Patrick Deneen On The Future Of Conservatism

For those of you who enjoyed my selections (in five parts) from the the preface to Patrick Deneen's book, Why Liberalism Failed, I link below to a podcast interview with Deneen that was presented at Lifesite. While we await results from various investigations into the most far reaching crisis of the American political order, it seems worthwhile to reflect on deeper questions of political philosophy as we ponder our future.

For background, I introduced Deneen's work in this way back in August:

Deneen's overall thesis is that all liberalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction--progressive liberalism may get to the bottom of the slippery slope faster, but classical liberalism or libertarianism will get to the bottom just as surely because their fundamental principles are the same. Indeed, in a notable quote (see below) Deneen states with regard to the historical ignorance of his students: 

     The pervasive ignorance of our students ... is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. 

The civilization he speaks of, of course, is that of Western liberalism.

Deneen approaches the question of liberalism's death-wish from a philosophical and historical perspective but, before dismissing this as arcane theorizing, be advised that Deneen--writing in 2018--is keenly aware of current political realities. He writes with Trump--and "populism" generally--very much at the front of his mind.

The writer at Lifesite introduces Deneen's thinking in these words:

The thesis of “Why Liberalism Failed” can be shoved into a nutshell of, “liberalism is failing because liberalism is succeeding.” Deneen provides clarity in the definitions of conservatism and liberalism. He explains that there’s been confusion in what we typically call conservatism in the United States. Deneen suggests that we might more appropriately call conservatives, “classical liberals.” He goes on to say that, “we need to understand there are two variants or versions of liberalism itself.”

Deneen, unfortunately, isn't exactly a charismatic speaker, but he is clear. The podcast is 40 minutes long (after a ~4 minute intro) and is quite worthwhile. Highlights, for most listeners, will be his critique of Ronald Reagan. At the end, he states that he is ‘surprisingly hopeful’ for the future.



Here are the main previous posts on Deneen:

Why Liberalism Failed (1)

Why Liberalism Failed (2)

Why Liberalism Failed (3)

Why Liberalism Failed (4)

Why Liberalism Failed (5)

Why Liberalism Failed (1)

While we wait for Bill Barr to--hopefully--restore some semblance of America's constitutional order in the wake of what is undoubtedly the most shattering political scandal and crisis in our national history, we can do worse than to consider whether we are witnessing the breakdown of the West's Liberal Democratic order itself. An excellent starting point is Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed. As a political philosopher he uses the term "liberalism" to refer to both wings of politics in modern America: progressive liberalism and what Deneen most often refers to as "mainstream" conservatism--what for many is libertarianism.

Deneen's overall thesis is that all liberalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction--progressive liberalism may get to the bottom of the slippery slope faster, but classical liberalism or libertarianism will get to the bottom just as surely because their fundamental principles are the same. Indeed, in a notable quote (see below) Deneen states with regard to the historical ignorance of his students:

The pervasive ignorance of our students ... is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide.

The civilization he speaks of, of course, is that of Western liberalism.

Patrick Deneen On Amy Coney Barrett

Will Justice Amy be the second coming of Clarence Thomas--only as a white female? I sure hope so! And Patrick Deneen offers some hope in that regard in this teaser. What a concept, hey? America as a project to secure the common good. The point is, for that to be the case there needs to be some basic agreement on just what the common good is. Says Deneen:

So the constitution is not merely a non-aggression pact, as I think it has been increasingly interpreted, for people to do as they wish.

 

In other words, at the time of the founding there was a basic agreement as to the substantive content underlying the notion of a common good. We need to recover that to Make America Great Again. I believe AG Bill Barr is very much on board with that project--of recovering a substantive notion of the common good--and Deneen contends that Justice Amy will be, too. I'm all for it.

"America is a political project to secure the common good."@PatrickDeneen on natural law, the common good, the U.S. Constitution, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Full interview coming soon on @NatConTalk . pic.twitter.com/iLGu4lDXTK

— Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) September 29, 2020

Briefly Noted: We Are In The Fight Of Our Lives Over Epistemology

Today there are two important articles out that, while they may be different in tone, I think you'll recognize as closely connected and directly related to our larger cultural and political crisis.

