Saving The Regime
I think I understand Damon Linker’s argument against the “theocons” better than I did earlier, but as I read his latest post on this question I am even more puzzled by his hostility to the “theocon” project. If it is true that theocons believe that “America must be recognized as a Christian nation in the sense that its form of government — its regime, liberalism in the first sense — is essentially, ineradicably Christian,” no one should be more pleased by this than political left-liberals. If it prevailed, this mythology would invest the liberal constitutional order with the sort of legitimacy that would make it impossible for Christians to question.
Of course, it isn’t true that liberalism-in-the-first-sense, the liberal constitutional order of the United States, is essentially Christian, and it is an anachronism of the worst kind to make this claim, so I can see why someone might object to this conflation on philosophical and historical grounds. However, Linker’s objection is not merely that this mythology is wrong, but that it is threatening to the liberal order. What Linker continues to miss is that this effort to baptize liberalism is aimed at shoring up liberalism-in-the-first-sense and it is also aimed, I think, at preventing religiously-grounded critiques of liberalism-in-the-first-sense, which inevitably also blunts religiously-grounded critiques of political left-lliberalism. It ensures that political discourse will remain confined to the fairly narrow limits of different forms of liberalism, which effectively disarms the right and perpetually puts illiberal groups and their institutions on the defensive. Not only does this preclude any possibility of a “theocon”-led turn towards theocracy or anything remotely like it, but it would have to mean that the “theocons” would have to insist that theocracy or any kind of political theology that invests a non-liberal political order with religious sanction is more or less antithetical to Christianity. There are myriad reasons why Christians and especially Christian conservatives should fiercely oppose such a project, but there are very few reasons for a defender of secular America to do the same.
Why do you think “this effort to baptize liberalism is aimed at shoring up liberalism-in-the-first-sense”? As you say, illiberal opinions are currently marginalized in mainstream politics; it doesn’t seem like liberalism need shoring up. It seems more likely to me that “baptizing liberalism” is an attempt to strengthen Christianity by associating it with liberalism, not the other way around. If the only way to save liberalism was to redefine it in Christian terms then it would make sense for Linker to support that project, but obviously he would prefer a “metaphysically neutral” liberalism, and since liberalism isn’t really in danger why shouldn’t he hold out for it?
I can understand how someone might consider Christianity to have liberal ends in mind – feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc. But I can’t understand how anyone could confuse the American liberal form of democratic government with some kind of “Christian” project. Christianity has always been, from its beginnings, an authoritarian form of monarchism. Jesus was not “President of the Jews”, he was “King of the Jews”. Christianity does not put issues to a vote or elect a legislature, it creates monarchial-like bodies who assume authority based upon their Divine relationship to Christ. This is why it always supported Kings and Emperors, rather than the rabble who might wish to usurp their power.
One can certainly see in the Protestant Reformation a movement away from this sort of philosophy of theocracy and government, but it’s not until you actually get to Deism and a sort of classical Greek and Renaissancce cosmopolitanism (as seen in the founding Fathers) that one can embark on the American liberal democratic project. So it really makes no sense to see the American Revolution as a “Christian” project. In most respects it is a rejection of Christian notions of Divine Authority as Christianity traditionally vested it in monarchs like George III. That is why it insisted on a freedom from religious interjections of faith into the process of governmental rule, when Christianity had depended on such interjections in all previous governments, and upon which most monarchial institutions depended for their own legitimacy. The American form of government specifically rejects the notion that it requires such injections of faith to maintain its legitimacy, founding its legitimacy instead upon popular rule. That is a very un-Christian thing to do, and I find it very difficult to imagine that Christians would found a Christian project on such a contrary basis.
Mr. Larison’s point strikes me as *exactly* right, here. I think that part of the reason that I agree (and, perhaps, that others don’t) is that I am rather familiar with the politico-theological disputes in Catholicism between the “Classical-Liberalism-is-based-on-Christian-principles” crowd and the “throne-and-altar” crowd. And a large portion of the project of the “theocons” (whom I shall refer to as “Whig Thomists” to avoid confusion) is precisely directed at casting any Catholic criticism of Classical Liberalism as illegitimate.
For a pretty well-balanced intro to the dispute, this piece by John Allen’s (now somewhat dated) is useful:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw0822.htm
For an ugly (in my opinion) recent manifestation of this fight in the press, see George Weigel’s hit piece on the Society of St. Pius X in Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/181721/
Lots more information can be found at this site, if anyone is interested in pursuing it:
http://thechurchandtheliberaltradition.blogspot.com/
I realize that I am focusing solely on Catholicism here, and that is because (i) it is the only area of the dispute I know anything about (I’d be curious to see how this plays out, or whether there is any discussion about it, in other denominations), and (ii) it is, if I understand correctly, the origin of Linker’s fears about “theocons”.
But it is precisely this context, as Mr. Larison points out, that undercuts Linker’s point. Yes, the Whig Thomist crowd is trying to fight cultural battles from a rightist stance, and yes, they are attempting to demonstrate that Classical Liberalism is grounded in a specifically Christian anthropology. But a large part of the reason they are trying to do that (especially the latter) is to make criticisms of Classical Liberalism *from the right* (i.e., from those who are more conservative than they themselves are, and who reject Classical Liberalism) impossible. And it is true that Classical Liberalism has little need of being shored up in terms of mainstream politics; but that’s not the field that this argument is really operating in. The acceptance of Classical Liberalism among orthodox Catholics is the issue – and there, while it is still pretty solid, it is far more open to debate.
Given his background and past associations with Fr. Neuhaus, I am a little bit surprised that Mr. Linker demonstrates little awareness of this (at least in what I have read).
Please do another BSG post.