Mark Lilla's The Once and Future Liberal: Reclaiming the American Liberal Dream (2017) is a bracing, if controversial, diagnosis of what he sees as the ailment afflicting contemporary American liberalism. Rather than a call for radical transformation, Lilla’s slim volume offers a plea for a return to older, more universalist principles, arguing that the left’s fixation on identity politics has alienated potential allies and weakened its broader political project. The book’s central thesis posits that by prioritizing the specific grievances of various identity groups—racial, sexual, ethnic, or gender-based—the liberal movement has lost sight of the unifying vision of American citizenship that historically propelled its successes. This focus on particularity, Lilla contends, has inadvertently created a fragmented electorate, making it harder to build the broad coalitions necessary for enacting meaningful policy change.
Lilla traces the roots of this shift back to the civil rights movement and the subsequent rise of identity-based activism. He acknowledges the crucial necessity of these movements in righting historical wrongs and expanding rights. However, he argues that by the late 20th century, the focus began to narrow, shifting from demanding universal rights to advocating for the specific recognition and advancement of particular groups. This, in his view, led to a situation where policy debates became less about the common good and more about which group’s demands should be met, often at the perceived expense of others. He cites examples like the debates surrounding affirmative action or the emphasis on multiculturalism in education as instances where the pursuit of group-specific justice could overshadow a unifying national narrative.
The consequence, Lilla asserts, is a liberal movement that struggles to articulate a compelling vision for the nation as a whole. Instead of offering a hopeful future for all Americans, it too often appears as a collection of specialized interests, each vying for attention. This fragmentation, he suggests, has left a void that populist movements, often characterized by their appeal to a more generalized national identity, have been able to exploit. Lilla is particularly concerned about how this focus on identity can lead to what he calls "parochialism," where individuals primarily engage with politics through the lens of their own group's experiences, making it difficult to find common ground or empathize with those outside their immediate circle.
Crucially, Lilla does not dismiss the importance of addressing systemic inequalities or recognizing diverse experiences. His critique is not a call for a return to a mythical, homogenous past or a denial of the reality of prejudice. Instead, he advocates for a strategic recalibration. He suggests that liberals should re-emphasize the idea of a shared civic identity, rooted in democratic values and a common destiny, rather than emphasizing differences. This requires a language that speaks to the aspirations of the many, not just the specific needs of the few. He proposes that the liberal project should aim to create a framework where diverse individuals can see themselves as part of a larger, unified enterprise, working towards collective progress. This shift, he believes, is essential for rebuilding the political power of the left and offering a more persuasive alternative to the divisive rhetoric that has become increasingly prevalent.
In conclusion, The Once and Future Liberal is a provocative and timely intervention in the ongoing conversation about the future of American liberalism. Mark Lilla’s argument that an overemphasis on identity politics has hobbled the left’s ability to forge broad coalitions and articulate a unifying national vision is compelling. While his proposed solutions may be debated, his diagnosis of a fragmented political discourse and his call for a renewed focus on universalist ideals offer a valuable, if challenging, perspective for anyone seeking to understand and strengthen the progressive movement in the United States.