The problem with “realists” like Vance is that they aren’t very realistic.
“ It also clashes with his postliberalism. The strongest and most interesting critique of liberalism is its alleged failure to account for or promote virtue. Liberalism, the argument goes, is unacceptably neutral between good and evil: license and immorality are unavoidable outcomes.”
Except that this isn’t true. Liberalism isn’t morally neutral and the post-liberals aren’t the first or the only people to talk about virtue or goodness. I would take their arguments more seriously if their critique was less confused and more based in a basic understanding of history or the ideologies they claim to critique. We end up having ridiculous arguments about whether or not I’m in favor of promoting virtue when the real problem with post-liberalism is that they appear not to have read anything written by the Federalists or Anti-federalists and they make basic factual errors in their narrative about 1. The founding 2. Postwar conservatism 3. The Enlightenment 4. The premodern traditions from which they claim to draw 5. Virtually any other time period they talk about.
Ben, I entirely agree—the post-liberal critique is wrong, and liberalism, especially in the American tradition, depends upon and inculcates virtue. In my experience, though, sincere post-liberals (and I have met some, including many, too many, young ones) usually start with an understandable or even admirable concern about a lack of virtue in the US at large. But they juxtapose this interest in domestic virtue with a total disinterest in virtuous foreign policy. They think we don't worry about morality enough at home—but worry about it far too much abroad. And they have no good reason for the distinction.
I agree that we don’t worry enough about virtue and morality at home, but I think the post-liberals are wrong to lay the blame on liberalism. Every generation of conservatives has made some version of that point. The neoconservatives were more worried about public decency than many postliberals seem to be. And of course the founders themselves believed in the importance of public morality and of public and private efforts to encourage and regulate morality. If Enlightenment liberalism threatened public morality, that would be news to many classical liberals in American history.
But I take your point and it’s a good one. The same folks who are worried about virtue at home seem to take pleasure in amorality abroad.
The problem with “realists” like Vance is that they aren’t very realistic.
“ It also clashes with his postliberalism. The strongest and most interesting critique of liberalism is its alleged failure to account for or promote virtue. Liberalism, the argument goes, is unacceptably neutral between good and evil: license and immorality are unavoidable outcomes.”
Except that this isn’t true. Liberalism isn’t morally neutral and the post-liberals aren’t the first or the only people to talk about virtue or goodness. I would take their arguments more seriously if their critique was less confused and more based in a basic understanding of history or the ideologies they claim to critique. We end up having ridiculous arguments about whether or not I’m in favor of promoting virtue when the real problem with post-liberalism is that they appear not to have read anything written by the Federalists or Anti-federalists and they make basic factual errors in their narrative about 1. The founding 2. Postwar conservatism 3. The Enlightenment 4. The premodern traditions from which they claim to draw 5. Virtually any other time period they talk about.
Ben, I entirely agree—the post-liberal critique is wrong, and liberalism, especially in the American tradition, depends upon and inculcates virtue. In my experience, though, sincere post-liberals (and I have met some, including many, too many, young ones) usually start with an understandable or even admirable concern about a lack of virtue in the US at large. But they juxtapose this interest in domestic virtue with a total disinterest in virtuous foreign policy. They think we don't worry about morality enough at home—but worry about it far too much abroad. And they have no good reason for the distinction.
I agree that we don’t worry enough about virtue and morality at home, but I think the post-liberals are wrong to lay the blame on liberalism. Every generation of conservatives has made some version of that point. The neoconservatives were more worried about public decency than many postliberals seem to be. And of course the founders themselves believed in the importance of public morality and of public and private efforts to encourage and regulate morality. If Enlightenment liberalism threatened public morality, that would be news to many classical liberals in American history.
But I take your point and it’s a good one. The same folks who are worried about virtue at home seem to take pleasure in amorality abroad.