A New Wave in Political Thought
Has the 300-year reign of Classical Liberalism run its course?
Last October I attended a First Things event on Christian Faith and Political Power, involving the publication’s editor, Rusty Reno, and NYT columnist, Ross Douthat
This event exposed and led me to uncover a growing field of political thought that's challenging classical liberalism.
Thought leaders like Notre Dame Professor of Political Science, Patrick Deenen, kindled some of the early sparks of this challenge, leading to a way of thinking that’s dubbed as Postliberalism, which itself contains many sub-variants.
(Note that Obama and David Brooks have praised Deenen’s landmark 2018 book)
Much like a fish swimming in the ocean having no concept of water (since the water is all-pervasive throughout the fish’s entire environment and existence), the postliberal school of thought suggests that as citizens of Modernity we are all surrounded by the water of liberalism, such that we rarely stop to consider and question it.
Even among the apparent battles of the left-right political divide, there is a silent consensus, implied unanimity, and unquestioned norm that there is nothing better for society than things like individual rights, separation of church and state, and a free Market (and its philosophy of imagining every social interaction as one of mutual selfishness and utility maximization).
When zooming out with respect to a broader scale of history, it's not immediately clear that the 300 year novelty of classical liberalism is actually the best societal configuration humans could ever hope to conceive.
On an economic level, it's true that human flourishing has been comparatively high, both in terms of improvements in per capita GDP as well as the poverty level (though to grant even this would require we ignore the social instability that a grossly skewed distribution of inequality can present).
However, most of us recognize that quality and existential satisfaction to be found within human experience cannot be reduced to merely material measurements. And this is becoming increasingly apparent in light of the spiritual collapse and moral decay that has been manifesting in modern times.
Of course, cycles of morality are nothing new, but what we are experiencing today is arguably the specific inevitable outcome of liberalism at its final stages.
My intent is not to expound upon this argument here, as others like Deenen have already done so.
Instead, I wanted to share with you an essay I wrote at the end of last year with the intention of having it featured on First Things. The writing style of that piece didn’t match the typical First Things tone, however, so I’ve decided instead to publish it here.
While the forthcoming essay may resonate deeply with Catholics and other Christians, I encourage readers of all backgrounds and beliefs to explore it. Its insights into the shifting societal dynamics have broader implications that transcend religious boundaries.
Regardless, a main takeaway is that there is a serious movement brewing among religious thinkers, whose criticism of classical liberalism is making secular waves.
Integralism and Liberalism: Searching for an Equilibrium
I don't know of anyone who would, in good conscience, suggest that we’re living in a stable sociopolitical equilibrium right now, and I imagine most participants in the First Things ecosystem feel the same way. We read, write, and share ideas with others in the hopes of both discovering and shaping what the next equilibrium could look like.
In my view, energies dedicated toward refining the debate between Integralism and Pluralist, Classical Liberalism (the “David French-ism”) will prove to be most fruitful in terms of helping politically-engaged Christians craft a meaningful and impactful vision for society. I have a list of outstanding questions for both sides, which I hope will encourage clarification of positions and an amiable mapping of the territory.
But before we get into the questions, I would like to explicitly describe my intent and methodology.
Sometimes we uncover the precise truth or optimal outcome in a given situation with trial and error, putting forth one proposal and then another, in a fairly discrete manner. We throw darts and the board, and then maybe we’ll eventually hit the bullseye. This is like attempting to directly prove the equilibrium and pin it down.
The other method is to start at both extremes of a given spectrum (where two antagonistic sets of ideas lie in tension) and, by gradually exposing the erroneous limits of each idea, shift the boundaries towards the center—although not necessarily in a symmetric fashion—until the scope of consideration has been sufficiently narrowed to a tighter, more organized range of possibilities. This is the indirect way of arriving at the truth, by way of demonstrating what the truth or equilibrium is not.
Given the complexity of something so abstract and pervasive like the purpose of the State and its interaction with the Church, I believe the latter method will be most productive, since it’s otherwise all too easy to regress to a game of repeated counterproposals, each of which fails to address the core concerns of the other side.
Let’s first look at what the boundaries for a “good” view of the State are, as far what teachings of the Church would suggest. The below is far from an exhaustive coverage, but it’s a starting point that can help organize the discussion, especially for those just entering it. It’s also worth mentioning that while some of the below statements aren’t morally binding, they don’t appear to be subsequently refuted or disowned by the Church in any way either, so I think they merit being taken seriously. Here are the parameters that a proper view of Church and State needs to encompass:
The State should direct its members to strive earnestly for the common good (Immortale Dei §3, §18, §43, Mater et Magistra §20, §65), which is the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment (Gaudium et Spes §26). The State should make it as easy as possible for citizens to possess “that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek” (ID §6), and it should avoid permitting the “license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue” (ID §32). Further, the State’s “mentality and mores, laws and structures” should ideally be infused with Christian Spirit (Catechism §2105, ID §45).