The first article is, remarkably, by a Yale graduate in philosophy. I say "remarkably" because I would have expected someone so sensible to have been weeded out. The sentence in the article that REALLY jumped out at me is this one:

 "we are in the fight of our lives over epistemology"

Call it a fight instigated by a Great Philosophical Reset--one that dates back centuries but is reaching critical mass today in the public and civic life of our culture. Of course, few of our elite political masters would recognize this crisis as an epistemological or philosophical one. One no longer expects depth from politicians. Our real masters might well recognize the reality of this fight over epistemology--and for precisely that reason they would seek to cancel the very thought from the public discourse. 

Yet it is a reality, and it's the reality that I attempted to address in the earlier years of this blog, especially from 2010-2012. The reality of this struggle, with its roots in epistemology, is also the reason that--seemingly in an earlier life--I translated Etienne Gilson's Thomist Reason and the Critique of Knowledge. In more recent days, this conviction lies behind my periodic presentation of the thinking of people like (but not limited to) Patrick Deneen. In one post I wrote the following--and the principles Deneen refers to are in fact epistemological and metaphysical. Most moderns would disdain preoccupation with such principles, but they do in fact control our world, willy nilly:

The Power Elite

The Power Elite is an article that Patrick Deneen wrote in June 2015--so, pre-Trump. It's obviously drawing on the C. Wright Mills classic of the same name--which I read as a sophomore in college. It's interesting Deneen's 2015 article with with the results of the 2016 election as well as with what he's writing in 2019. The article was written

As the dust from the recent explosion over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act begins to settle, ...

Remember that? It was a very big deal in the leadup to the 2016 Presidential elections. Very big.

And Deneen adds, to set the narrative:

Mike Pence, Asa Hutchinson, and the Republican party were not blindsided by opposition to RFRA by gay rights activists. What knocked them back were major corporations, such as Apple, Walmart, and Angie’s List, and organizations such as the NCAA that denounced the law, ..., which was an idiotic miscalculation given the fact that establishment outrage scuttled the Arizona RFRA last year. 

The decision by corporate leaders to take a political stand over a controversial issue is therefore of great interest. Corporations and business leaders almost always avoid political statements and announcements, recognizing that such declarations have the effect of unnecessarily alienating potential customers. Corporations live in constant fear of bad pub­licity that can ruin a brand carefully erected through millions of dollars of advertising and publicity. Why step into a heated political debate and ­unnecessarily turn half of your customers away? Corporations exist to make money, not to advance political and social causes—except for those that help them make money, of course. 

And that’s just the point: The decision by Apple, Walmart, Eli Lilly, Angie’s List, and so on was a business decision—even more, a marketing decision.

But then came the 2016 election. The same companies and cultural groups opposed Trump. And now the GOP looks to be taking a deep dive into the role of Big Tech in attempting to deliver America to a Progressive One Party state. Maybe opposition to RFPA was the beginning of a backfire?

But here's Deneen's reasoning. Understand that what Deneen seems to mean by Republicans is "Libertarians." He also recognizes that Libertarianism is--yes!--ascendant in the Democrat party, as well. As I like to put it, America's default public philosophy is a "mushy libertarianism."

Demoralized America

The other day I remarked in a comment that the heritage of the 60's is a quite literally 'demoralized' America. Meaning, that the official civic religion of America is a sort of mushy Libertarianism that holds that, since no person can claim to know the truth of things--least of all of human nature--the only rule of conduct for society as a whole is to refrain from harming others. There are no other positive values that society should seek to advance and, indeed, to claim that there are is to be anti-social and somehow anti-American in 21st century America. It's not the kind of thing that many people regard as worth fighting for. We have relied on a general societal willingness to live more or less off the cultural and Western civilizational capital of the past, but that has largely been used up.

What we see now is that a debased intellectual currency has rapidly driven true intellectualism, true history, true knowledge of human nature, out of the public discourse. It has been driven out of our educational institutions--not just the government schools but most private schools as well, as the intellectual rot has become all pervading and the rising generation has been deprived of a knowledge of Western civilization. And that intellectual rot is now reflected in our everyday experience and in our public institutions: in the MSM, in our laws and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and in our interpretation of our constitutional order.

