Product Description

In this trenchant challenge to social engineering, Paul Gottfried analyzes a patricide: the slaying of nineteenth-century liberalism by the managerial state. Many people, of course, realize that liberalism no longer connotes distributed powers and bourgeois moral standards, the need to protect civil society from an encroaching state, or the virtues of vigorous self-government. Many also know that today's "liberals" have far different goals from those of their predecessors, aiming as they do largely to combat prejudice, to provide social services and welfare benefits, and to defend expressive and "lifestyle" freedoms. Paul Gottfried does more than analyze these historical facts, however. He builds on them to show why it matters that the managerial state has replaced traditional liberalism: the new regimes of social engineers, he maintains, are elitists, and their rule is consensual only in the sense that it is unopposed by any widespread organized opposition.

Throughout the western world, increasingly uprooted populations unthinkingly accept centralized controls in exchange for a variety of entitlements. In their frightening passivity, Gottfried locates the quandary for traditionalist and populist adversaries of the welfare state. How can opponents of administrative elites show the public that those who provide, however ineptly, for their material needs are the enemies of democratic self-rule and of independent decision making in family life? If we do not wake up, Gottfried warns, the political debate may soon be over, despite sporadic and ideologically confused populist rumblings in both Europe and the United States.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #902498 in Books
• Published on: 2001-09-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 200 pages

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
"This brilliant and disquieting book should reshape current debates and be essential reading for all who seek to understand them."

Review
After Liberalism is no angry screed, but a dense, probing work full of insight from the author's seeming encyclopedic knowledge of Western thought.
(World )

The central fact of the nineteenth century was the emergence of the working class. The central fact of the twentieth century is the emergence of a managerial "New Class" elite, reshaping all modern democracies in its own interest. Gottfried's is a gold-standard analysis of this extraordinary phenomenon, heavily encrusted with sparkling jewels of intellectual history.
(Peter Brimelow, Senior Editor Forbes Magazine )

Well-written, very learned, and informative. . . .
(Paul Seaton Society )

Review
Although I disagree with the author on many of his points, I strongly recommend it. Gottfried's thesis is refreshingly novel, strongly advanced, and clearly presented. Whether one is interested in the future of the welfare state or family values, or the economic and social future of America, this is a book one wishes to read.
(Amitai Etzioni, author of "The New Golden Rule" )

Customer Reviews

The Rise of the Managerial State.
_After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State_ by Paul Gottfried is a very powerful and important book which shows specifically how a discontinuity existing between nineteenth century liberalism and its twentieth century version has made possible the rise of a "managerial state". Such a state has made self determination an impossibility, given the rise of a managerial elite to safeguard the public from its own "authoritarian" tendencies. Gottfried traces the corruption and discontinuity in liberalism to such figures as Jean Jacques Rousseau (who felt that man must be "forced to be free"), John Stuart Mill (who ended up advocating socialist policies), and especially John Dewey - all of whom abandoned the free market principles of original liberals. The influence of Dewey among the educational establishment cannot be underestimated. In the twentieth century the two world wars brought out a conflict between three separate types of state: the fascist state of Mussolini (which had "gone beserk" allying itself with Adolf Hitler), the communist state of Josef Stalin, and the modern managerial/welfare state brought about through New Deal legislation by FDR. During the war, the communists joined the side of the Allies and destroyed fascism, only later to die a death of their own subsequently that century. This leaves us today with the managerial state, which seeks to spread a "global democratic faith" throughout the world, while negating and containing the influences of traditional sources of community, particularly religion. The new state is pluralistic and multiculturalist (meaning that any friction that arises between different races and ethnic groups must be curtailed in alignment with the "moralistic" teachings of the managerial elite). Also, the elite seek to redistribute income by means of democracy and stoking the flames of class warfare and envy. In the United States in particular, but even more so in the European nations, the nation has been coopted by elites as a global location for massive immigration from the third world (justified by appealing to the rhetoric of "human rights", invented by the New Class precisely for this purpose). Any attempt at dissent from the dominating paradigm is shouted down as "insensitivity" or worse as outright "fascism" - a term which is consistently abused and used to stigmatize all those who adhere to traditional notions of self government. According to Gottfried, both socialist Left and neoconservative "Right" adhere strongly to these principles regarding them as near articles of faith because they allow the two dominant parties of the elite to maintain their power. Gottfried also points to a Jewish-Puritanical influence which has sought to contain dissent, particularly through moralism (which amounts to preaching an anti-racist, sensitivity-based social gospel), and shows how all beliefs contrary to this value system are deemed to be a product of "mental illness", thereby giving a therapeutic role to the elite. Such a case is particularly emblematic of Adorno's post-World War II studies in the "authoritarian personality". With the rise of political correctness in the university system, coupled with a racist national policy of affirmative action, which can be arbitrarily extended, education has been subverted and all means of dissent have been stifled. Amazingly however, the populace does not support generally the goals of the elite, which has led many who are particularly disturbed by New Class social engineering to appeal to direct democracy. Gottfried also shows how populist resistance to the managerial state has built up and found expression in movements both in the United States and Europe. For example, Gottfried cites former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who appealed to the tradition of an isolationist, nationalist "Old Right" as well as traditional Catholicism, and the National Front of Le Pen in France which sought to deal effectively with the immigration problem for France. Also, Gottfried notes that "postmodernist rightists" such as Alain de Benoist in France successful criticize the current state, despite disgusting attempts by postmodernist leftists such as Jacques Derrida to entirely censor them. Indeed, Gottfried provides several examples of precisely how "anti-hate legislation" is used as a weapon of tyranny by the elite managerial class to maintain their power. Unfortunately, while populist resistance does exist, it has also been severely marginalized. Gottfried seems unable to fully predict the future of the managerial state, though he obviously supports populist resistance and secessionary movements. One issue that remains important though I believe is not fully dealt with by Gottfried is how to rectify calls for a completely free market with cultural conservativism and restoration of tradition. Afterall, a completely free market would presumably have no restrictions on such things as drugs, abortions, pornography, or prostitution, things which would have to be prevented by appeals to traditional morality and religion. Also, it is difficult to see how such a thing could avoid falling into outright barbarism. In sum, however, while the future for democratic liberalism and self-determination looks bleak, given the rise of an elite class who intend to enforce their values on all citizens, populist resistance is possible, and is perhaps the only way towards counter-revolution.

