Jul 27, 2026 · 32 min · 10 segments
On today's episode of *The Inner Life of Liberalism*, Jason S. Canon and Aaron Ross Powell are joined by…
Christina BambrickGuestJason CanonHostAaron Ross PowellHostChristina, you have long been interested in the resources that liberalism has to go beyond the traditional rights and institutions talk that so much conversation centers on in liberal democracies.
And you recently wrote an article that was titled the promise of virtue old and new.
What is the promise of virtue today? Why does liberalism need to recover its connection to virtue?
Yeah, well, this article actually began in a graduate seminar I took on virtue, more from like a Thomistic perspective.
And it occurred to me in the course of this seminar that a lot of the dissatisfaction, what dissatisfaction exists, both I think from the political right and the political left with respect to liberalism, often kind of circles around dissatisfaction.
certain versions of liberalism and what people perceive as, I think, a kind of inadequate approach to moral questions.
So the article talks about, you know, kind of the neo-integralist movement from the political right and a more kind of progressive anti-racist perspective from the left.
And what I found really interesting was from both, you know, And there's common language about, you know, common criticism about what they perceive as, you know, liberal neutrality and a kind of hesitance to really take on some big moral questions.
So one thing I wanted to bring out in the article was, you know, liberalism is a big tent, right? So I think what these criticisms often focus on is what some take to be a kind of Rawlsian neutrality, which I, you know, to put my cards on the table, I also take to be inadequate.
I consider myself a classical liberal, but I do think some of those criticisms are warranted.
And I think they can be addressed, though, within the tradition of liberalism.
I think if you go back to older versions, and I think both of you, or at least I think, Jason, you focus on early modern thoughts, so you probably see where I'm going with this.
They did talk about virtue, and they didn't... use this kind of language of neutrality or the, in other words, the core of those older versions of liberalism wasn't the same like autonomy and neutrality that you get from later versions.
And so I think if we re-recognize liberalism as this big tent that can encompass this kind of moral language.
It actually offers resources to address the contemporary critics and maybe even shore up liberalism amid, you know, what some consider to be a kind of crisis moment or at least a moment of, you know, issues that liberals are confronting today.
Christina, you have long been interested in the resources that liberalism has to go beyond the traditional rights and institutions talk that so much conversation centers on in liberal democracies.
And you recently wrote an article that was titled the promise of virtue old and new.
What is the promise of virtue today? Why does liberalism need to recover its connection to virtue?
Yeah, well, this article actually began in a graduate seminar I took on virtue, more from like a Thomistic perspective.
And it occurred to me in the course of this seminar that a lot of the dissatisfaction, what dissatisfaction exists, both I think from the political right and the political left with respect to liberalism, often kind of circles around dissatisfaction.
certain versions of liberalism and what people perceive as, I think, a kind of inadequate approach to moral questions.
So the article talks about, you know, kind of the neo-integralist movement from the political right and a more kind of progressive anti-racist perspective from the left.
And what I found really interesting was from both, you know, And there's common language about, you know, common criticism about what they perceive as, you know, liberal neutrality and a kind of hesitance to really take on some big moral questions.
So one thing I wanted to bring out in the article was, you know, liberalism is a big tent, right? So I think what these criticisms often focus on is what some take to be a kind of Rawlsian neutrality, which I, you know, to put my cards on the table, I also take to be inadequate.
I consider myself a classical liberal, but I do think some of those criticisms are warranted.
And I think they can be addressed, though, within the tradition of liberalism.
I think if you go back to older versions, and I think both of you, or at least I think, Jason, you focus on early modern thoughts, so you probably see where I'm going with this.
They did talk about virtue, and they didn't... use this kind of language of neutrality or the, in other words, the core of those older versions of liberalism wasn't the same like autonomy and neutrality that you get from later versions.
And so I think if we re-recognize liberalism as this big tent that can encompass this kind of moral language.
It actually offers resources to address the contemporary critics and maybe even shore up liberalism amid, you know, what some consider to be a kind of crisis moment or at least a moment of, you know, issues that liberals are confronting today.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
