Liberalism for Humans

How liberalism can take on populist authoritarianism and win Why do liberals keep losing elections to populists, even when liberals have the better policies? In Liberalism for Humans, Andrés Velasco and Daniel Brieba argue that the root of the problem is that liberalism is built on a flawed account of human nature—an oversimplified Enlightenment understanding of people as rational, individualistic, and dispassionate. Psychologists, cognitive scientists, evolutionary biologists, and political scientists, however, have shown that people tend to display cognitive biases, are swayed by emotion, and prone to tribalism. Populists understand this; too many liberals do not. Populists and authoritarians appeal to emotion and identity, framing their policies in moral terms. Liberals, meanwhile, come across as technocratic, morally neutral, and blind to identitarian attachments.Velasco and Brieba are careful to distinguish liberalism’s ideals—personal autonomy, equal dignity, and respect—from its political practice. It is the latter that needs to be reimagined and rebuilt. Liberals, they write, start with the wrong set of assumptions, employ the wrong kinds of tactics, and get the wrong kinds of results. Velasco and Brieba propose a five-part rejuvenation of liberalism, arguing that liberals should treat emotion as a partner of reason, not its enemy; harness the power of group identity; build an inclusive national “us” grounded in shared democratic values; speak up for liberal values and virtues; and stay firm on ends but flexible on means, because in politics identity trumps policy. Only when liberal politics is made fit for humans will it become effective in the fight against populism and authoritarianism.