Freakonomics Radio Ep. 644 Summary

Title: Has America Lost Its Appetite for the Common Good?
Original Air Date: August 29, 2025
Host: Stephen J. Dubner
Guest: Patrick Deneen, Professor of Political Science (Political Philosopher), Notre Dame

Episode Overview

This episode explores whether Americans—and modern liberal democracies more broadly—have lost their sense of the “common good.” Host Stephen Dubner interviews Patrick Deneen, the noted political philosopher and author of Why Liberalism Failed and Regime Change: Toward a Post Liberal Future. Deneen’s controversial and highly influential ideas have crossed partisan lines and inspired everyone from Barack Obama to Viktor Orban and J.D. Vance. Here, the discussion draws out Deneen’s nuanced critique of liberalism, his proposals for reforming American institutions, and his views on the current political landscape, including the Trump administration’s impact on democracy, elitism, populism, and higher education.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Patrick Deneen’s Intellectual Roots and Perspective

• Self-Identification: Deneen is adamantly a political theorist, not a political scientist or operator, despite what headlines might suggest ([03:25]).
• Formative Influences: His worldview is deeply shaped by Catholic tradition and classical political philosophy—especially Aristotle and Tocqueville ([05:43], [06:22]).
  • “Humans are by nature social and political animals... but that aspect needs cultivation.” —Deneen, [05:43]
• Nostalgia vs. Possibility: He rejects the idea of being nostalgic for a bygone era; instead, he sees enduring “permanent possibilities” in historical political thought ([10:26]).

2. The Limits and Costs of Liberalism, Division of Labor, and Scale

• Critique of Modern Liberalism: Deneen argues that the promises of liberalism have devolved into fragmenting society and undermining solidarity ([14:22]).
  • “We are now living at a scale that many political philosophers would have regarded as catastrophic in terms of...human solidarity.” —Deneen, [14:22]
• Scale Issues: As societies and democracies have scaled up, the connection between individuals and communities has eroded, fueling mistrust and division ([15:19]).
• Division of Labor: He acknowledges the value of specialization but warns that its unchecked spread can engender ignorance and alienation, reducing individual investment in the collective ([12:13], [13:56]).

3. Rethinking American Democratic Institutions

• Regime Tensions: Drawing from classical theory, Deneen argues that all political systems are marked by tensions between “the many” (democracy) and “the few” (oligarchy/aristocracy) ([17:53]).
• Aristo-Populism: His “aristo-populism” portmanteau encapsulates his proposal for a system that leverages elite expertise for the common good, while the populous provides a corrective ([20:21], [20:47]).
  • “The mixing will hopefully lead to the diminution of the worst aspects of each.” —Deneen, [19:59]

Institutional Reforms Suggested:

• Expand the House of Representatives: Suggests growing it to possibly 6,000 members for better, more local representation ([22:08], [25:44]).
• Decentralize Federal Agencies: Advocates spreading government departments across the states, not just D.C. ([26:33]).
  • “Increasing the House...is actually a kind of decentralization.” —Deneen, [26:33]

4. Policy Proposals for Reinvigorating the Common Good

• National Service: Calls for universal service as a means to bind elites and the masses in civic purpose ([28:05],[29:05]).
• University Reform: Recommends reforming elite universities for real diversity, socioeconomic integration, and accountability for student debt ([28:05]).
• Economic Policy: Supports restoring manufacturing, apprenticeships, and (carefully) enforcing tariffs to rebuild social contracts ([28:05]).
• Public Morality: Favors a form of public morality—family-oriented media hours, for instance—not outright bans or censorship, but a reassertion of societal values ([71:33]).
  • “You have a responsibility to understand that you play an educative role in our society...” —Deneen, [71:33]

5. Populism, Elitism, and the Trump Administration

• Ambivalent Political Influence: Deneen is wary of being cast as a partisan ideologue but acknowledges his work’s influence in current conservative/populist circles ([42:10], [42:33]).
• Religious Conservatives and Trump: Explains that religious support for Trump is born of frustration with “constant and continual political weakening,” not admiration for Trump’s personal morality ([56:22]).
  • “We’re not looking for the nice guy anymore... we need somebody who’s going to break things.” —Deneen, [56:22]
• Universities under Political Pressure: Sees merit in “disciplining” universities politically—not destroying them, but ensuring they serve the public good ([53:17]).

