New Books Network: What Happens When Liberalism Stops Feeling Like a Victory and Starts Feeling Like an Exhaustion?

Date: January 5, 2026
Host: Eli Karetney (B)
Guest: Alexandra Lefebvre (C), Professor of Politics and Philosophy, University of Sydney
Book: Liberalism as a Way of Life
Podcast Theme: Interview with Lefebvre about the crisis of liberalism, the tradition’s core values, its evolution, and how it might be revitalized as both an ethos and a way of life.

Overview

This episode dives deep into the state of liberalism, exploring why a once-triumphant philosophy now feels depleted and embattled. Host Eli Karetney welcomes Alexandra Lefebvre to discuss his acclaimed book, Liberalism as a Way of Life, examining whether liberalism remains a worthy tradition, how it compares internationally, and how its adherents can rekindle a sense of higher purpose, even in today’s ideological and existential crisis.

Core Themes and Discussion Points

1. What Is Liberalism? – Defining the Tradition

[03:53 – 07:31]

• Lefebvre pushes past the academic cliché of liberalism as a “coat of many colors,” instead arguing for two central, ancient ideals: freedom and generosity.
• These ideals are rooted in the Latin “liberalis,” meaning both “free” and “generous”—forming the duo of liberty and liberality.

“If I had to nominate the two kind of core principles of liberalism, it would be that: freedom and generosity... liberty and liberality.” – Lefebvre [04:56]

• While traditions and emphasis may shift (Locke, Mill, Montesquieu, Kant, Rawls, etc.), he centers Rawls’s idea of fairness as a third foundational pillar for modern liberalism.

The Modular Furniture Metaphor

• Political theorist Michael Freeden likens liberalism to a room of modular furniture—what is “centered” (freedom, fairness, etc.) determines its broader configuration, explaining its global diversity.

2. Liberalism’s Inclusion & Exclusion of Other Values

[07:31 – 09:37]

• Some values fit poorly into the liberal framework because they rely on hierarchical or exclusionary ideals (aristocratic honor, asymmetrical loyalty, piety, self-sacrifice).
• Lefebvre notes that liberalism “levels the playing field,” making virtues like loyalty or piety “starved out,” yet upholds others, offering a “hothouse environment for certain plants, but not for others.”

3. Rawlsian Liberalism – A Way of Life, Not Just a Framework

[09:37 – 16:15]

• John Rawls is painted as the central (even heroic) figure binding the American (freedom-heavy) and European (equality-focused) liberal traditions into the ideal of fairness via the “fair system of cooperation.”
• Lefebvre highlights two phases:
  • Early Rawls considered liberalism a robust ethical framework, with deep moral development and emotional resonance.

    “What it means to live as a liberal person: someone who is free and also generous… we strive for something beyond ourselves, something redemptive.” – Lefebvre [12:00]

  • Late Rawls retracted this, making liberalism a more “thin,” political framework to include citizens with diverse (even illiberal) moral worldviews.

Responding to Liberal Disenchantment

• Lefebvre argues early Rawls is newly relevant as Western societies become less religious but retain a “God-shaped hole” that liberalism could fill as a secular framework for meaning.

4. International Liberalism – Geography, History, and Ideological Tensions

[19:39 – 31:00]

• The meaning and critique of “liberalism” shifts dramatically between contexts:
  • In the US, it aligns with the progressive left and is attacked as tax-and-spend “do-gooderism.”
  • In Europe or Australia, it can be centrist or even center-right, criticized as “heartless small-government individualism.”
• Lefebvre explains this as a function of history and adaptability:
  • Cold War Liberalism narrowed the tradition to defend individual liberty against the perfectionism of the Soviet project.
  • Newer histories (Rosenblatt, Moyn) show how “classical liberalism” is a retrospective fiction; the tradition re-invents itself in the face of each new crisis.

“Liberalism contains multitudes… you can find a strand… to defend your commitments.” – Lefebvre [30:35]

5. Nationalism, Sovereignty, and Imperialism

[31:20 – 47:23]

• International tensions: Does liberalism inevitably trend toward universalism—“imperialism,” as conservative Yoram Hazony claims?
  • Hazony distinguishes between “imperial universalists” (e.g., liberals, jihadists, historic empires) and true “pluralist nationalists.”
  • Lefebvre concedes a “liberal imperialism” exists by enforcing universal human rights norms, sometimes via “soft coercion” (e.g., EU sanctions on Hungary’s natalist policies).

Key Questions Raised

• Is the nation-state the best container for liberalism, or does the logic of liberal rights and cooperation push toward supranational projects (à la Kant, Habermas, or Fukuyama)?
• What is the legitimate scope of state action for liberal states—neutrality vs. promotion of particular goods (“lightly perfectionist” vs. “hardcore” states)?