We see the results in an America that appears largely paralyzed as, decade by decades, generation by generation, the Countercultural Left has pushed the intellectual envelope ever further into the realm of denial of all recognizably human morality. With our highest value now simple personal comfort, many Americans have been exposed as intellectually (and, thus, practically) defenseless in the face of those who deny objective human nature with more emotional urgency than many Americans feel about almost anything. Sensing this, the Left seems now to believe that they can use a staged crisis to push their drive for Power to a final conclusion.

Why Liberalism Failed (5)

Below I'm presenting excerpts from the conclusion to Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed. The previous excerpts were from the preface to the paperback edition. That preface was written in 2019 and it was intended to clarify matters that may have been somewhat unclear as well as to respond to the reaction to the book when it was first published. The Conclusion is from the original edition, written in 2018. Having argued that liberalism has failed due to its own inner contradictions, Deneen speculates regarding what type of regime might replace our current failing liberal regime. I highly recommend this brief video of Piers Morgan, whose diagnosis of the current state of the liberal regime closely tracks some of Deneen's analysis: Piers Morgan: "The Left Have Become Unbearable".

Liberty after Liberalism

Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded. As it becomes fully itself, it generates endemic pathologies more rapidly and pervasively than it is able to produce Band-aids and veils to cover them. The result is the systemic rolling blackouts in electoral politics, governance, and economics, the loss of confidence and even belief in the legitimacy among the citizenry, that accumulate not as separable and discrete problems to be solved within the liberal frame but as deeply interconnected crises of legitimacy and a portent of liberalism's end times. 

... 

The "Nobel Lie" of liberalism is shattering because it continues to be believed and defended by those who benefit from it, while it is increasingly seen as a lie, and not an especially noble one, by the new servant class that liberalism has produced. Discontent is growing among those who are told by their leaders that [liberalism's] policies will benefit them [the servant class], even as liberalism remains an article of ardent faith among those who ought to be best positioned to comprehend its true nature. But liberalism's apologists regard pervasive discontent, political dysfunction, economic inequality, civic disconnection, and populist rejection as accidental problems disconnected from systemic causes, because their self-deception is generated by enormous reservoirs of self-interest in the maintenance of the present system. This divide will only widen, the crises will become more pronounced, the political duct tape and economic spray paint will increasingly fail to keep the house standing. The end of liberalism is in sight. 

This denouement might take one of two forms. In the first instance, one can envision the perpetuation of a political system called "liberalism" that, becoming fully itself, operates in forms opposite to its purported claims about liberty, equality, justice, and opportunity. Contemporary liberalism will increasingly resort to imposing the liberal order by fiat--especially in the form of the administrative state run by a small minority who increasingly disdain democracy. End runs around democratic and populist discontent have become the norm, and backstopping the liberal order is the ever more visible power of a massive "deep state," with extensive powers of surveillance, legal mandate, police power, and administrative control. These methods will continue to be deployed despite liberalism's claim to rest on consent and popular support. Such a conclusion is paradoxical, not unlike Tocqueville's conclusion in Democracy in America, in which he envisions democracy culminating in a new form of despotism. 

This certainly describes exactly what we see happening in the Russia Hoax--the disdain of the Comeys, Brennans, and their ilk for the rest of the country, while they continue to spout bilge that they think the "deplorables" will perceive as high minded. But of course the Russia Hoax is simply the most egregious example of many of the way the American Republic has been transformed into a "soft" despotism," as envisioned by Tocqville.

Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland--Cool!

I've just finished a four part series on the Patrick Deneen's book Why Liberalism Failed. A key part of Deneen's presentation is the ironic way in which liberalism, by espousing total liberty for the individual, actually paves the way for a vastly expanded and authoritarian state apparatus:

Liberalism reconceives liberty as the opposite of this older conception. It is understood to be the greatest possible freedom from external constraints, including customary norms. The only limitation on liberty, in this view, should be duly enacted laws consistent with maintaining order of otherwise unfettered individuals. Liberalism thus disassembles a world of custom and replaces it with promulgated law. Ironically, as behavior becomes unregulated in the social sphere, the state must be constantly enlarged through an expansion of lawmaking and regulatory activities. "The Empire of Liberty" expands apace with an ever-enlarging sphere of state control. 

