Why Liberalism Destroys: from Edward Feser to Hannah Arendt and Back Again
In an excellent article of critical analysis,[i] Dr. Edward Feser describes and analyzes the principles of that modern political philosophy—liberalism—which James Burnham (1905–1987) aptly called “the ideology of Western suicide.”[ii] A brilliant Thomist philosopher, Dr. Feser begins by outlining the five main features of what can be considered the core of liberalism:
“There is, first and foremost, an emphasis on concern for the rights and liberties of the individual as the core of a just social and political order. A second theme, corollary to the first, is an emphasis on the consent of individuals to governing institutions as the touchstone of their legitimacy. Third, and a natural concomitant of the second theme, is a commitment to social and political toleration of moral and religious differences, since individuals would not consent to abide by moral and religious strictures they do not agree with. Fourth, in turn, is a commitment to limitation on the powers of government to enforce such strictures. A fifth theme is that principles like the ones just adumbrated have a universal application, since they apply to all human beings qua individuals.”
With utmost accuracy, the author then shows that while some of these “values” may also be embraced by non-liberal thinkers, liberalism itself is defined by its decisive emphasis on all the themes listed above. It is precisely this emphasis that leads to the boundless exaltation of the individual, with the State becoming exclusively the guarantor of his freedoms.
As we will see later, what is completely marginalized—if not outright excluded—from such a vision is the institution that once provided a wise mediation between the State and the Individual: the Family.
As we will see later, what is completely marginalized—if not outright excluded—from such a vision is the institution that once provided a wise mediation between the State and the Individual: the Family. To highlight the differences between a society in which the family’s role was paramount and today’s society, where the role of the individual is absolutized, Feser describes the dominant worldview during the time of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The quote that encapsulates the classical (Aristotelian-Thomistic) vision of political life and serves as the key to Feser’s description is as follows:
“On this conception, we are by nature social animals rather than atomized individuals, and it is the family rather than the individual that is the fundamental unit of society. We have obligations to others to which we did not consent.”
We can never emphasize enough the importance of this final statement. It is, plainly and boldly said, the core of the matter. Against egocentrism and the famous “individual freedoms,” it asserts that freedom is by no means a type of behavior that grants the individual the right to do whatever he pleases under the pretext of personal liberty. On the contrary, in Medieval culture, true freedom entails the wise—and many times unpleasant—acceptance of obligations that hold a higher moral value than individual aspirations.
Although this may seem like a simple common-sense idea, it is systematically rejected today. If we consider just the extreme sin of abortion, which is based on the premise of the parents’ “freedom” to decide over the life or death of their unborn children, I believe it becomes clear how individual freedom ends up destroying both the life and, simultaneously, the freedom of other human beings. Such a thing was unthinkable for the classical world. Such a thing is generalized and commonplace in the modern world. That said, let’s return to Dr. Feser’s analysis.
Describing the world of Saint Thomas, he highlights the unique place of the institution that serves as the via media between collectivism and individualism: the family. Here, it is worth noting that both the pre-Christian pagan world—especially the Roman Empire—and the Christian world shared a political and social vision in which the family held a central position. From this foundation arise several significant consequences for both the state and the individual. Let us examine them one by one.
It is important to note that even in the Roman world, the principle later named “subsidiarity” by Pope Leo XIII was respected: the state had no right to infringe upon paternal authority, which, on a micro-social scale, mirrored the monarchical authority upheld on a macro-social scale.
The state must protect the integrity of the stable family, founded on the freely consented union of two spouses, primarily ensuring optimal conditions for the birth and upbringing of children. Children’s rights are well protected, and serious deviations such as adultery, sexual promiscuity, divorce, and abortion are criminalized. Fathers and mothers must assume responsibilities toward their children that may not always be desirable or pleasant but are always accepted. Failure to accept these responsibilities was severely penalized, and those who violated the laws, customs, and traditions protecting the family were punished.
It is important to note that even in the Roman world, the principle later named “subsidiarity” by Pope Leo XIII was respected: the state had no right to infringe upon paternal authority, which, on a micro-social scale, mirrored the monarchical authority upheld on a macro-social scale. The logic is obvious: if a monarchical state were to violate the rights and responsibilities of parents—especially those of the legally recognized pater familias—how could the Monarch expect his authority as the “father” of large human communities to be respected?
Protecting the rights and obligations of the family requires subordinating the exalted individual rights of the modern world. In concrete terms, individual rights could never be invoked to undermine family unity. Even more concretely, this simply did not happen, despite the fact that sin and sinners were as present then as they are now (those times were by no means ideal, despite their strong moral values).
A world based on the liberal paradigm no longer grants any special value to the family. By exalting individual freedoms, it can even go so far as to deny the rights and obligations of parents toward their own children. For the modern liberal state, only individuals exist. It does not matter whether they adopt lifestyles that systematically destroy the family. The state not only tolerates such developments but often actively supports them.
A world based on the liberal paradigm no longer grants any special value to the family. By exalting individual freedoms, it can even go so far as to deny the rights and obligations of parents toward their own children. For the modern liberal state, only individuals exist.
