Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network – New Books in European Politics
Host: Tim Jones
Guest: Dr. Matt Sleat, Reader in Political Theory, University of Sheffield
Book Discussed: Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025)

Main Theme:
This episode explores the emergence, debates, and political implications of post-liberalism, especially as articulated by its major intellectual proponents on the American right. Matt Sleat distinguishes the tradition from other forms of conservatism and "new right" thought, offering critical perspectives on its intellectual coherence, practical viability, and influence on public life.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Defining Post-Liberalism and Its Origins

• Umbrella or Distinct Tradition?
  • Post-liberalism is often misunderstood as simply any anti-liberal or right-wing reaction (03:41), but Sleat argues that it is emerging as a distinct political philosophy, primarily centered among American Catholic intellectuals.
  • It shares ground with the broader "New Right" but distinguishes itself by explicitly advocating the common good over individual liberty, a strong interventionist state, and a confessional (Christian, often Catholic) public moral order.

    "Post liberals want a politics that gives primacy to the common good rather than to individual freedom. I think that commitment to the common good is what really distinguishes post liberalism."
    — Matt Sleat (05:32)

• Major Figures:
  • Adrian Vermeule (Harvard), Patrick Deneen (Notre Dame), Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, and until recently, Sohrab Ahmari are named as central thinkers.
  • J.D. Vance, current U.S. Vice President, is noted as a post-liberal figure with close ties to these intellectuals (07:55).

2. American vs. British Post-Liberalism and Key Intellectual Differences

• Geographical and Theological Splits:
  • The American post-liberalism Sleat focuses on is Catholic, right-wing, and radical in its rejection of liberalism.
  • The British variant, linked to "Blue Labour" and "radical orthodoxy," is more left-leaning, Anglican, and does not reject liberalism wholesale (09:27).
• Deneen vs. Vermeule:
  • Deneen is seen as socially conservative on family, gender, and religion, but not as radical or as committed to confessional government as Vermeule (11:01).
  • Vermeule espouses "integralism," desiring the Church to have authority over the state, including civic exclusions for non-adherents—a genuinely radical break.

    "Where Deneen sort of talks the talk, he doesn't then walk the walk, whereas Vermeule really does walk the walk."
    — Matt Sleat (11:52)

3. Popular Appeal and Coercion

• Assumptions about "the People":
  • Deneen theorizes that "normal people" already want post-liberalism, a view Sleat disputes with polling data (14:05).
  • Vermeule is more candid, admitting people don't desire post-liberalism but believing they can be re-educated, by coercion if necessary.

    "Vermeule’s view is, if we could get power, people's beliefs are pretty malleable, can be changed pretty easily, and via power, we would re-educate them ... eventually people will come to thank the post liberals."
    — Matt Sleat (15:05)

• Political Consequences:
  • This difference makes coercion more central to Vermeule’s vision, less so to Deneen’s.

4. What Does "Liberalism" Mean?

• American/European Usage:
  • Host laments the American use of "liberal" to mean "left," while in Europe "liberals" are right-of-center (16:15).
• Post-Liberal Critique:
  • Post-liberals treat all forms of liberalism—from classic economic liberalism to modern identity-focused progressivism—as fundamentally about maximizing individual freedom, leading to "permanent revolution" (16:44).

    "Liberalism as a completely stable, continuous philosophical set of ideas ... [for them] it alone is the cause of all of our social ills."
    — Matt Sleat (17:50)

• Strategic Oversimplification:
  • Sleat argues this is a political strategy, not historical or philosophical accuracy. The tradition caricatures liberalism to provoke a binary choice: liberalism or post-liberalism—nothing in between (19:02-21:59).

5. Critiques: Philosophical and Political

• Misreading the Liberal Tradition:
  • Figures like Locke, Kant, and Mill did not advocate limitless individual freedom. Many "social liberals" of the Victorian era were already perfectionist, statist, and concerned for the common good—much like today’s post-liberals, but with a liberal orientation (19:48).
  • Post-liberals’ neglect of this complexity serves to close off any compromise or nuanced debate.

    "They force the reader into making a binary choice—if liberalism is just one thing, and the sole cause of our ills...only a non-liberal alternative can get us out of this."
    — Matt Sleat (21:59)

6. The Friend/Enemy Political Model

• Schmittian Framework:
  • Especially in Vermeule, politics is seen as fundamentally conflictual: friends vs. enemies, compromise impossible. This helps agitate supporters but is ill-suited for coalition, governance, or plural societies (22:00-24:14).