Deneen seems to envision a sort of "soft" totalitarianism. However, we've also noted the FBI's recent claim that vaguely identified "conspiracy theories" are breeding grounds for domestic terror. The FBI report is notable for identifying virtually any "antigovernment" ideas--including "belief in a deep state" and ideas that fall outside "official" explanations--as potentially terroristic. The FBI report is thinly reasoned; it's main point appears to be a thinly disguised attack on the Trump demographic. While actual authorities were quick to debunk the FBI report (follow the link, above), it's important to note that this report was not written in a vacuum. Nor has it just been filed away. The FBI is, in fact, seeking greatly enhanced surveillance powers.

Today, Angelo Codevilla notes similar reports (The White Supremacy Hoax) that have been appearing in recent years, all warning about "white supremacists" and advocating the use of the US military--that's right!--against the threat. It's important to be aware of this context as we listen to the enormously increased chatter about the supposed threat of "white supremacists." Incredibly, one of the authors of such articles was featured very recently in the "mainstream conservative" WSJ:

UPDATED: Liberal Self-Criticism In Response To Failure?

I don't think so. I don't think it's possible, for all the reasons and more that Patrick Deneen cites in his book, Why Liberalism Failed. Basically, liberalism is a denial of reality--and I say this on a very fundamental, philosophical level, not as snark. That's the level Deneen is working on, too. The only self criticism of denial of reality that can possibly work is--to embrace reality. And if you do that you'll no longer be a liberal.

So, this morning the WSJ ran with an article by a writer who "reports on race and politics." I think you get the picture. Here's the title and subhead:

We Liberals Need Self-Criticism

We won’t beat Trump by blaming others and boasting about our own supposed virtue.

I think you can tell from the title that this is really just an exercise in tactics--the "self criticism" really only amounts to: if we want to win we have to somehow stop alienating normal people and make them think we're normal too. Kinda. Notice that he doesn't suggest changing anything fundamental about the Liberal worldview. It's about how to fool more people more of the time.

Here are the five points of his "self-criticism". He basically seeks to answer the question: Why is Trump winning so much and on course to win the Big Enchilada in 2020?

The Wages Of Libertarianism: Huge Government

Harking back to our posts regarding Patrick Deneen's critique of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism), Nathanael Blake has an excellent article at The Federalist this morning. Blake points out the seeming paradox that Libertarianism leads to exactly the same results as overt Socialism: Not just Big Government but HUGE Government. The reason for this--as Deneen and others point out--lies in the shared philosophical roots of Liberalism and Socialism. Both derive from the philosophical or ideological agnosticism of modernity which argues that, even if there really is such a thing as Human Nature, it's unknowable to us and, therefore, should not enter into practical moral decisions. We should, as Anthony Kennedy would have it--as channeled by Antonin Scalia--each be free to define for ourselves "the sweet mystery of life":

In the 1992 opinion Kennedy included what the editors of First Things dubbed the “notorious ‘mystery passage’”: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” You’d search in vain to find a more apt description of our secular age. It’s not as though Kennedy invented our culture of expressive individualism. No one would fault him for introducing our “age of authenticity,” to borrow a phrase from philosopher Charles Taylor. 

But Kennedy gave language to this age’s turn to self as ultimate authority. And then he codified that authority at the nation’s highest legal level through his interpretation of the Constitution. Without the “right to define one’s own concept of existence” and “the mystery of human life” we would not still today have the legal right to deny existence to babies in their mothers’ wombs. We would not have the right to deny these helpless children, our very offspring, their own chance to define the mystery of human life. Abortion is the fruit of a culture that cannot live for or even imagine anything meaningful beyond the self. Abortion is the cost we pay to ensure the self will not be encumbered by the consequences of its choices. Abortion is the reason Kennedy’s retirement triggered apocalyptic predictions from the gatekeepers of this self-centered morality. 

Kennedy’s “notorious mystery passage” would re-emerge in another age-defining Court decision. Writing for the 6-3 majority in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy once again returned to what fellow Justice Antonin Scalia denounced as the “famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage” that “ate the rule of law.” 

Scalia was absolutely correct about this. Kennedy's doctrinaire, philosophy-for-idiots, version of Libertarianism "ate the rule of law," trumping all other considerations of legal and political principle.