Sobering Assessment of the Therapeutic Managerial State
~After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State~ is a thoughtful and erudite work, which offers a sobering assessment of the therapeutic managerial state. First, Gottfried purports that there is such a thing and explains its evolution from the Welfare State of yesteryears. The managerial state is ruled by an entrenched oligarchy of administrative elites, judicial activists and social engineers. These for the most part unelected and unaccountable elites frequently promote economic and social policies (e.g. runaway immigration; multiculturalism) in sharp opposition to public opinion. They like progressive education proponent John Dewey hope to remold society with an egalitarian ideology, which has the effect of hyperatomizing the individual and tends to dissolute the traditional social bonds of civil society. Thus as conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet points out, the intermediary institutions between individual and state (e.g. community, church, civil associations, etc.) are weakened and destroyed in the process. The elites entrenched in the managerial state are philosophically the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. They warmly embrace Mill's crude utilitarian ethic to legitimize their cow-prodding the citizenry through dubious social experiments and Rousseau's concept of a "general will" where the inept masses are the "forced to be free." They couple their elitism with behaviorist psychology to manipulate the masses. The locus of legitimacy that the elites cling to is the apparent absence of an organized opposition. Thus Gottfried surmises that the traditional polity of nineteenth century liberalism has been displaced by a new regime of administrative elites, plutocrats, judicial activists and social engineers, which collectively subject the population to therapeutic managerial rule. In their world, political opposition is frequently classified as mentally ill or sick while the masses are made victims and dependents of the managerial state.

Gottfried points out that what is today called liberalism has no fixed essence. But there is rather a great deal of discontinuity between classical liberalism, which emphasized the need to protect civil society from an encroaching and overbearing state, and conceptualized liberty as a negative prior restraint upon state action as opposed to state-guaranteed positive liberty. Thus, the classical liberalism of Frédéric Bastiat and John Locke is no more. What passes for liberalism in the twentieth century is of an altogether different character, hence the title of the book: "After Liberalism." The modern incarnation of liberalism perhaps may be distinguished by its other connotation of "progressivism," though it does exist in continuity with this movement. Gottfried traces the modern liberalism of today to the nineteenth century liberalism of John Dewey, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. He points out that one must contextualize liberalism to understand and trace its developments, and understand the present phenomenon of the managerial regime.

Gottfried offers a thoughtful analysis of the Populist Right's opposition to the therapeutic state in Europe and America. He gives a realistic look at the movement's strengths and weaknesses. He also makes it clear that there is resignation of a sizable part of those ostensibly on the 'Right' to the therapeutic managerial regime. For example, in the United States,the neoconservative camp composed largely of northeastern Catholics and former radical Jews from the Left, feel that the post-New Deal therapeutic state shouldn't be toppled, but we should merely utilize its machinery for purportedly 'conservative' ends. William J. Bennett endeavored to do just this as the national education czar. Since neoconservatism is the mainstream current on the American Right, we may infer the surrender of the American Right ipso facto to the managerial state. Gottfried remains somewhat dismal about hopes for mounting opposition to the managerial regime. In his essay, "Reconfiguring the Political Landscape," published in Spring of 1995 in Telos, Gottfried notes, "The restoration of genuine self-government requires structural decentralization and, above all, the derailing of the present political class. Without that, it is unlikely that there will be any accountability from insulated public administrators, rotating collectors of patronage, or judicial social engineers." Thus a campaign to dismantle the managerial state would require removing the entrenched elite, perhaps impeaching and replacing judicial activists on the bench and outright dismantling of various bureaucracies of the managerial state. Such a campaign would run concomitant with a restoration of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A concomitant devolution revolution would devolve power back to the states and the people. Such a political change would require Americans to rediscover the principle of subsidiarity, which is to say, a limited government that governs closest to home and closest to the constituent, in the end, governs the best.

An indispensable guide
*After Liberalism* is the best treatment yet published of the historical deformation of liberalism -- the replacement of bourgeois classical liberalism by the managerial socialism of modern liberalism. Anyone interested in how this substitution came to pass should read Professor Gottfried's book. In fact, reading it twice would be a good idea. This is a very compact, carefully constructed work that rewards close examination.

Some of the reviews of this book have been very far off the mark. At no point does Gottfried resort to cheerleading for anybody here; he maintains a critical distance from his material throughout. He analyzes the weaknesses as well as the strengths of conservative and populist thinkers and movements, while also giving left-liberals and postmodernists their due. Those who come to this book looking for partisan affirmation are going to be sorely disappointed. *After Liberalism* is, above all, scholarship, not special pleading.