Modern Liberty, Partisanship, and Identity: On Mark Lilla and Yuval Levin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applying Pierre Manent’s description of the modern regime as an “organization of separations,” this essay retraces the respective developmental accounts of this regime in the early works of Yuval Levin and Mark Lilla—who each analyze a particular separation—and demonstrates its influence on their more recent American political commentary. We gain a deeper understanding of key differences in conservative and liberal approaches to revitalizing contemporary civic life and renewed appreciation for the inescapability of partisanship in thinking and acting politically. Both Levin and Lilla—scholars and public intellectuals alike—emphasize the importance of reason in undergirding free and deliberative politics, but they differ on how it emerges and is best upheld, which in turn influences their proposed remedies for today’s growing individualism, meeting the challenge of identity politics, and restoring moderation to the present political situation. This essay thereby demonstrates that foundational thinking shapes analyses and prognoses of present political discontents, as much as contemporary concerns about partisanship and identity are endogenous to modern liberty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".