Grok says: “Liberalism and democracy can be at odds because liberalism emphasizes individual rights, limited government, and protections against majority rule, while democracy prioritizes majority rule and collective decision-making. Liberalism seeks to constrain state power through checks like constitutions or judicial review, which can conflict with democratic demands for popular sovereignty. For example, a democratic majority might support policies—like restricting certain speech or seizing property—that violate liberal principles of free expression or property rights. Conversely, liberal institutions, such as courts overturning popular laws, can frustrate democratic will, appearing elitist or undemocratic. This tension arises when the majority’s desires clash with protections for individual or minority rights, forcing a trade-off between collective power and personal liberty.”
Adrian Vermeule: “Liberalism is created by and in the service of elites who capture most of the upside gains of ever-greater release from customary, moral, and economic constraints, and who are buffered — economically and personally — from the downside risks and losses. Liberalism’s agents know and fear that the broader demos may reject their aspirations for ever-more-satisfying forms of creativity and self-fulfillment.”
Grok says:
Adrian Vermeule’s quote critiques liberalism as a system designed to benefit elites while potentially alienating the broader population. Let’s unpack and develop this idea by exploring its core claims, historical and philosophical roots, and implications in contemporary contexts, while grounding the analysis in reason and skepticism.
Core Claims
Vermeule argues that liberalism—understood as a political and cultural framework emphasizing individual freedom, autonomy, and release from traditional constraints—serves elite interests. He suggests:
Elite Capture: Liberalism’s benefits (economic, cultural, personal) disproportionately accrue to elites who drive its agenda.
Asymmetry of Risk: Elites are insulated from the negative consequences of liberal policies, while the broader population bears the costs.
Elite Anxiety: Those promoting liberalism fear resistance from the “demos” (the common people), who may reject the elite’s vision of progress and self-fulfillment.
Historical and Philosophical Context
Liberalism, rooted in Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Mill, and Kant, prioritizes individual rights, free markets, and secular governance over collective traditions or moral frameworks. Vermeule’s critique aligns with a broader intellectual tradition skeptical of liberalism’s universalist claims, including:
Marxist Critiques: Marxism views liberalism as a tool of the bourgeoisie, masking class exploitation under the guise of universal freedom. Vermeule’s “elites” could be seen as a modern bourgeoisie, profiting from deregulated markets and cultural individualism.
Burkean Conservatism: Edmund Burke emphasized the value of tradition and social cohesion, warning against rapid change driven by abstract ideals. Vermeule, a legal scholar with Catholic integralist leanings, echoes this concern for customary constraints.
Post-Liberal Thinkers: Contemporary critics like Patrick Deneen (in Why Liberalism Failed) argue that liberalism erodes community, family, and virtue, creating a fragmented society where only the powerful thrive.
Vermeule’s focus on elites suggests a populist inflection, resonating with critiques of globalization, technocracy, and cultural progressivism. His mention of the “demos” invokes a tension between democratic sovereignty and elite governance, a recurring theme in debates over liberalism’s legitimacy.
Developing the Argument
Let’s explore Vermeule’s claims in three dimensions: economic, cultural, and political.
1. Economic Dimension: Elite Capture and Risk Asymmetry
Liberalism’s economic policies—free markets, globalization, deregulation—have generated immense wealth but also inequality. Elites (corporate leaders, financiers, tech moguls) benefit from open borders, technological disruption, and flexible labor markets. For example:
The top 1% in the U.S. now hold over 30% of the nation’s wealth (Federal Reserve data, 2023), a trend accelerated by post-1980s neoliberal reforms.
Globalization has enriched multinational corporations while hollowing out industrial heartlands, leaving working-class communities vulnerable to job loss and cultural erosion.
Elites are “buffered” from these downsides through wealth, mobility, and access to private systems (e.g., elite education, healthcare). The broader demos, however, faces wage stagnation, housing unaffordability, and social dislocation. Vermeule’s critique suggests liberalism’s promise of universal prosperity is a myth, with elites reaping rewards while externalizing costs.
2. Cultural Dimension: Creativity vs. Cohesion
Liberalism celebrates individual self-expression, challenging traditional norms around family, religion, and community. Vermeule sees this as serving elites who seek “ever-more-satisfying forms of creativity and self-fulfillment.” Examples include:
Cultural shifts toward secularism and individualism, which elites navigate with ease due to their resources and social networks.
The promotion of cosmopolitan values, which align with the lifestyles of urban professionals but alienate those rooted in local traditions.
The demos, less equipped to adapt to rapid cultural change, may feel their values—often tied to religion, family, or place—are under siege. This fuels backlash, as seen in populist movements (e.g., Brexit, Trumpism), which Vermeule implies elites fear. Data from Pew Research (2020) shows 60% of Americans believe traditional values are declining, with rural and working-class respondents most likely to express concern.
3. Political Dimension: Elite Anxiety and Democratic Resistance
Vermeule’s claim that elites “fear” the demos points to a crisis of legitimacy. Liberal institutions—courts, media, universities—are increasingly seen as disconnected from popular will. Examples:
The rise of “populist” leaders challenging liberal orthodoxy (e.g., Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil).
Declining trust in institutions: Gallup (2024) reports only 30% of Americans have confidence in the media, and 25% in Congress.
Elites, Vermeule suggests, respond by doubling down on technocratic governance—think global climate agreements or social media censorship—which further alienates the demos. This creates a feedback loop: elite policies provoke resistance, which elites counter with more control, risking democratic erosion.
Counterarguments and Nuances
To test Vermeule’s thesis, consider liberal defenses:
Universal Benefits: Liberalism has lifted billions out of poverty globally (e.g., World Bank data shows extreme poverty fell from 36% in 1990 to 9% in 2022). Critics might argue that focusing on elite capture ignores broader gains.
Individual Empowerment: Liberalism’s emphasis on rights has empowered marginalized groups (e.g., women, minorities), not just elites. Vermeule’s focus on traditional constraints risks romanticizing hierarchical pasts.
Populist Risks: The demos’ rejection of liberalism can veer into authoritarianism or xenophobia, as seen in some populist movements. Elites’ fears may be justified if unchecked populism threatens democratic norms.
Yet Vermeule’s critique holds weight where liberalism’s idealism masks power dynamics. The tension between individual freedom and collective stability remains unresolved, and elites’ insulation from consequences fuels distrust.
Contemporary ImplicationsVermeule’s ideas resonate in 2025’s polarized climate:
Tech and AI: The AI revolution, driven by liberal principles of innovation, enriches tech elites while threatening jobs for the demos. X posts from 2024 show growing public unease about AI’s societal impact.
Cultural Wars: Debates over free speech, cancel culture, and traditional values reflect the elite-demos divide. Elites in media and academia often frame dissent as “backwards,” reinforcing Vermeule’s point about fear of the demos.
Political Realignment: Both left and right increasingly critique liberalism—progressives decry corporate power, conservatives lament moral decay. Vermeule’s integralist leanings suggest a post-liberal alternative, though his vision of a morally grounded state raises its own concerns about coercion.
Conclusion
Vermeule’s critique portrays liberalism as a project that, intentionally or not, prioritizes elite interests while risking alienation of the broader population. By removing customary, moral, and economic constraints, liberalism creates a world where elites thrive but the demos struggles, leading to resentment and potential backlash. Developing this idea reveals tensions between freedom and stability, individual and collective, elite and masses—tensions liberalism has yet to fully resolve. Whether one agrees with Vermeule’s diagnosis, his warning about elite capture and democratic discontent demands serious reflection in an era of growing polarization.