The Challenge of Marxism

I'm inserting here an extensively edited version of Yoram Hazony's fine essay, The Challege of Marxism. The essay is Hazony's explanation of why Marxism--which was assumed to have been defeated and discredited with the end of the Soviet Union--has made an astounding comeback in, of all places, the United States, the winner of the Cold War. The short version is simply that a Marxist frame of reference is inherent in what Hazony calls Enlightenment Liberalism or Classical Liberalism--which includes most of those who call themselves "conservatives". Marxism of the variety that we see resurgent in America, argues Hazony, is a logical outgrowth of the Liberal Democracy that was enshrined in the American Founding. If that sounds far fetched, give him a chance--I've edited it to provide the bare outline of his argument.

You may recognize similarities between what Hazony is saying and the thought of Patrick Deneen--as presented here in past posts in which we discussed his Why Liberalism Failed. Hazony, however, is coming from a somewhat different direction than Deneen. Hazony is an Israeli philosopher and a Modern Orthodox Jew. He is also "an outspoken nationalist and has written that nationalism uniquely provides 'the collective right of a free people to rule themselves.'"

For my part, I can agree with his views on religion and tradition to a point--the point at which he rejects reason. Or, at least, I would want to interrogate him as to his exact meaning. However, my purpose here is not to dispute that point but to present Hazony's ideas for the positive value they have in drawing attention to the nature of the crisis in our constitutional order that we're facing. It's important for understanding exactly why this election is so important. It's also important because it will challenge readers to ask just what the way forward is for those who do not wish to slide down the slippery slope into the fantasy anti-reality of Neo-Marxism. Or who believe they have something worth preserving for future generations. What is that? And how can we preserve it?

Are Progressivess Today's Real 'Conservatives'?

In a new article--Why Conservatism is the Natural Home for Working-Class Americans--political philosopher Patrick Deneen proposes a sort of ideological judo move, but one which should prove useful for those seeking to expose the true nature of the Left, to break through standard narratives. According to Deneen, Progressives are, by the definition advanced by Progs themeselves, actually the real Conservatives--the defenders of the elite status quo. This is one of the great virtues of Trump, to have exposed exactly the nature of these entrenched interests, as well as the interests that back them:

By the telling of the intellectual classes, conservatism is the ideology of the elite, aligned with those who seek to preserve the wealth, status, and power of the upper classes against the egalitarian longings of the people. 

Conservatism, it is alleged, was born in reaction against the efforts of ordinary people to gain some degree of political influence, economic justice, and social dignity against the brutal and inhumane oppression of the aristocratic classes. ... Per [Corey] Robin, conservatism is the default ideology of those who seek to conserve the status and privileges of the elite. ...
If Robin’s definition is correct, then today’s “conservatives” are that ruling class we typically call “progressive.”  

It is instructive to consider what group in today’s America is driven “by animus against the agency of the subordinate classes.” Those most invested in maintaining the current form of class division—notably through control of elite colleges and universities which relentlessly sift and distill today’s economic winners from losers, along with support from almost all the main cultural institutions such as media, foundations, NGOs, government bureaucracy, public service unions, and corporate board rooms—are wholly controlled by “progressive” elites, people who have little hesitation condemning the backwardness and deplorableness of the lower classes. For a generation, it is progressives who have relentlessly turned to unelected judges and bureaucrats—often with the assistance of corporations—to overturn duly-enacted democratic legislation. Today’s liberal elites studiously avoid considerations of class, having replaced their historic claims to defend the underclass with obsessions over identity politics that, properly implemented through “diversity” initiatives at every university and workplace, are thinly veiled efforts to keep in place the educational and “meritocratic” structures that maintain the privilege of those same elites.

He concludes by sketching out the hopeful signs that conservatives--in this Trump era--are finally finding their true voice and freeing themselves from counterproductive ideological alliances:

UPDATED: Google And The Power Elite

Earlier today in The Power Elite I provided a synopsis of Patrick Deneen's view of the unholy alliance between the cultural and corporate elites. That was background for Sara Carter's important article (reported elsewhere, as well): Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Of Docs And Laptop To DOJ. What's important about Carter's article is that she provides quotes from the whistle blower that tie in with the idea of a corporate and cultural Power Elite, and also tie in with the Russia Hoax and its aftermath--the plot to never let another Trump happen again. These are all among Deneen's themes. 

