Libenter quibus nos vincant epulamur

1.  Liberalism must abandon the assumption that deepening integration progressively displaces [national] rivalry—that cooperation is the mature stage and conflict the primitive one. A reconstructed liberal theory must treat rivalry and cooperation as permanently coexistent within any exchange-based system, not as successive phases. … [T]he liberal international order is not a space beyond zero-sum dynamics, but one in which they are institutionally embedded and continuously renegotiated. 2. The theory of interdependence must be bifurcated. Interdependence is simultaneously a source of mutual welfare gains and a generator of coercive leverage. Liberal theory has systematically overweighted the first and underweighted the second. A reconstructed framework must conceptualize the conditions under which integration produces solidarity versus the conditions under which it produces chokepoint power…. 3. Institutions must be theorized as dual-use architectures. The same institutional infrastructure that enables cooperation often enables coercion. We must consider which design choices produce which sets of outcomes, with the expectation that cooperation and coercion may both be enabled. Liberal institutional theory must incorporate this dual-use logic from the outset rather than treating weaponization as an external corruption of otherwise cooperative designs. 4. Rent-seeking and weaponization are structurally related, not accidentally similar. The mercantilist logic of extracting value through positional control and the geoeconomic logic of weaponizing network hubs are expressions of the same underlying dynamic: the conversion of structural advantage into extractive leverage. Liberal theory needs a unified account of how market and international institutions can either discipline this tendency or, when they fail, amplify it. 5. The distinction between productive competition and rent extraction must be made operational in policy. A reconstructed liberal policy agenda must make this distinction actionable. 6.  Mutual Assured Dependence requires its own normative theory. The brittle stability produced by deep mutual vulnerability is not the same as liberal peace, and liberal theory has no adequate normative account of it. Reconstructing liberalism requires developing a framework that honestly engages with deterrence-based stability, specifies its limits, and articulates the conditions under which it can be converted into something more genuinely cooperative. A direct corollary is that supply chain resilience is a liberal policy priority, not a protectionist concession. 7.  The transatlantic relationship must be institutionally redesigned, not merely reaffirmed. Rhetorical commitment to the liberal order is insufficient. A practical liberal agenda requires building concrete transatlantic frameworks that explicitly address weaponization and resilience challenges. The architecture must match the problem, the transatlantic case may become the starting point and a core of a global approach. 8. Liberal epistemic communities must coordinate strategically, not just intellectually, to develop a practical liberal agenda for the twenty-first century. The fragmentation of liberal networks means that the intellectual reconstruction underway has no adequate institutional transmission mechanism. Practical renewal requires building the infrastructure—transatlantic research networks, shared policy platforms, coordinated public communication able to respond collectively to challenges like those above—through which reconstructed liberal ideas can actually shape debate and institutional design.

Also, demonic oppression.

That guy is really recusin’ for a bruisin’.

[Quiz]