“I think liberals haven’t come up with a good answer to this yet...there's no liberal state that is not at least lightly perfectionist.” – Lefebvre [47:54]

6. The Challenge of So-Called “Post-Liberal” Regimes

[51:09 – 58:24]

• Lefebvre outlines a global rise of regimes—India, Israel, MAGA America, Russia, Hungary, China—that explicitly use the state to shape citizens’ views of the good life, returning to an “Aristotelian” vision.
• Western liberal critics too quickly dismiss these as pure “repression,” “kleptocracy,” or “populism,” failing to appreciate that they present real, positive visions of flourishing attractive to portions of their societies.
• Liberals, by contrast, are uniquely hamstrung: “They cannot go down that path…it is core to their commitment as being liberals that they can’t push a liberal way of life…”

“Liberals think it’s almost natural …that the state should allow its individuals freedom to figure out what the good life is for them. We need an ounce of historical perspective to notice how irregular and exceptional that is.” – Lefebvre [56:57]

7. Revitalizing Liberalism As a “Way of Life”: Pierre Hadot and Spiritual Exercises

[64:51 – 70:14]

• Enter Pierre Hadot—philosopher and classicist who reconstructed ancient philosophy as a practice of spiritual and character “exercises.”
  • Hadot’s claim: Ancient philosophy was about living wisely—practices to progress toward an ideal self.
• Translating this for liberals: Could liberalism likewise become a way of life with “spiritual exercises”?
  • Lefebvre suggests key Rawlsian ideas—Original Position, Reflective Equilibrium, Public Reason—could function as rituals or meditations for moral/character development, not just as theoretical tools.
  • He wished this part of his book were even more developed, leaving an open invitation for listeners/readers to invent more “spiritual” exercises for liberal life.

“It’s an open conspiracy...furnish some spiritual exercises for liberals to do right now.” – Lefebvre [68:14]

8. Liberal and Non-Liberal Character Development

[70:43 – 80:44]

• Karetney opens up about his own journey—citing a “God-shaped hole” in his own liberalism, which led him from Nietzsche and Strauss to Kabbalah and spiritual practice.
• Are there higher and lower selves for liberals? Lefebvre: “Hard yes.” Every moral system poses a demanding ideal—liberals dodge generosity; Christians, love; Confucians, harmony—and thus must confront their own distinctive failings (e.g., individualism for liberals).

“Everyone basically spends most of their life trying to dodge the main moral commitment that their moral system makes on them...So what I would try...[is] the main character failing of liberalism is individualism because it’s so tempting, it’s so easy.” – Lefebvre [76:12]

• The “original position” becomes a key exercise: Asking ourselves to imagine a world not fixated on our accidental, positional identity, to transcend egoistic interests and thereby become more genuinely liberal.

9. The Spiritual Core of Rawlsian and Liberal Exercises

[80:44 – 82:03]

• Karetney reflects that only recently, with his own spiritual practices, does he recognize the “original position” as a profound, even spiritual, exercise—no longer a “neutral, meaningless self,” but a universal vantage point, akin to philosophical or mystical transcendence.

“Now when I hear it...it sounds like a secularized expression of a deeply spiritual idea...ascending above a kind of lower self, a kind of embodied self, to an almost God’s eye perspective.” – Karetney [81:25]

Notable Quotes & Moments

• [04:56] “If I had to nominate the two kind of core principles of liberalism, it would be that: freedom and generosity...” — Lefebvre
• [12:00] “What it means to live as a liberal person: someone who is free and also generous… something redemptive...” — Lefebvre
• [30:35] “Liberalism contains multitudes…” — Lefebvre
• [47:54] “There's no liberal state that is not at least lightly perfectionist.” — Lefebvre
• [76:12] “The main character failing of liberalism is individualism because it’s so tempting, it’s so easy.” — Lefebvre
• [81:25] “It sounds like a secularized expression of a deeply spiritual idea...to an almost God’s eye perspective.” — Karetney

Highlighted Timestamps

• 03:53 – What makes liberalism liberal? Core principles
• 09:37 – John Rawls as liberalism’s great synthesizer; liberalism as a way of life
• 16:15 – Liberalism as a secular tradition after the decline of religious faith
• 26:24 – How “liberalism” means different things across the world
• 31:20 – Nationalism, imperialism, and the critique of global liberalism
• 47:54 – The “perfectionist” tendencies of even the most open liberal states
• 51:09 – Defining “post-liberal" or “soulcrafting" regimes; Aristotle’s influence
• 64:51 – The challenge in defending a liberal way of life without overstepping liberal commitments
• 65:16 – Introduction of Hadot and the idea of liberal spiritual exercises
• 76:12 – Liberalism’s main challenge: overcoming individualism, embracing generosity
• 80:44 – Transforming Rawls’s “original position” into a secular spiritual exercise

Conclusion

Alexandra Lefebvre’s account suggests that liberalism, facing existential threats and growing exhaustion, needs to be rediscovered not merely as an ideology or political program but as a living tradition, rich in spiritual and ethical promise. The episode ends in a spirit of collaborative reflection, inviting liberals—and anyone else—to find new spiritual and practical resources in the tradition, and to rediscover its depths through philosophical and personal practice.