    "Doing politics for them is about agitating people to take strong positions ... but it’s a philosophy designed for struggle, not for government."
    — Tim Jones (24:14)

7. Governing Prospects and Pragmatic Challenges

• Impossibility of Consensus:
  • Post-liberal government is unworkable in plural societies, requiring repression/homogeneity or coercion to impose a singular definition of the common good (24:46).
  • The national conservatism variant appeals to patriotism/nationalism instrumentally; post-liberalism appeals to Christianity (for them: because it’s "true"), which is harder to sell broadly.
• Hungary and Poland as Models:
  • Orban’s Hungary is admired, but has serious baggage (kleptocracy, illiberalism), while Poland is less discussed because of its unique homogeneity (28:36).

8. Dialogue: Can Liberals Respond?

• Liberal Perfectionism:
  • Some theorists suggest liberals should stop pretending moral neutrality and articulate their own vision of the good life—this would at least allow genuine dialogue (30:06).
  • Sleat is skeptical: acknowledging substantive moral commitments (i.e., perfectionism) won’t satisfy post-liberals, and may only highlight irreconcilable differences (30:26-33:55).

    "There might be an honesty and self-understanding that might be welcome, but whether it achieves anything politically… I'm very skeptical indeed."
    — Matt Sleat (33:20)

• Robust Liberalism:
  • Host suggests that standing up for basic liberal commitments (freedom, non-neutrality) could make liberalism less vulnerable. Sleat counters that already-existing "real world" liberalism has not been as neutral as critics allege (34:59).

9. The Future of Post-Liberalism

• Impact on the Right:
  • Post-liberalism, more than anything, has shifted right-wing political strategy away from seeing politics as downstream from culture (i.e., "change the culture, politics will follow") to an explicit belief in using state power for conservative goals (37:46).

    "I think that is going to be with us for a while, for better or worse. I don't think there's much of a prospect of a post-liberal platform, at least not in a democratic sense. ... But that general idea of politics now as a vehicle for realizing culturally, socially conservative ends, I think that's here to stay."
    — Matt Sleat (38:30)

• Conclusion:
  • Sleat doubts post-liberalism will succeed electorally in pluralistic societies, but its rhetorical and strategic innovations—especially a willingness to use the state for substantive conservative ends—will have lasting consequences for right-wing politics.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments with Timestamps

• "[Post liberals] want a politics that gives primacy to the common good rather than to individual freedom."
  — Matt Sleat (05:32)

• "Deneen ... is committed to things that plenty on the American right have been committed to over the decades ... but Vermeule is committed to a position called integralism, which does mean that the church should have priority over the state."
  — Matt Sleat (10:48)

• "Vermeule’s view is, if we could get power, people's beliefs are pretty malleable ... via power, we would re-educate them ... eventually people will come to thank the post liberals."
  — Matt Sleat (15:05)

• "Liberalism as a completely stable, continuous philosophical set of ideas ... [for them] it alone is the cause of all of our social ills."
  — Matt Sleat (17:50)

• "These are professors ... at some of the best universities in America. I am pretty confident they know that some of their readings of liberalism ... are not quite accurate."
  — Matt Sleat (23:30)

• "Doing politics for them is about agitating people to take strong positions ... but it’s a philosophy designed for struggle, not for government."
  — Tim Jones (24:14)

• "That general idea of politics now as a vehicle for realizing culturally, socially conservative ends, I think that's here to stay."
  — Matt Sleat (38:30)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction and definition (03:41–09:00)
• American vs. British traditions, Deneen vs. Vermeule (09:01–13:43)
• Coercion and the "will of the people" (14:05–16:15)
• Defining "liberalism" and post-liberal critique (16:15–19:02)
• Caricature and strategic binary (19:02–21:59)
• Friend/enemy politics (22:00–24:14)
• Governing prospects and critique (24:46–28:36)
• Hungary and Poland as models (28:36–30:06)
• Liberal perfectionism and possible responses (30:06–34:59)
• Fate and probable legacy of post-liberalism (37:18–end)

Overall Tone

The discussion is academic but highly accessible, weaving together intellectual history, political theory, and real-world politics with clarity. Dr. Sleat maintains a critical yet nuanced perspective, respectful of the thinkers he discusses, but skeptical of their historical claims and political viability. The episode is especially valuable for listeners seeking to understand where debates on the "new right" diverge from older conservative thought and how "post-liberal" arguments may reshape political strategies rather than successfully found new regimes.