I don't think you understand the concept of "post-liberalism." It is not a particular ideology per se (and it definitely was not "founded" by Patrick Deneen, which is a laughable statement to most on the "post-liberal" right, De Maistre is more of foundational thinker), but merely a recognition of the failure of liberalism; that liberalism is no longer a true political force in the West, that the Republican party (which I do not really consider to be a true "rightwing" party, merely a foil for the left) is merely a "ghost dance" of an age long past.
To argue that "post-liberalism" has failed would as be silly as a Communist remarking that "non-Communism" has failed, or a Monarchist claiming that "non-Monarchism" has failed. The challenge that the liberal faces is not how to "do battle" with "post-liberals," but to prove that current "liberals" are not merely a "heel" to leftwing political forces. I have not seen a true, substantial victory against the left in my lifetime. In my current career, I have been invited to parties where my coworkers have tried to pin colleagues they dislike as "secret Republicans", as being Republican in any way is seen as socially unacceptable and viewed as a mechanism of ridicule (just as it was unacceptable and a social life killer to be labeled a "conservative" when I was in high school not that long ago). If you mention "Ronald Reagan" in the lounge in a positive light, you will be seen as a laughingstock, as old-fashioned, asked to "get with the times."
As far as "free markets" are concerned, I find that they only have value so long as they serve people, and they have no value in and of themselves; "free markets" cannot be a foundational value. I work in the medical field, for which quite clearly a pure free market approach would not work (free markets require choice; you do not choose when you have your heart attack, nor which hospital you are transferred to when you suffer injuries in a car accident, nor make meaningful decisions for yourself if you are incapacitated). Generally, however, most post-liberals I have encountered are pragmatic with regards to the economy; they simply reject worshiping the free market as a "golden calf" above all other values.
Regarding the abandonment of social conservatism, this is again a failure of "classical conservatism", a failure of the Republican party which merely seeks to "preserve the gains" of the left. You cannot blame "post-liberalism" for the fact that the current iteration of the Republican party is a wet noodle that will never meaningfully stand for any social issue, masking their social defeats by claiming that "at least we saved the free market!"
It was interesting to read your section on "optimistic post-liberalism", although I have yet to encounter this ideology in the wild. Almost no postliberal I know desires a greater dominance of technology in our lives; in fact, almost every postliberal I know argues that our current technological habits are anti-human to a degree. Post-liberalism has a strong anti-technocratic flavor. Your attempt to "marry" your defined "pessimistic post-liberalism" with "optimistic post-liberalism" to form a post-liberalism that may appear acceptable to you would disgust the vast majority of post-liberals (including populists, elite theorists, nationalists, internationalists, integralists, and others).
As a future tip, I would never use the word "statist," which will get you laughed out of any room that is not libertarian (to claim that all (or the majority) non-libertarian political regimes possess similar qualities requires a great deal of ignorance); even seeing Pappin in his article mention "statism" was cringe inducing. Perhaps the term is better regarded in the field of political science.
To summarize:
1. Liberalism (in all of her forms) appears to be dead. Or at the most appears to only be a "heel" for leftwing ideologies. The reason that the Republican party has been trending away from social conservatism is because Republican party is viewed as an incapable, limp party that claims "economic victories" as a substitute for "social victories," and thus compromise on the social issues.
2. Post-liberalism is a collection of ideas, ranging from populism, elite theory, nationalism, integralism, regionalism, accelerationism, and others that are not unified in any real way, other than that they are attempting to deal with the death of liberalism. The various post-liberal strands of thought often disagree with each other; there is no consensus. This makes most attempts at critiquing post-liberalism appear superficial and ill informed.
3. To the post-liberal, the liberal is simply a delusional individual who does not recognize that liberalism is the moribund philosophy of a "Beautiful Loser" (to quote another post-liberal, Sam Francis). As liberalism cannot make a genuine stand against leftism, the post-liberal views the liberal as an ally of the leftist. Liberalism is analogous to Belgium during World War II; a sieve by which leftism easily passes through to seize political, social, journalistic, academic, educational, and workplace institutions.
Is the truth of an ideology contingent upon the favorability of the consequences of its implementation? You claim liberalism has failed because you believe our collective adherence to it as a society has produced adverse results, but that doesn’t seem to be an appropriate standard by which to judge it. Given liberalism is a set of propositions, does liberalism not fail or succeed by the truth of these propositions? I seldom see post-liberals engage with liberalism in this way, instead merely critiquing its “failures” as though doing so constitutes refutation (although this has nothing to do with the truth of the propositions contained therein). Just because liberalism isn’t politically expedient doesn’t mean we should abandon it; if it’s right, it’s worth fighting for, and I’ve yet to hear a compelling case as to how it has erred.