So, with that brief intro, here are key excerpts:

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

... 

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said. 

... 

“... People can hear that it is bad but that can be bias. But when they see what Google has actually written with the documents, this will actually be taught in universities of what totalitarian states can do with this type of capability.” 

... 

He said he’s asked himself many times if he’s overreacting “and every time I simply look back at the documents and realize that I am not.” 

“It’s that bad,” he said. “Disclosing Google’s own words to the American public is something I am, must do, if I am to consider myself a good person. The world that google is building is not a place I, or you or our children want to live in.”

UPDATE: American Thinker is reporting that they were blacklisted by Google. The article has good discussion:

 Google blacklists American Thinker

Ball Of Collusion: It's About Hubris

Commenter Unknown could have done much worse than to present the Andy McCarthy "theory of the case," the big picture narrative, this morning. According to this version of events, the Ball of Collusion tied both the Hillary pay to play scheme--a witches' brew of connections between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's gig as Secretary of State, facilitated and concealed by a private communications network--to the War on Trump. The Mueller Inquisition was the attempt to cover up when the Russia Hoax failed to prevent Trump from becoming President.

There's a lot to recommend this theory. I won't argue against it in detail, although I'm skeptical, except to note that the Patrick Byrne story works against it. It seems to me that the use of Byrne to target Rubio and Cruz as well as Trump would always have been a long shot in terms of "Russian collusion," although perhaps useful for gathering political intelligence. It certainly played no discernable role in the Russia Hoax before Trump's election. I still incline toward the view that Trump himself was an existential threat to the Washington Establishment in ways that Rubio and Cruz were not, and that the over-the-top lawlessness of the Russia Hoax was therefore more than just an attempt to protect and continue the Clinton pay-to-play scheme. Any GOP administration would have been a potential threat to Hillary's operation, but Trump was something way out of the ordinary and so all the stops were pulled out to destroy him. Whatever. You can call my view "weak linkage" and McCarthy's "strong linkage."

For your reading pleasure this morning I've excerpted some of John Kass' review of "Ball of Collusion", in which that theory is presented: Andrew McCarthy’s book ‘Ball of Collusion’ thoughtfully connects the dots on Clinton and Obama. Even if you don't fully agree, it's worth the read:

Liberalism And The State Of Anti-Nature

I'll be quoting extensively from a fine article by Nick Timothy that appears in American Compass: Liberalism is Bringing About the State of Nature it Sought to Escape. Here's Timothy's bio:

Nick Timothy is the author of Remaking One Nation: The Future of Conservatism, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, and a former Downing Street Chief of Staff.

What Timothy is talking about is similar to the critique of Classical Liberalism that Patrick Deneen and other Christian thinkers have advanced. Liberal theory derives ultimately, as we recently discussed, from the philosophical skepticism that has become--beginning in the late Middle Ages--the default public philosophy of the West. Basically, the chain of thinking is simply this: If Man is unable to definitively know reality--and especially not the objective reality of human nature--then the ultimate reality can only be each atomistic individual, who creates for himself his own reality. The "state of nature", then, is every man for himself against all others. That being the case, human life in a "state of nature," is likely to be, in the famous phrase of Thomas Hobbes, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Out of sheer fear, then, civil society arises through a "social contract": to avoid the unpleasant consequences of the state of nature, men band together in a contract to maintain order and peace. But note well: this solution has nothing to do with human nature as such, which remains an essential unknown. It is an artificial contrivance that happens to suit most people, but it is not in and of itself a moral good, because in a philosophical skepticism there can be no objective moral laws. (As a brief aside, the truth of all this can be seen also in the increased politicization of science generally, as Liberalism ever more explicitly works out its presuppositions in actual practice.)

By contrast, the Christian view is that Man is able by reason to arrive at an objective knowledge of reality, therefore of the essential attributes of human nature, and then to work out an objective moral order that is based on the good of human nature. Morality and human society are "natural," based on the objective order of human nature, and are good in and of themselves. There is no such thing, in the Christian understanding, of a state of nature based on individuals because we are able to objectively know that all men share a common human nature. Civil society arises from the objective reality of human nature, beginning with the basic unit of the family--not the individual. In as state of nature man exists in solidarity with others.