6. Media Trust, Cultural Institutions, and “Overcorrection”

• Media Critique: Expresses disillusionment with journalists who frame interviews to fit preconceived narratives, contributing to division and echo chambers ([48:49] - [51:18]).
• Cultural Institutions: Sympathetic to the desire for institutions to better represent diverse American perspectives, though wary of overcorrection that could be destructive ([62:44], [75:29]).
  • “There’s a real danger that the desire to correct the correction ends up simply being one that disassembles and destroys.” —Deneen, [75:29]

7. Intergenerational Responsibility and the Federal Debt

• Presentism vs. Generational Thinking: Deneen laments that short-term thinking prevails in American politics, undermining efforts to address the federal debt and entitlements ([69:31]).
  • “A liberal order...tends to be about satisfying ourselves in a more immediate way and not thinking...solidarity intergenerationally.” —Deneen, [69:31]

Notable Quotes & Moments

“I consider myself really just a kind of scholarly academic who writes books...there’s no actual direct quote from me [in the WSJ article].”
— Patrick Deneen ([03:25])

“We are now living at a scale that many political philosophers...would have regarded as catastrophic in terms of the ability to form human solidarity.”
— Deneen ([14:22])

“The best way to prevent [anarchy]...is to mix [democracy and aristocracy]. The mixing will hopefully lead to the diminution of the worst aspects of each.”
— Deneen ([19:59])

“The sense of resentment that the ordinary person has nobody representing them...all of the things that have simmered to the point of boiling.”
— Deneen ([27:18])

“I am a conservative of a certain kind who is religious...sympathetic with the populist uprising. I might be like one of three professors in America for whom that's true.”
— Deneen ([31:23])

“Journalism, as we all know, reflects a particular progressive worldview today...they have to frame it in such a way that you know what I think and I'm going to make sure that you know what should be thought.”
— Deneen ([48:49])

“I do think that the universities need to be disciplined politically...to do better at supporting and advancing the common good...but...this does not mean that I...want to see the destruction of the universities.”
— Deneen ([53:17])

“We're not looking for the nice guy anymore...We want somebody who's going to fight. We're not looking for the Paul Ryans.”
— Deneen ([56:22])

“There's a real danger that the desire to correct the correction ends up simply being one that disassembles and destroys.”
— Deneen ([75:29])

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:25 | Deneen rejects "ideological guru" label and media portrayal | | 05:43 | Catholic upbringing and view of human nature | | 14:22 | The catastrophe of societal scale in modern democracy | | 19:59 | Classical “mixed regime” as a solution | | 22:08 | Aristo-populism and House of Representatives reform | | 28:05 | National service, university reform, economic proposals | | 31:23 | Deneen’s conservative populist sympathies | | 42:10 | Deneen's influence on J.D. Vance and politics | | 48:49 | Media bias and echo chambers | | 53:17 | On disciplining universities politically | | 56:22 | Religious right’s support for Trump explained | | 75:29 | Deneen on dangers of overcorrection |

Conclusion

Patrick Deneen’s diagnosis is stark: American society’s sense of the common good has been depleted by unchecked scale, specialization, and elite insulation. His vision is not reactionary nostalgia, but a return to perennial philosophical questions about solidarity and citizenship, manifest in bold proposals (larger Congress, national service, university reform, “aristo-populism”). Dubner probes Deneen’s uneasy influence on contemporary populist and conservative politics, highlighting both the promise and peril of attempts—past and future—to “correct the correction.”

Questions the episode leaves us with: Who decides which corrections are overcorrections? Can a society build solidarity across difference and scale—and if so, how? Is the route back to the common good through institutions, culture, law, or something more elusive?

For further listening:
Dubner recommends Freakonomics’ three-part series “In Search of the Real Adam Smith” (Episodes 525–527).

Contact: radioreconomics.com

Summary by Freakonomics Radio Summarizer, 2025