I don't think you understand the concept of "post-liberalism." It is not a particular ideology per se (and it definitely was not "founded" by Patrick Deneen, which is a laughable statement to most on the "post-liberal" right, De Maistre is more of foundational thinker), but merely a recognition of the failure of liberalism; that liberalism is no longer a true political force in the West, that the Republican party (which I do not really consider to be a true "rightwing" party, merely a foil for the left) is merely a "ghost dance" of an age long past.
To argue that "post-liberalism" has failed would as be silly as a Communist remarking that "non-Communism" has failed, or a Monarchist claiming that "non-Monarchism" has failed. The challenge that the liberal faces is not how to "do battle" with "post-liberals," but to prove that current "liberals" are not merely a "heel" to leftwing political forces. I have not seen a true, substantial victory against the left in my lifetime. In my current career, I have been invited to parties where my coworkers have tried to pin colleagues they dislike as "secret Republicans", as being Republican in any way is seen as socially unacceptable and viewed as a mechanism of ridicule (just as it was unacceptable and a social life killer to be labeled a "conservative" when I was in high school not that long ago). If you mention "Ronald Reagan" in the lounge in a positive light, you will be seen as a laughingstock, as old-fashioned, asked to "get with the times."
As far as "free markets" are concerned, I find that they only have value so long as they serve people, and they have no value in and of themselves; "free markets" cannot be a foundational value. I work in the medical field, for which quite clearly a pure free market approach would not work (free markets require choice; you do not choose when you have your heart attack, nor which hospital you are transferred to when you suffer injuries in a car accident, nor make meaningful decisions for yourself if you are incapacitated). Generally, however, most post-liberals I have encountered are pragmatic with regards to the economy; they simply reject worshiping the free market as a "golden calf" above all other values.
Regarding the abandonment of social conservatism, this is again a failure of "classical conservatism", a failure of the Republican party which merely seeks to "preserve the gains" of the left. You cannot blame "post-liberalism" for the fact that the current iteration of the Republican party is a wet noodle that will never meaningfully stand for any social issue, masking their social defeats by claiming that "at least we saved the free market!"
It was interesting to read your section on "optimistic post-liberalism", although I have yet to encounter this ideology in the wild. Almost no postliberal I know desires a greater dominance of technology in our lives; in fact, almost every postliberal I know argues that our current technological habits are anti-human to a degree. Post-liberalism has a strong anti-technocratic flavor. Your attempt to "marry" your defined "pessimistic post-liberalism" with "optimistic post-liberalism" to form a post-liberalism that may appear acceptable to you would disgust the vast majority of post-liberals (including populists, elite theorists, nationalists, internationalists, integralists, and others).
As a future tip, I would never use the word "statist," which will get you laughed out of any room that is not libertarian (to claim that all (or the majority) non-libertarian political regimes possess similar qualities requires a great deal of ignorance); even seeing Pappin in his article mention "statism" was cringe inducing. Perhaps the term is better regarded in the field of political science.
To summarize:
1. Liberalism (in all of her forms) appears to be dead. Or at the most appears to only be a "heel" for leftwing ideologies. The reason that the Republican party has been trending away from social conservatism is because Republican party is viewed as an incapable, limp party that claims "economic victories" as a substitute for "social victories," and thus compromise on the social issues.
2. Post-liberalism is a collection of ideas, ranging from populism, elite theory, nationalism, integralism, regionalism, accelerationism, and others that are not unified in any real way, other than that they are attempting to deal with the death of liberalism. The various post-liberal strands of thought often disagree with each other; there is no consensus. This makes most attempts at critiquing post-liberalism appear superficial and ill informed.
3. To the post-liberal, the liberal is simply a delusional individual who does not recognize that liberalism is the moribund philosophy of a "Beautiful Loser" (to quote another post-liberal, Sam Francis). As liberalism cannot make a genuine stand against leftism, the post-liberal views the liberal as an ally of the leftist. Liberalism is analogous to Belgium during World War II; a sieve by which leftism easily passes through to seize political, social, journalistic, academic, educational, and workplace institutions.
Is the truth of an ideology contingent upon the favorability of the consequences of its implementation? You claim liberalism has failed because you believe our collective adherence to it as a society has produced adverse results, but that doesn’t seem to be an appropriate standard by which to judge it. Given liberalism is a set of propositions, does liberalism not fail or succeed by the truth of these propositions? I seldom see post-liberals engage with liberalism in this way, instead merely critiquing its “failures” as though doing so constitutes refutation (although this has nothing to do with the truth of the propositions contained therein). Just because liberalism isn’t politically expedient doesn’t mean we should abandon it; if it’s right, it’s worth fighting for, and I’ve yet to hear a compelling case as to how it has erred.
Take your supercilious pill today?
Your prophecy sounds statist.
BTW Belgium!? -a pathetically weak state so divided by religion language, and ethnicity that it somewhat resembles feudal Japan.