Since Liberalism rejects this Christian understanding of reality on principle--both the left liberalism that we know, generally as Socialism, and the right liberalism that is known as Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism--it comes as no surprise at all that the cultural hegemony of Liberalism in the West increasingly refuses to attach meaning to the realities of human life, of male/female complementarity, and of the family. Thus we find even "conservatives" led down the same slippery slope of moral relativism as "liberals," even to the point this past week of espousing the astonishing notion that our sexual identity is whatever we choose to make up.

Now, with that introduction in mind, here is Timothy pointing out that the crisis of the West cannot be pinned solely on the Left. True, the Left has historically been more inclined toward a radically explicity abolition of human nature (think of C. S. Lewis' classic, The Abolition of Man), but Right liberals are now in a race to the bottom as well. "Conservative" theory, as we have been led to believe it to be, has contributed greatly to our crisis. Timothy's article may lack something in theoretical rigor (e.g., what exactly does he mean by "conservative", etc.) but I think he's painting a picture of our current state that may sharpen our own understanding of what we're faced with in this crisis. Of what paths may lead us out of our current dead end, and which will relegate us to digging our way into a deeper hole.

One additional thought--any resemblance between what Timothy is saying and the policy path Trump has chosen is surely no coincidence.

Trump And Impeachments Past--The Difference

Daniel McCarthy has a fascinating article at Spectator | USA today that examines the significance of the current Trump impeachment mania of the Dems by comparing it to past impeachments of the modern era. His conclusion is that, as recently as the Clinton impeachment, there was still what he terms a ruling class consensus regarding the fundamental legitimacy of "the system," or as I would say, the constitutional order. We can certainly see that in the attacks from the Left on basic constitutional principles such as the electoral process as it has been know up till now. McCarthy maintains that the consensus has thus vanished and, with it, the legitimacy of the ruling class. The ruling class is going through the forms of legitimate constitutionalism, but in reality they are exposing their own constitutional bankruptcy. What we are seeing now is, thus, tantamount to unthinking "regime suicide."

Impeachment is regime suicideThe ruling class still believes in a consensus that doesn’t exist. Their legitimacy is vanishing

What I present below is the last third or so of the much longer article--read it all. And then compare it with the views of Daniel Greenfield, Patrick Deneen, and Gary Saul Morson that we've examined recently.

To the extent that there was still a skeletal national consensus, it favored Clinton. Impeachment was a circus, but it wasn’t a national trauma. It cast no shadow over the next presidential election two years later. It was a dud that reaffirmed the stability of the American regime. 

With Trump, everything is different. The 2016 election was a referendum on the regime itself. Trump resurrected the populist attacks on the country’s political and economic establishment that Buchanan and Perot had battle-tested in the 1990s. 

Trump was no mere conventional Republican who happened to beat Hillary Clinton. He was a completely unconventional Republican who first beat the party’s own ideological standard-bearers during the primaries, in the course of which he often said things that no Republican had said for a generation or more. Trump’s message in the primaries and general election boiled down to: they screwed you. ‘They’ being the Bushes, the Clintons, the establishment in both parties, the warmongers, the trade-deal architects, the communist Chinese, free-riding allies, and more. 

Trump is no ideologue or political theorist, but he launched a comprehensive attack on the domestic and international liberal order. He campaigned against the system as it has existed since the Cold War ended.​ 

On Free Speech Absolutism

I'd like to recommend to your attention an article by Josh Hammer that, in my view, addresses important issues regarding the common appeal by conservatives to what Hammer refers to as "free speech absolutism." A hint of what he's talking about can be seen from the picture that is at the top of the article. It features Marjorie Taylor Greene wearing a black mask with the red lettering: Free Speech. A lot has been written about MTG and this whole issue, but I find Hammer's article by far the most thoughtful, because it goes beyond the easy issue of liberal hypocrisy.

In particular I draw your attention to the distinction that Hammer makes between "procedure" and "substance", which is the same distinction that Cassander raised in a different context today. To be clear, Hammer believes the action taken against MTG by the Dem House was wrong. His argument is that even if we oppose those actions, we should be cautious of failing to distinguish "liberal procedure"--appeals to Free Speech as a constitutional right (in most instances)--from the "moral limitations of the ... underlying substance" of what is being said.