There is a range of acceptable government types, as “the right to rule is not...bound up with any special mode of government” (ID §4), “no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned” (ID §36), and “it is barely possible to lay down any fixed method by which [bringing all forms of civil society to Christianity and advancing truth and righteousness] are to be attained”.
Rather than being its own master and ruler, the State and its power comes from God, and this origin should be actively recognized and sought after (Romans 13:1- 5, ID §3, §13, §30, §35).
The State should safeguard religious freedom for all religious communities, as well as create conditions “favorable to the fostering of religious life” (Dignitatis Humanae §6). Yet this is allowed in “due limits” as dictated by political prudence (Catechism §2108), and the State must protect society against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion (DH §7). Still, the State must not interfere with the Church (DH §13), and to wish the Church be subject to civil power in the exercise of her duty would be “a great folly and a sheer injustice”. (ID §33)
There is some nuance for how much, and what kind of individual freedom is desirable—maximum freedom is not an ultimate end. On the one hand, we should be lovers of “true freedom-men”, yet we should also form men who respect the moral order and are obedient to lawful authority (DH §8). We should avoid the faulty kind of liberty, which begets “contempt of the most sacred laws of God”; this “exorbitant liberty” is more of a “license” or “liberty of self-ruin” rather than truly genuine liberty (ID §36, §37, §38, §42).
The State shouldn’t coerce people to believe the Christian faith against their will
(ID §36, DH §11).
The wellbeing of every State greatly depends on the instruction of youth in religion and true morality, which is something that public provision should be made for (ID §43). To exclude the Church from laws and the education of youth would be a “grave and fatal error” (ID §32). The State has means of pressure that it can use to promote one worldview over another, especially in the education of youth. (Gaudium et Spes §20).
At least some degree of integration between Church and State is beneficial, and this appears to hold empirically (ID §21-22). When Church and State are in complete accord, the world is “well ruled”, and we should strive for “complete harmony”, particularly when it comes to matters of “mixed jurisdiction” (ID §22, §35).
At least from this list, we see importance placed on the themes of the “common good”, a proper understanding of freedom, and the education of the youth. With this background set, let’s consider some questions for both sides of the Integralism vs “French”-ism debate.
For the “French”-ist, Classical Liberals:
Do you agree that the Law is a teacher—that what we put into a nation’s law implicitly dictates to the people some hierarchy of values (at the exclusion of alternative hierarchies) and prescribes norms for citizens to model? If so, to what degree should we care about identifying what values are being implied by the law today and then influencing the law such that it conforms to the values revealed by God?
On a related note, the David French attitude places high stakes on the concept of neutrality. But to what degree is true neutrality actually possible, in practice? Wouldn’t true neutrality require a uniform distribution of “mind-share” across all competing philosophies? The classical liberal mentality seems to suggest that omitting public discussion of religion, for example, would make one “neutral”. However, basic principles of behavioral science and cognition stress the importance of omission—not just commission—in forming one’s view. What we don’t talk about is just as important in influencing another person as what we do talk about.
Even if there were no explicit act of commission, there is always a “teaching” by omission and selective focus that occurs in any kind of proposal or message. It seems to me that, at any point in time, an institution or individual is promoting one of: Naturalism, Postmodernism, Theism, or some pagan worldview. Is there a risk that obsessive focus on excluding the Church from civic matters implicitly makes one a missionary for naturalism, postmodernism, and philosophies that are antithetical to the Gospel?Let’s assume for a moment that understanding what the Founding Fathers originally intended is of the utmost importance, since surely they were functioning as direct mediators between God and man, holding a status of divine revelation on the level of the Gospels or the Torah... Do you agree that the Founding Fathers assumed belief in a Creator was a crucial pillar for the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. to make sense? Or was belief in a Creator nonessential and these documents were meant to stand alone? Did the Founding Fathers promote a sort of non-denominational, laissez-faire theocracy, or was their vision for a maximally agnostic society, where the differences between atheism and theism are deemed to have no material meaning, as far as establishing a hierarchy of values for society?
If the answer to question 3 is that the Founding Fathers constructed the basis of US government under an assumption of agnosticism (a notion that appears to contradict the historical record), then to what degree should we, as Christians, necessarily be married to a view of areligious classical liberalism? Do the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution hold the same sacred weight as the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and teachings of the Church Fathers? Or do the documents of the Christian faith transcend those of the United States? Again, there may not be any actual conflict, but if we were to assume there were, are you first a Christian or an American? If a different system of government, or a different expression of that same system, could lead to more souls saved and more lives fulfilled, would you support it?
Further, will a State that ceases to be Christian still reliably adhere to natural law? Can we rely on human nature alone, without grace, to properly order our political objectives?
