Patrick J. Deneen, professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and author of the influential Why Liberalism Failed, has established himself as one of the most critical voices against the political paradigm that emerged after World War II. His central thesis is that liberalism, far from guaranteeing genuine diversity, has imposed an ideological mold that subordinates identities and traditions to consumption and economic efficiency.
In a moment of international reconfiguration—marked by the rise of emerging powers, internal cultural tensions, and growing skepticism toward the globalist model—Deneen argues that local loyalties, religious roots, and national traditions are essential for the political health of nations. He considers that what is called ‘liberal intolerance’ is not an anomaly but the logical consequence of a system that, when it fails to domesticate deep convictions, resorts to direct coercion.
His reading of American and European politics breaks with the classic categories of Left and Right. For him, the new political axis is drawn between a transnational elite—educated, cosmopolitan, and corporate—and a working class that, paradoxically, has become the main conservative force. The interview, conducted during MCC Feszt, distills his ideas on the changing paradigm, the limits of progressive tolerance, and the concept of the common good in fragmented societies.
Has the Right–Left paradigm changed?
Yes, fundamentally. After World War II, the Left defended the working class, inspired by socialist and even Marxist traditions, while the Right represented financial elites. Today it’s the opposite: the Democratic Party in the U.S. is the party of corporations, high incomes, and higher education; its biggest donors are universities, multinationals, and major institutions. The Republican Party has become the party of the working class. This dismantles the idea that workers always favor Left-wing solutions. Marx already feared that the working class, more conservative than the elite, valued stability, order, and traditions.
Are we facing global, monolithic thinking in the name of diversity?
Diversity has always been a challenge; it’s not a modern invention. Contemporary liberalism suggests that we shouldn’t pursue a common good, but rather that each person should do whatever they want under a pact of non-aggression. But that requires everyone to be liberal first and then, if they wish, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. In this way, supposed diversity dissolves into a homogeneity of materialist consumers. This impoverishes human life, depriving us of essentials like friendship, family, and the pursuit of truth, leaving a void of meaning.
How has liberalism acted against those who resist its project?
At first through indirect means, mainly economic: to be integrated, you must set aside your religious beliefs or traditional values in the name of efficiency. However, when resistance touches on fundamental aspects—such as the vision of man and woman, marriage, or the role of God—liberalism turns to direct means. This gives rise to what I call ‘liberal intolerance’ or ‘illiberal liberalism.’ It’s not a deviation but the logical consequence of its development.
Are there limits to this advance?
Yes, the denial of biological reality was a breaking point. Claiming that men and women don’t exist, or replacing those terms with ‘birthing person’ triggered a popular backlash. Not everyone who supported Trump did so out of personal affinity, but as a reaction to progressive radicalism.
Is it inevitable for liberalism to go this far?
It’s in its internal logic. It constantly seeks new realities to overturn in the name of individual freedom—to the point of considering it arbitrary to be a man, woman, parent, or child. Reality eventually reasserts itself, but the revolutionary drive is constant. We have entered the culmination of liberal logic, which is a form of liberal oppression.
Does truth defend itself?
Reality tends to reappear because it’s part of our human nature. This includes recognizing the distinct roles of men and women, but also that we are part of nature. Here, the Right is revisiting its positions: it’s not just about climate alarmism but about how to live within the limits of the planet. There’s tension between techno-optimism—seeking to overcome those limits, even by going to Mars—and a more “earthy” conservatism that values agriculture, local community, and moderation in consumption.
How would you define the common good?
The word ‘common’ in English means both ‘shared’ and ‘ordinary.’ One way to measure the common good is to see how the commoners—ordinary citizens—are doing. Are they flourishing or sinking? JD Vance, now Vice President of the United States, comes from that world and knows what it’s like to see it devastated by misguided economic and social policies. A well-ordered society should allow that, even without the advantages of the elite, the children of the commoners still have real opportunities.
Javier Villamor is a Spanish journalist and analyst. Based in Brussels, he covers NATO and EU affairs at europeanconservative.com. Javier has over 17 years of experience in international politics, defense, and security. He also works as a consultant providing strategic insights into global affairs and geopolitical dynamics.
