The Postliberal Moment

Why questions of national identity, social cohesion, and the common good are returning to the centre of political debate

Postliberalism is, first and foremost, a critique of the liberal ideology. As discussed in my previous article, liberalism emerged as the dominant ideology in the West during the 20th century. For a time in the 1990s and early 2000s, many believed that we had reached the ‘end of history’. The fusion of liberal democracy and global capitalism was said to represent the highest form of human social evolution.

New Zealand led the way with radical free market reforms that transformed it from a protectionist welfare state into the most open economy in the world. The state came to regard citizens as consumers in the global marketplace, and individualism replaced a communitarian ethos that had characterised New Zealand politics since World War II.

But over the last 10 years, we have witnessed the gradual unravelling of liberalism around the world; particularly so in the Anglo-American sphere, with Brexit and the rise of Trumpism. New Zealand, however, has until now remained faithful to the liberal project. The two major parties continue to maintain a bipartisan consensus on globalisation and macroeconomic policy.

We have come to know this ideological project as ‘neoliberalism’, a term coined by right-wing intellectuals in the 1930s to describe a broad set of free market theories. So entrenched is the ideology that we struggle to conceive of politics as anything other than tax, interest rates, and Gross Domestic Product.

In New Zealand, since 2020, there has been greater emphasis placed by some politicians on cultural issues. One of the most contentious issues of the 2023-2026 parliamentary term, for example, was ACT leader David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. The bill would have overturned decades of case law and established new principles governing the Crown’s relationship with Māori.

While the Seymour bill was voted down 112-11 in parliament, debate about the role of the Treaty in New Zealand law and society persists. Yet the 2026 general election is unlikely to turn on cultural issues. Rather, the most important issue for the average New Zealander remains the cost of living.

Clearly, the neoliberal policy consensus is not working. But to understand why we are stuck in this ideological cul-de-sac, it is important to look beyond economics to the moral, cultural, and philosophical foundations of New Zealand society. This is where the postliberal critique can help explain the present moment and offer new possibilities for the future.

Why Liberalism Failed

American political philosopher Patrick Deneen has emerged as one of the most influential thinkers on the conservative right and the leading advocate for postliberalism in the United States. His book Why Liberalism Failed (2018) makes the case that liberalism has been the victim of its own success.

Deneen argues that liberalism is a paradox. While it has liberated the individual from oppressive social institutions, it has also eroded the foundations of human flourishing by weakening communal bonds, leaving many isolated and bereft of purpose. Individuals are no longer grounded by family and community as they were in the past, but see themselves as separate and autonomous from the rest of society.

According to Deneen, three revolutions in thought and practice shaped liberalism during the Enlightenment: 1) liberation from established authority such as the church, 2) emancipation from arbitrary culture and tradition, and 3) expansion of human power over nature through science.

Yet these core beliefs are a radical departure from how antiquity and Christianity understood ‘liberty’. The likes of Aristotle and Aquinas believed that nature imposes certain limitations on humanity. Liberty was about self-rule through discipline and cultivation of virtue; the main threat to liberty was not coercion by others but rather a person’s base desires and pursuit of hedonism.

In the 21st century, the West has rejected all such limitations and embraced a belief that we can not only transform the world with technology but remake human nature through moral progress. Deneen contends that we are now witnessing the collapse of this belief system. There is a growing sense that something is deeply wrong.

Community, Democracy, and the Common Good

Here in New Zealand, the affluent middle class finds it increasingly hard to ignore the evidence of cultural and social decline. To our shame, New Zealand has the highest child suicide rate among wealthy countries. Family violence, mental distress, addiction, and poverty-related diseases overwhelm the system. Beyond platitudes about “more funding for frontline services”, those in power appear helpless.

For those on the margins, hope gave way to despair long ago. Others feel only anger. Within this climate, voters across the West are turning to authoritarian and populist leaders who promise a return to simpler times.

For Deneen, the solution lies in the reconception of politics as a pursuit of the common good. But what is the common good and who decides? Deneen’s framework relies heavily on Catholic theology and a shared moral order. In a secular New Zealand context, postliberalism must contend with the reality that there is no broad religious consensus to support such a project.

This is where the work of British political theorist Adrian Pabst offers a more useful guide for political action in his 2021 book Postliberal Politics: The Coming Era of Renewal. Like Deneen, Pabst argues that liberalism has reduced politics to the management of economic interests and individual rights. Liberal societies, he argues, struggle to articulate any higher conception of the good beyond utility and consumption. But unlike Deneen, Pabst does not advocate a return to religious authority or reactionary politics.

Instead, Pabst identifies different strands of postliberal thought ranging from national conservatism to the Catholic integralism of Deneen and communitarian pluralism. His own approach is closer to the latter tradition. While grounded in Christian social thought, it is ultimately concerned with rebuilding institutions that sit between the individual and the state: families, local communities, trade unions, churches, voluntary associations, and civic organisations.

This distinction is important in New Zealand, where distrust of institutions is high, but there is no appetite for reactionary or religious politics. The crisis of liberalism here is less theological than institutional. New Zealanders feel disconnected from the political and economic systems that govern their lives.

Public institutions appear distant and managerial. Economic power is concentrated in a handful of rent-seeking corporations. Communities are weaker and more fragmented than they once were. Political debate often feels technocratic and detached from ordinary experience.

A Postliberal Turn in New Zealand Politics?

In this sense, public discourse leading up to the 2026 general election already sounds postliberal, even if politicians themselves would reject the label. Immigration is the obvious example. For decades, immigration policy was considered an economic question: what settings would maximise growth and meet labour market demand? But concern is now shifting toward questions of social cohesion, national identity, and democratic consent.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s recent statement that social cohesion should take precedence over the bottom line interests of business is a subtle but important shift in political language. Luxon was responding to claims by New Zealand First that the India free trade agreement would lead to higher immigration from the subcontinent. Whether one agrees with these concerns or not, the debate reflects growing unease with the idea that economic efficiency matters more than social and cultural considerations.

For many New Zealanders, there is a broader sense that democratic decision-making has been superseded by courts, officials, regulators, and expert bodies. Opposition to ‘co-governance’ was often treated as morally illegitimate rather than politically contestable, while housing intensification policies are framed as necessary and unavoidable rather than a question of local democracy. The backlash now emerging reflects frustration with the depoliticisation of politics itself.

There is also growing recognition that New Zealand’s economic structure no longer resembles the competitive free market imagined by neoliberal theory. A few oligopolies dominate key sectors of the economy. The resulting concentration of economic power has distorted market competition and contributed to the cost of living crisis. Significantly, New Zealand First and the Green Party will go into the election campaigning against corporate power.

New Zealand may be entering a postliberal moment. Not because the country is about to abandon democracy or capitalism, but because the assumptions of the liberal consensus are beginning to lose their authority. Questions once dismissed as outside the mainstream are now moving closer to the centre of political debate.