In Liberalism as a Way of Life, Alexandre Lefebvre asks his readers to entertain the proposition that “Liberalism … may well underlie who you (and I, and we) are in all walks of life, from the family to workplace, from friendship to enmity, from humor to outrage, and everything in between” (p. 5). “[I]t is a big mistake to overlook how ubiquitous liberal values and sensibilities are in the background culture of contemporary Western democratic countries,” he continues (p. 15). What liberalism, in his view, boils down to is John Rawls’ conception of “society as a fair system of cooperation” (p. 24). Lefebvre follows Rawls in the belief “that citizens of liberal democratic societies by and large already see and structure their societies as fair systems of cooperation. … [Rawls’] reader ‘knows’ or ‘understands’ what he is talking about … because they already affirm it as expressing something essential about themselves and their society” (p. 25).
Lefebvre presumably wrote these words in late 2022 or early 2023. They strained credulity even then, but are literally incredible now. Clearly many of the citizens in contemporary Western countries believe that society is essentially competitive, not cooperative and that the spoils go to the aggressive and energetic. Life is not fair—and you are a sucker if you act as if it is. Liberals are hypocrites, spouting their pablum about equality and justice even as they help themselves (like everyone else) to whatever they can grab.
Cynicism is the besetting sin of our time. Lefebvre has written a profoundly uncynical book. It would be a grievous mistake to toss it aside because it overestimates the hold of liberal values or the existence of liberal sensibilities in present-day Western societies. Can we set aside our professional deformation of unrelenting skepticism for once? Perhaps then the reader can appreciate Lefebvre’s extended examination of what liberalism could entail if taken seriously, not just as a set of political values and institutions, but also (as his title has it) as a way of life. Judith Shklar described a “liberalism of fear,” one that existed to protect against the myriad forms tyranny takes. Lefebvre is attempting to describe a “liberalism of peace, love, and understanding” (my terms, with apologies to Elvis Costello, not Lefebvre’s). This positive vision is not based on what liberalism guards against, but on what gifts (Lefebvre calls them “perks”) liberalism bestows on those who practice it wholeheartedly.
The path to this abundant liberalism is through the work (and example) of John Rawls, with a helping hand from Pierre Hadot. Rawls divided public from private by distinguishing a set of “shared principles of justice” (p. 66) that undergird political institutions and practices from “comprehensive doctrines” (74) that undergird an individual’s ethical vision of what is meaningful and valuable. In a pluralistic society, we cannot expect and should not demand agreement about comprehensive doctrines, but we can achieve a stable and fair society if all are committed to the shared principles of justice.
Lefebvre follows Rawls in assuming that those shared principles are in place. He does devote some time to talking about the failure to instantiate those principles in our societies, which obviously fall short of the “ideal” conception of justice Rawls offers and to which (supposedly) “we” subscribe. However, Lefebvre’s main focus and interest lies elsewhere—as does the value of his book. He wants to explore what it would mean to take “liberalism” as one’s comprehensive doctrine. What kind of person, what sensibility, what values, what practices, and what “perks” would liberalism as a way of life produce?
Lefebvre’s book can appear sentimental, even New Age-y, in places. However, he has the courage of his ambitions, refusing to back away from the inevitable distaste of the sophisticated. “My book is about a political topic (namely, liberalism), yet better classified as a work on ethics, living well, and a genre I want to lean into, self-help,” he writes (p. 13). Lefebvre will double down on his insistence that liberalism provides a robust vision for guiding one’s life and produces an admirable sensibility or temperament. His book will provide tips for accessing that desirable way of life.
The result is a full-throated celebration of liberalism, embracing it indeed at a time when even liberalism’s advocates speak in hushed apologetic terms and its critics shout from the rooftops about its inability to satisfy the spiritual hungers of the human animal. The exposition starts from liberalism’s secular “horizontalization of morality” (p. 94). Sin (or evil or wrongdoing) is no longer a matter of offending a superior Being, but the infliction of “interpersonal harms” in this world (p. 94). “[B]eing a good person comes to mean not harming others. Being a great person means doing nice things for them as well,” Lefebvre notes (p. 95). (If the word “nice” in that last sentence grates on your nerves, count yourself a sophisticate.) This orientation toward others leads to the recognition of “reciprocity” as “the cardinal virtue of liberal democracy” (p. 146). Treating others as always worthy of respect and deserving of the material requirements to lead a full, meaningful life explains why liberals find cruelty and its brother, humiliation, particularly odious vices.
One of Lefebvre’s strongest arguments for asserting that we Westerners all share liberal values is noting the resentment generated when norms of reciprocity, of extending respect to all, are violated. Injuries of status, class, and discrimination are insufferable in soi-disant liberal societies in ways quite foreign to more hierarchical ones. What Lefebvre adds—by way of examining Rawls’s engagement with Rousseau’s Emile—is that reciprocity generates attachment to others, relationships of love that are meaningful and sustaining. He quotes Rousseau: “We seek what serves us, but we love what wants to serve us. We flee what harms us, but we hate what wants to harm us” (p. 153). Different educational and child-rearing practices will influence how individuals understand their standing in the world and the threat or support they can expect from others. In alignment with his earlier books on human rights, Lefebvre wants to explore, to articulate, a politics of love. At a time when anti-liberals are deliberately fostering and mobilizing the forces of hatred, a thoughtful meditation on the resources of love is welcome.
From Pierre Hadot, Lefebvre adopts the notion of “spiritual exercises”—concrete practices to explore, strengthen, and instill values: “Spiritual exercises are voluntary and freely taken up. Spiritual exercises are personal, such that one’s own person is a matter of care and concern. Spiritual exercises are practices, meaning they are embodied regular activities. And spiritual exercises are transformative, the goal of which is to alter the person practicing them” (p. 142). In the most surprising move in his book, Lefebvre then adopts three familiar Rawlsian ideas as spiritual exercises to be actually practiced: the original position, reflective equilibrium, and public reason. Space constraints mean I cannot lay out Lefebvre’s exposition here—or the “perks” he believes engaging in such practices will deliver. However, his advocacy of these practices both shifts our understanding of their function in Rawls’ work and provides a good overview of what liberal “character” looks like.
Damn the torpedoes (your intellectualist nitpicking, your sophisticated anti-sentimentalism, your seen-it-all cynicism) and read this book. Yes, it is special pleading and will not convince you on every page. However, must sober, clear-eyed realism banish all advocacy from political theory? Let us christen Lefebvre’s book “speculative theory” and give it an honored place on our bookshelves. Clearly, skepticism, a distaste for sentimentalism, and the self-congratulatory realism I keep displacing onto “you” is my own. Lefebvre’s book is an invitation to set aside my professional deformations. Taking it seriously on its own terms could prove a spiritual exercise that lifts this demoralized liberal out of the doldrums in this dark time, indicating fruitful, even joyous, paths forward. As long as liberalism remains our best hope for basic decency in our political and everyday dealings with our fellow human beings, it is salutary to read a full-fledged account of the many goods (societal and personal) that liberalism has to offer.
