcomes of aggressive capitalism, we could use government to correct those excesses. That’s not the outcome he wants. He has to focus on his abstract and idiosyncratc idea of liberalism to justify his total remaking of society.
It should have been obvious to Deneen that the problem is capitalism, not liberalism. The massive problems of soil erosion and climate change, which he acknowledges are real problems, are not the result of liberalism but of extractive capitalism. The immiseration of the working class isn’t something demanded by liberalism, it’s the demand of the filthy rich and a managerial class steeped in neoliberal economics.
It’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that our current form of capitalism is in any way connected to any version of liberalism, and Deneen doesn’t even try to connect them. Neither does he acknowledge that this kind of capitalism isn’t inevitable. It can be counteracted with legislation and regulation.
3. Deneen’s project is regime change, but he never acknowledges that it will require replacing our Constitution with another that will instantiate his theories. At least the idiot Curtis Yarvin was frank about this goal.
The idea behind the Constitution is that the people are the source of legitimate power, an idea that is classically liberal. Theoretically we think the people should decide on the nature of the common good, and what constitutes flourishing.
If Deneen’s project is realized those decisions will be made by good elites, who in turn are guided by religion and tradition, but somehow are able to figure out which forms of social, material, and economic change are best for us. He claims that this was the Western Tradition in the centuries before the rise of liberalism.
I cannot imagine the American people consenting to a change in our common theory of government, or that they would agree that these decisions should be made by good elites not of their choosing. But who knows? Is Trump a sign that for some part of the nation this has changed?
4. Deneen provides no examples of good elites. The dominant figures in Europe before the Enlightenment include the Borgia Popes, the Medici Popes, and Henry VIII. Kings and nobles, the elite, gave the subservient class the Spanish Inquisition, progroms, religious wars and wars of conquest. Does Deneen think these are good elites, tending to the needs of the subservient class?
5. Deneen is opposed to progress as a goal, but he doesn’t say which of the changes since the 19th Century he thinks were bad. I think he is opposed to the COVID lockdowns, but I’m not sure why. I can’t even guess at what else he opposes, or what he proposes as an alternative to those things.
6. Deneen is focused on thinkers prior to the Enlightenment. These were marvelous thinkers, but they hardly exhaust the range of ideas. There have been many writers and thinkers since the Enlightenment who offered different ideas about what and who we humans are and how we could live. Is that what Deneen doesn’t like?
Conclusion.
We need a regime change. But not the one Deneen advocates.
0 Comments

Facts Only

* The article critiques Michael Deneen’s book.
* Deneen claims problems stem from “liberalism,” not capitalism.
* Deneen uses misleading language, particularly redefining “merit.”
* Deneen uses excessively long sentences, creating confusion.
* Deneen avoids discussing the potential constitutional changes required for his vision.
* Deneen provides no examples of “good elites.”
* Deneen is skeptical of the concept of progress.
* Deneen’s arguments are framed as an attempt to “regime change.”

Executive Summary

The article presents a critical response to a book by Michael Deneen, arguing that the author’s analysis of problems facing the nation is flawed and driven by a misinterpretation of his arguments. The author contends that Deneen’s focus on “liberalism” as the root of societal issues is a misdirection, arguing instead that the problems stem from the underlying framework of capitalism. Specifically, the author dissects Deneen's use of language, pointing out a manipulative reliance on lengthy sentences and a tendency to distort the meaning of key terms like “merit.” The piece accuses Deneen of engaging in “regime change” rhetoric without acknowledging the constitutional implications of such a project, and highlights a lack of concrete examples supporting his proposed “elite” decision-makers. Finally, the author expresses skepticism about Deneen’s broader project, questioning the extent to which he addresses contemporary issues and highlighting the potential for manipulation through the framing of progress and societal change. The article suggests that Deneen’s criticisms are ultimately a distraction from the core issues driving the nation's challenges, and further accuses him of intellectual dishonesty in his attempt to redefine fundamental concepts.

Full Take

This article represents a sophisticated, defensive engagement with Michael Deneen’s project, employing a multifaceted attack built on both tactical and strategic grounds. The core RED team fact-finding identifies a clear critique of Deneen’s argumentative style and his preferred framing – a reductionist claim targeting “liberalism.” However, the BLUE team summary accurately reflects the overall argument, acknowledging the concerns about Deneen’s slippery definitions and his implied desire for a fundamentally different societal structure. But it’s the PURPLE team analysis that reveals the deeper patterns at play. Deneen’s approach aligns strongly with ARC-0043 (Motte-and-Bailey) – a deliberate obfuscation using complex language to create doubt and avoid direct confrontation with the core issues of capitalism. The relentless focus on “elites” (ARC-0018: Systemic – predatory “liberation” rhetoric) functions as a diversion, shifting blame away from systemic inequalities and toward a nebulous, unaccountable class. The extended critique of Deneen’s sentence structure (ARC-0024: Ambiguity) highlights a deeper concern: the potential for manipulation through deliberate confusion. It’s a classic attempt to undermine trust in expertise and reasoned discourse. Root cause analysis suggests this narrative taps into a historical anxiety about centralized power and a yearning for a pre-Enlightenment order, potentially fueled by anxieties surrounding technological disruption and the perceived loss of traditional values. The implications are concerning – a potential reinforcement of hierarchical social structures and a rejection of democratic principles. The bridge questions— “What constitutes a ‘good elite’ beyond historical examples?” and “How does this critique of ‘liberalism’ address actual disparities in wealth and power?”—force readers to confront the core assumptions underpinning Deneen’s argument. A counterstrike scan reveals that this type of critique, while seemingly focused on intellectual dishonesty, could be amplified by actors seeking to sow distrust in established institutions and promote alternative, often authoritarian, visions of governance (ARC-0057: Bad Faith – manufactured outrage with plausible deniability).