Postliberalism stands against the excesses and failures of classical liberalism, but goes well beyond what Church has taught as the ideal political society.
By Fr. Mario Alexis Portella
Crisis Magazine
June 12, 2026
Currently, there exists a significant preoccupation with the theoretical and ideological movement known as postliberalism, which has gained prominence in various Christian neo-conservative circles. This movement is linked to figures such as former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, the latter who identifies himself as a postliberal. It has emerged as a response to dissatisfaction with the perceived inadequacies of classical liberalism in fostering moral values and social cohesion.
Postliberalism represents a modern ideological shift, moving beyond the conventional liberal emphasis on individual freedom and neutrality toward a society shaped by specific, state-endorsed values. This framework rejects the classical liberal idea of a neutral public sphere, where a variety of ideas can coexist with minimal state interference. Instead, it advocates for a political structure where the state and society collaborate to promote particular moral goals.
It advocates a prominent role for the state in directing or regulating industry, moving beyond the laissez-faire principles of classical liberalism by integrating the state's ideological objectives into corporate practices. In a more specific context, it denotes an ideological tendency that employs philosophy and theology, primarily Catholic integralism, which entails the amalgamation of Church and State, upholding distinctly anti-liberal tenets.
The protagonist of postliberalism was the jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). Schmitt rose to prominence during the waning years of the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s and subsequently became notorious for his endorsement of the rising National Socialists. He argued that liberalism is dependent on systematic neutralizations-frameworks that perceive all individuals and viewpoints as equal, thus converting the inherent conflicts of political life into peaceful, regulated dialogues with open-ended, indeterminate outcomes.
In apposition, as he stipulated in his publication The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (1923):
Every democracy rests on the principle that not only are equals equal but unequals will not be treated equally.... A democracy demonstrates its political power by knowing how to refuse or keep at bay something foreign and unequal that threatens its homogeneity.
Schmitt presented a compelling intellectual argument for decisive and unilateral executive action during the "state of siege"-the exceptional moment when the survival of a government was purportedly in jeopardy. To put it mildly, strict adherence to constitutional principles could jeopardize the government's capacity to respond to the emergency by encumbering it with judicial interference. Only the nation's leader, its sovereign, held the perspective necessary to act decisively and navigate the crisis, or so he contended.
In 1934, Schmitt would extend this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion by writing a defense of Adolf Hitler's actions during the Night of the Long Knives-when the Führer ordered the murder of numerous political opponents to strengthen his hold on power. Politics is essentially about recognizing and eliminating your adversaries; the sovereign is then defined as the one who determines when standard rules are suspended.
Schmitt envisioned a leader who exercised governance with confidence rather than humility, actively seeking to assert his authority as the primary influence in government. It is a head of state that, as Sam Whimster articulates,
is elected as a strong personality who will override the conventions and if necessary the constitutional rules-in order to get things done.... The state is no longer [seen as] a rational apparatus of delivery and support of the citizen but instead cast as a burden on the preference-choosing citizen.
In the opening line of his Political Theology (1922), Schmitt states the "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." In this text, Schmitt advocates for extensive emergency powers, asserting that they should be broad and flexible, enabling the head of state to ascertain when an emergency arises and what specific actions are required to restore order. Furthermore, Schmitt's primary concern lies in upholding the concept of a personal sovereign, advocating for a singular rule-by-law as opposed to the liberal-constitutional focus on a rule of law. He champions personal sovereignty, believing it essential for maintaining a sense of transcendence within the realm of politics.