CAT 2023 Slot 2 — VARC Question 9
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
âââââââOver the past four centuries liberalism has been so successful that it has driven all its opponents off the battlefield. Now it is disintegrating, destroyed by a mix of hubris and internal contradictions, according to Patrick Deneen, a professor of politics at the University of Notre Dame. . . . Equality of opportunity has produced a new meritocratic aristocracy that has all the aloofness of the old aristocracy with none of its sense of noblesse oblige. Democracy has degenerated into a theatre of the absurd. And technological advances are reducing ever more areas of work into meaningless drudgery. “The gap between liberalism’s claims about itself and the lived reality of the citizenry” is now so wide that “the lie can no longer be accepted,” Mr Deneen writes. What better proof of this than the vision of 1,000 private planes whisking their occupants to Davos to discuss the question of “creating a shared future in a fragmented world”? . . .
Deneen does an impressive job of capturing the current mood of disillusionment, echoing leftwing complaints about rampant commercialism, right-wing complaints about narcissistic and bullying students, and general worries about atomisation and selfishness. But when he concludes that all this adds up to a failure of liberalism, is his argument convincing? . . . He argues that the essence of liberalism lies in freeing individuals from constraints. In fact, liberalism contains a wide range of intellectual traditions which provide different answers to the question of how to trade off the relative claims of rights and responsibilities, individual expression and social ties. . . . liberals experimented with a range of ideas from devolving power from the centre to creating national education systems.
Mr Deneen’s fixation on the essence of liberalism leads to the second big problem of his book: his failure to recognise liberalism’s ability to reform itself and address its internal problems. The late 19th century saw America suffering from many of the problems that are reappearing today, including the creation of a business aristocracy, the rise of vast companies, the corruption of politics and the sense that society was dividing into winners and losers. But a wide variety of reformers, working within the liberal tradition, tackled these problems head on. Theodore Roosevelt took on the trusts. Progressives cleaned up government corruption. University reformers modernised academic syllabuses and built ladders of opportunity. Rather than dying, liberalism reformed itself.
Mr Deneen is right to point out that the record of liberalism in recent years has been dismal. He is also right to assert that the world has much to learn from the premodern notions of liberty as self-mastery and self-denial. The biggest enemy of liberalism is not so much atomisation but old-fashioned greed, as members of the Davos elite pile their plates ever higher with perks and share options. But he is wrong to argue that the only way for people to liberate themselves from the contradictions of liberalism is “liberation from liberalism itself”. The best way to read “Why Liberalism Failed” is not as a funeral oration but as a call to action: up your game, or else.
The author of the passage is likely to disagree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:
Answer & solution
- A
if we accept that liberalism is a dying ideal, we must work to find a viable substitute.
- B
the essence of liberalism lies in greater individual self-expression and freedoms.
- C
claims about liberalism’s disintegration are exaggerated and misunderstand its core features.
liberalism was the dominant ideal in the past century, but it had to reform itself to remain so.
Easy
This is an EXCEPT question, so three options state things the author would disagree with, and one states something he agrees with. The author's own view: Deneen is wrong to call liberalism dead; liberalism has survived for four centuries precisely because it keeps reforming itself. Find the option that matches the author, not Deneen.
"If we accept liberalism is dying, we must find a substitute." The author rejects the premise that liberalism is dying ("Rather than dying, liberalism reformed itself"), so he would disagree — this is a statement he opposes.
"The essence of liberalism lies in greater individual self-expression and freedom." This is Deneen's narrow definition; the author explicitly counters that liberalism "contains a wide range of intellectual traditions." So the author disagrees.
"Claims about liberalism's disintegration are exaggerated and misunderstand its core features." This is close to the author's view, but it is too strong on one point: the author concedes the record "has been dismal" and the threat of greed is real. The cleaner match is D, which captures his central thesis precisely. Not the best fit.
"Liberalism was the dominant ideal in the past century, but it had to reform itself to remain so." This is exactly the author's argument — four centuries of dominance sustained through self-reform (Roosevelt, the Progressives, university reformers). The author agrees with this. Correct.
Option D — the one statement the author endorses is that liberalism stayed dominant by reforming itself.