Here's the link:

The Limits of ‘Free Speech’

But the fact that Marjorie Taylor Greene can so effortlessly retreat to the comparatively safe terrain of "free speech" should concern conservatives.

And here are a few excerpts--but I urge you to read and consider the entire article:

From “Home-Alone America” to “Primal Screams”

That's the title of an article by Mary Eberstadt this morning, touting her new book: Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. It helps to explain why the problems faced by Trump, Barr, and America generally are likely so intractable--how it got this bad, as explained by Patrick Deneen and others. The law of shoulda been expected consequences--even if they were unintended. Excerpt (from the article):

Primal Screams argues in part that the signature political movement of our time – identity politics – is rooted in the post-revolutionary erasure of self, brought on by the shrinkage and implosion of the family. 

Pace conservatives who dismiss such politics as mere theater, I argue that the anguish behind identity politics is real. But its foundation does not lie in abstractions like “whiteness” or “patriarchy” or the “binary.” What the timeline and other evidence shows instead is that identity politics cannot be understood apart from the familial dislocations and fractures endured by generations of homo sapiens since the 1960s. 

Divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness, abortion, reduced family size: all of these phenomena have left post-revolutionary souls with fewer people to call our own – fewer people who can be trusted to do what families are supposed to do: have our backs, teach us, and love us no matter what. 

And with that radical diminution of the family and its protections has come an unexpected consequence: humanity is ever more unsteady, and ever less able to answer the question “Who am I?” as it always used to be answered before – relationally, with reference to one’s place in the natural social order. Deprived of this elemental way of constructing identity, many people now flee, ever more frantically, to collective “identities” that are inferior simulacra for the real thing. 

Politics And The Family

Yesterday I came across a review of a book that critiques--at least partially--the ideology that lies behind most of what's wrong in American life. You'll quickly recognize that the ideology as described is the same ideology that is described by political philosophers like Patrick Deneen. This is the ideology that grew out of the late medieval nominalism that maintained that there is no such thing as common natures, such as human nature--instead, only atomistic individuals exist. This has in the ensuing centuries become the default ideology of the modern world, and underlies the politics and policies of both Right and Left--whether most persons living under the sway of the this ideology recognize it or not. 

This fact explains the phenomenon that we call the "Uniparty" and the result that the difference between liberal and "conservative" administrations is largely a matter of how quickly we descend the slippery slope. The solution, of course, is to escape from that slippery slope by adopting a true philosophy and rejecting this anti-human ideology. The difficulty in this is that, in the course of centuries, it has become almost impossible for us in the West to think outside the box of this ideology. Even the institutions, such as the Church, that should be most strongly resisting it have largely succumbed--gradually but, at this point, virtually completely.

The book in question is by Scott Yenor, a professor of political science at Boise State University. Yennor's focus is on the harm this ideology has done and continues to do to the family as the key societal institution. His contention is that this harm is in no way coincidental. For our purposes, the difference between Right and Left in this regard is largely in the intent. "Conservatives" adopt the harmful policies mostly without the intent to harm the family as such--they do it because they cannot conceive of a different way of understanding human reality and so are putty in the hands of ideologues. Their goal is simply to continue "moderately", gradually. Not so with the Left.

Highly Recommended Read: Ressentiment As Religion

This is a blog by Rod Dreher today, and it fits in with the Patrick Deneen thoughts: Ressentiment As Religion. Teaser quotes:

Driven by ressentiment, they seek to impose their own egalitarian ideology on history by tainting the achievements of those not like them. Never mind the fact that no society has been completely egalitarian, and that we will never know about the white men of scientific genius who spent their lives pushing a plow because rigid class inequalities, or other obstacles, prevented them from rising as far as their talents would take them. Once you go down that historical hole, you will never come out.

... 

The pseudo-religious madness will not be stopped until those who recognize it for what it is put a stop to it. They will destroy every institution, until they are stopped. As Mitchell has clearly understood, the end game is not finding a more just way to live together amid our common human brokenness; it is about identifying and purging the body politic of the transgressors.