Mandatory education, first imposed through Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf (i.e., “culture war”) and later generalized across European nations with the help of the policies of the (in)famous Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), was not designed for the well-being of the family but for the benefit of the national state, which paved the way for liberalism. When a society leans toward the extreme of collectivism, where only the State matters, the opposite extreme—individualist liberalism—inevitably follows. The common foundation of these political ideologies is a fundamental disregard for absolute monogamy and for the rights and obligations of spouses toward one another, as well as toward the children naturally and rightfully born from their matrimonial union. This claim of mine is in perfect harmony with an observation made by Feser:
“Needless to say, liberalism, thus characterized, is nearly as common on the modern political right as on the left. Indeed, the difference between most modern American ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ is really just a difference between more moderate liberals and more extreme liberals. And this is why the ‘conservatives,’ despite occasional electoral and policy victories, tend in the long run to lose. They are mostly operating from premises owned by the other side, and are just slower in drawing out the conclusions.”
Now, I will shorten the narrative and state that, in the pre-modern world, there was a powerful safeguard that protected both the family and the state from liberalism: absolute monogamy. Everyone generally understands what “monogamy” means. However, I am convinced that very few immediately grasp the full implications of the superlative—“absolute”—attached to this term. It signifies a legal prohibition against divorce. Specifically, although canon law theoretically allowed for the physical separation of spouses under certain circumstances, divorce and the remarriage of divorced individuals were not possible. Legally, no court could issue a certificate of divorce, thereby granting the legal separation of those who sought it.
The Protestant Reformation, followed by the series of revolutions set in motion by the French Revolution, had as an almost immediate consequence the legalization of divorce and remarriage. It is worth emphasizing that even the personal choices of Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, and his (pseudo)wife, Katharina von Bora, a Cistercian nun, undermined the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. After all, if the mystical marriage of souls dedicated entirely to God through monastic vows could be broken, why should the second-tier fidelity of spouses, supposedly united until death do them part, be considered unbreakable?
Another significant historical episode is the event that triggered the Anglican schism: the divorce and remarriage of His Majesty, King Henry VIII. All these dramatic episodes over the past few centuries laid the groundwork for the liberal revolution, which, through its exacerbated individualism, led to the devaluation of the family and, ultimately, to the denial of its cardinal social value. The crisis camouflaged by all of this indicates their deepest root: the disappearance of authority and the obliteration of supernatural Christian Faith in the reward and punishment of souls in eternity.
Yes, fear (the beginning of Wisdom, Proverbs 1:7) of God and of eternal punishments in the afterlife, as well as the desire to attain the eternal happiness of Paradise, are the strongest motivations for an ethic of responsibility, of duty toward one’s own family, and one’s own community.
In some surprising articles, Hannah Arendt—a student of Martin Heidegger—spoke about the disappearance of real political authority in direct connection with the disappearance of traditional belief in the afterlife. I wrote extensively about her ideas in an article published in The European Conservative.[iii] Here I will mention—through a quote—only the main point:
“What is it that motivates (...) a leader to follow a transcendent constellation of values (like the Ten Commandments)? The answer proposed by Hannah Arendt is nothing short of astonishing: the fear of Hell. This is the last and absolute foundation of the traditional and religious principle of authority. Without this ‘metaphysical’ fear, based on the existence of Hell described by Plato in his myth of Er from Politeia (usually and wrongly translated as The Republic), or by the Gospel of Saint Luke in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the disappearance of authority is unavoidable. Thus, it became possible for the terrifying dictatorial regimes of the 20th century to emerge. It became possible to exterminate of millions of people without anyone or anything being able to prevent such acts of genocide. As Arendt writes, ‘the fear of Hell is no longer among the motives which would prevent or stimulate the actions of a majority’.”
Hannah Arendt's axiom regarding the foundation of political authority can serve as a response to the question that might arise from Edward Feser’s key statement (“We have obligations to others to which we did not consent.”) about the Medieval world: why would someone fulfill obligations to which they did not individually consent?
The ultimate answer is the one proposed by Arendt regarding the source of authority: out of fear of eternal punishment and hell. Yes, fear—considered in Holy Scripture as the beginning of Wisdom (Proverbs 1:7)—of God and of eternal punishments in the afterlife, as well as the desire to attain the eternal happiness of Paradise, are the strongest motivations for such an ethic of responsibility, of duty toward one’s own family, and one’s own (both ecclesiastic and social) community.
This, in essence, is the response of Classical Christian Tradition. And it is precisely this response that all theologians and ecclesiastical hierarchs infected by liberalism seek to avoid. For them, hell and heaven are no longer fashionable. Even more, we might ask whether, for them, the afterlife is still the core of their faith at all. If these beliefs disappear from both the hearts of the hierarchs and the hearts of the faithful, the inevitable consequence is a world like the one we live in today—one where the only (pseudo-)values are those of liberalism. Unfortunately, the ultimate fate of such a society can only be tragic.
Latest from RTV — TRUMP’S WAR ON WOKE: Vance calls Pope “wrong” for Latin Mass crackdown
[i] Titled “Western Civilization’s Immunodeficiency Disease,” Dr. Edward Feser’s article can be read online here: https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/western-civilizations-immunodeficiency [Accessed: 29 January 2025].
[ii] Quoted by Feser at the very beginning of his text, Burnham’s book is entitled Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (New York: John Day Co., 1964).
[iii] “Hannah Arendt and the Disappearance of Authority:” https://europeanconservative.com/articles/essay/hannah-arendt-and-the-disappearance-of-authority/ [Accessed: 29 January 2025].
