However, a second new saying is now whispered in the halls of America: Theocon (i.e., theologically-minded neo-conservatives), ironically the very same name given to an anti-asthma prescription -chemically composed of theofillina and guaiphenesina. This would suggest that theocons are “breath of fresh air” for neocons. And, Judge Bork is certainly one of them, first as a Presbyterian and, today, as a Catholic. The former was the faith of his Protestant upbringing, his parents being of two different Presbyterian denominations. He was then baptized a Catholic just this past July 21 by Msgr. William Awalt and Fr. John McCloskey III. ~Marco Respinti, www.chiesa (October 6, 2003)

There are useful labels and then there are rather stupid labels. As much as I enjoy categorising and labeling things, and even as much as I understand the legitimate and necessary reasons for engaging in such categorisation and labeling (heresiology is perhaps my favourite subject in Byzantine history), there comes a time when the labels cease to mean anything or they become empty symbols that suggest difference or agreement where none exists. Theocon is just such an empty label. What is more, theoconservative is one of the uglier neologisms in a galaxy of ugly neologisms to describe different bands of conservative.

Unlike neoconservative and paleoconservative, which are terms consciously used on the one hand by the adherents of the neoconservative revolutionary ideology (even if they sometimes conveniently wish to deny their own existence) and on the other used by those who subscribe to a vision of humane, conservative order, theocon (or theological conservative) is a term invented as a new way to attack those whom the critic finds to be excessively religious while being politically conservative. Joseph Bottum actually gets something right when he laments this development and anticipates some of the objections I am making here.

The names neocon and paleocon at least seem to refer, however vaguely, to what the two persuasions represent. To listen to them tell it, neocons are supposedly a “new” kind of conservative and I think it is fair to say that paleoconservatives adhere in many respects to traditions of the Old Right (the ‘paleo-‘ prefix nonetheless really only being added to distinguish real conservatives from the neocons). Theocons, unlike neocons, never identify themselves as such. Theocons are not, as their silly, abbreviated name might suggest, conservers of God or divine conservatives. Even though there are a couple of prominent theologians that have been labeled theocon, several so-called theocons (e.g., Bork, Neuhaus, Novak) are not even “theological conservatives” in the sense that their theology underpins much of what they have to say about politics, except in the most general sense.

Indeed, what will strike a theologically literate reader or a reader of Theonomic or even mildly theocratic tendencies about First Things is how little, in a theological journal, theology proper impinges on their political and cultural criticism. This is a product, I suspect, of the odd marriage of Enlightenment social and political models with what is purportedly traditional Christianity. In such a marriage, theology has very little to say to its unhappy spouse, the social contract. The extent of their “theoconservatism” is, in the case of First Things’ editors, an argument that religion has an important place in public policy and discourse (which is admittedly better than the conventional neocon argument that public religion is useful for keeping the people in line), but it only very rarely really extends beyond calling for a place at the public table for “religion.”

That is all very well, and 25 years ago when this was a fairly bold thing to say we could give its authors credit for it, but when it has come to the substance of actually “clothing” the public square with the decorations of religion, namely Christianity, the editors of First Things consistently shy away from taking the positions that this would require. A real “theocon,” if the term meant anything, would not hide behind qualifiers like the “prudence of the secular magistrate” to determine whether, for example, a war of aggression was moral and licit. (St. Ambrose did not give Theodosios the benefit of the doubt that slaughtering the people of Thessalonika was necessary for public order and subject to the “prudence” of the magistrate–he knew well enough that it deserved condemnation and he publicly rebuked the emperor even though, according to the political conventions of the day, he had absolutely no right to do so.) Yet it is precisely such dodges that the editors of First Things consistently employed with respect to Iraq, at least when they did not positively embrace the war as a good as Mr. Weigel did. Through such a shabby use of the concept of “prudence,” they found the one possible loophole that could allow them to support such an unconscionable war.

Theocon is therefore not only an empty label, but a completely misleading and confusing one. Are Theonomists and the evangelical leaders of the New Right theocons, or will we have to invent another, equally stupid label to reflect their views, which are assuredly not the same as Bork, Neuhaus, Novak, et al.? How about deicon?
From the perspective of many on the left, and probably from the perspective of more than a few libertarians, almost all self-identified conservatives are “theocons” or at least potential theocons to the extent that they even discuss religious questions.

But theocon, in the way Mr. Respinti uses it, is apparently more specific than this. Mr. Respinti made a point of defining theocons as a subset of the neocons, and Andrew Sullivan, chief purveyor of the theocon meme, seems intent on focusing his anti-theocon ire on the editors of First Things. But there is every reason to think that Sullivan finds any expression of religious conservatism to be “theoconservative.” Matthew Yglesias’ post on theoconservatism seems to confirm this broad usage of the term theocon. In any event, if it refers mainly to neocons it is terribly misleading and if it is supposed to refer to anyone who believes that the Christian religion should have a prominent place in setting public policy then it is so overly broad as to be useless as a description.