Centrists of the World Unite! The Lost Genius of Liberalism by Adrian Wooldridge

Allen Lane, 2026

Why?

I always enjoy Adrian Wooldridge’s writing - both his books and his columns, most recently for Bloomberg. He combines historical context with a clear explanation of the present, weaving in his own opinions without leaving you in any doubt about where he stands. Above all, he's unwaveringly grounded and rational.

His latest book therefore promised something very welcome: a path through a world increasingly driven by the heart rather than the head. With so much political debate conducted through competing grievances and declarations of allegiance, I couldn't wait to read someone prepared to return to first principles.

Enjoyment factor

I learnt a great deal from the historical context and enjoyed connecting threads between ideas, events and our present predicament. Wooldridge has a particular ability to make the history of ideas feel relevant to the choices we face today.

I also felt vindicated by his criticism of two things I have long struggled to reconcile with liberalism: the global bureaucratic establishment and the fixation on group identity. Both regularly present themselves as liberal, yet neither seems particularly interested in the sovereignty of the individual when it conflicts with its own priorities.

It left me thinking …

How many different schools of thought now shelter under the word “liberal”. It has become such an elastic label that we seem to use it without agreeing on much at all.

For me, liberalism begins with one fundamental principle: the sovereignty of the individual. Each of us should be free to think, speak and make choices, with the same freedom extended to others. We should be judged on our actions and abilities, rather than assigned a set of characteristics or opinions by virtue of belonging to a group.

That makes the growing tendency to define people through ever more elaborate identity categories profoundly illiberal in my eyes, and I'm glad that Wooldridge calls it out vociferously - not enough people are doing so. Recognising the obstacles people face is essential to creating opportunity, but treating their identity as an explanation of who they are, what they believe or what they can achieve is another matter entirely.

Likewise, the bureaucratic global elite (oft better known as the lanyard-wearing class) presents a different problem. Its confidence in its own expertise too often comes with disdain for people outside its circles. A liberal outlook surely requires some respect for those people’s judgement, including when they reach inconvenient conclusions.

Then of course there is populism, with its own demands for loyalty and its suspicion of dissent. Wooldridge rightly recognises its dangers, but what I most appreciated was his willingness to examine the failures of those who regard themselves as its natural opponents.

The other essential part of liberalism is its relationship with innovation, trade and capitalism. As several thinkers over the past 300 years have pointed out, trade gives people a reason to co-operate across personal, cultural and political differences. We do not have to share a worldview to recognise the value of something another person can offer. That exchange creates opportunities for ideas to travel, businesses to develop and cultures to learn from one another.

Wooldridge has explored this territory extensively. Capitalism in America, which he co-authored with Alan Greenspan, remains a much-quoted favourite of mine. Here, too, economic dynamism belongs in the discussion of liberal renewal, alongside a willingness to challenge big business when its behaviour undermines individual choice.

I wouldn't be the first to say that the combination of individual sovereignty, meritocracy and capitalism feels politically homeless. I struggle to identify a major party today that consistently represents this combination of beliefs: the left’s continuing attachment to identity politics often takes it further from individual liberalism than parts of the right. Yet populism on the other flank leaves little room for confidence either.

This matters because a meritocratic society depends on seeing potential in individuals and giving them a fair chance to develop it. Opportunity for all becomes much harder to achieve when political debate keeps putting people into neatly labelled boxes before considering what they might contribute.

I came away with a stronger conviction that progress begins with how we see one another. Each of us is an individual with ideas, abilities and something to offer. A society that takes that seriously gives itself a chance to advance. Wooldridge's book is required reading.