Most of the traditional moral laws, such as “Don’t murder” and “Don’t steal” fall under the US Code, rather than the Bill of Rights. To what extent are you comfortable promoting changes in the US Code that could bring us to a more specific realization of the ultimate Good? And more generically, where do you draw the line on moral legislation and imposition, such that you would label crossing the line, “tyranny”? In other words, the restriction (as enforced by the coercive powers of the State) of something like “Don’t murder” is deemed non- tyrannical, while something that feels more arbitrary like “You must work in industry XYZ” would likely be viewed as tyrannical. What are some pro-Christian stances in the middle of these extremes that you would be willing to champion? Or do you fear adding even the slightest increase in moral guidance to the US law?
And more generically, to what extent should the purpose of law be to lead people to virtue and the common good? Or is the law merely an ex post outcome of the minimally necessary negotiated settlement that achieves a practical social cohesion between groups, some semblance of “public peace”, and non-revolt?With regards to religious pluralism, it seems that the crux of the David French position lies in the First Amendment, where Congress should make no law “respecting an establishment of religion”. What is the threshold for you to consider that a religion is being “established”? On one end of the spectrum, we could see establishment in its most explicit manifestation: Imagine a law or amendment that says “Christianity is the official religion of the US government, and every civil matter is to be conducted via an appeal to the power of Jesus Christ. Proposals that don’t quote the Bible or the Church will be thrown out.” This would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment.
But what about laws that make exercise of religion easier or that encourage moral education of the youth? What about a culture or norm where politicians verbally acknowledge a Creator from whom our rights come? Where is the line between promoting virtues and officially “establishing” a religion?
Further, what do you think the Founding Fathers meant by “religion”? Were they cautioning against the endorsement of a particular denomination of Christianity, such that we wouldn’t have a repeat of something like the Church of England? Or were they saying to be agnostic with respect to Christianity and the other major world religions (e.g. “Don’t favor Christianity over Islam”)? Or even broader than that, were they saying to be indifferent to a theistic worldview vs atheism? In other words, were they concerned here with the debate of “God vs No God” or with just “We agree there is a God, but let’s not debate what kind of God”? And even still, where would you make a distinction between religion and philosophy?
Would, for example, promoting a life philosophy of Stoicism over Epicureanism be considered establishment of “religion”?There is great rhetorical power in the classical liberal’s use of the word, “freedom”. When using that word, to what extent do you acknowledge the difference between that “true liberty” as promoted in the Christian faith and the false liberty, which is the license to pursue whatever one desires and to determine for one’s self what is good. Is it greater to be virtuous and wise or authentic and original? If freedom from being told what to do is a cardinal value, how do we avoid facilitating a culture of indifferentism and civic nihilism? When we passionately facilitate others’ self-perception of freedom and desire to “create their own meaning”, does that not produce a certain apathy in our own hearts, either with respect to the salvation of the other, or the seriousness with which we regard our own faith?
Why insist on not using any public power to promote Truth, Goodness, and Beauty? Are Truth, Goodness, and Beauty unknowable, and a matter of subjective taste? Did God Himself tell you to not use the State? Should the cumulative will of the people reign supreme in civil decisions, no matter what? How do you avoid cognitive dissonance in wanting others to experience true freedom in Christ while also wanting to not publicly shape things like the education of the youth? It seems that to hold both would require you to subordinate your Christian faith to something you deem greater than it, which in this case would be the superset of a pluralistic, areligious State.
For the Integralists:
What kind of integration between Church and State do you want, exactly? Would the degree of integration that you desire require a government that is materially more authoritarian than a constitutional republic or democracy? In your ideal formulation, are you seeking out an enlightened despotism of sorts? Or are you content with working within the base parameters of the current structure of US government? How are you intending to distribute your focus among local versus state versus federal reforms?
Assuming you do want some increased elements of benevolent authoritarianism, how do you avoid the good emperor problem? In others, imagine that you succeed in appointing a leader who, almost perfectly, facilitates the pursuit of the genuine common good, directing citizens towards the ultimate good, leading to an unprecedented increase in people having an intimate relationship with God. How serious do you deem the risk that a Machiavellian ruler could thereafter seize the newly expanded powers with detrimental effect, such that it would have been better to not have expanded the powers in the first place? Are you suggesting that a risk like this is worth taking because the present times are simply that bad? Would you characterize it as a willful embrace in volatility that is preferable to a more stable, yet inevitable decline?
It seems you consider an inevitable societal decline the only realistic alternative to your position. Is there any conceivable path to social reform as led by the private sphere (perhaps through some church-led revival) that could redirect our course? Or does the present partnership between big corporations and secular government serve as too powerful a barrier for Christian influence to make meaningful in-roads in a bottoms up manner?
What if you dedicated your energies to reunifying the Church (having Catholics and Protestants come together as one)? Perhaps you have a “both/and” mindset, but what if the reunification of the Church would be a sufficient force in stymieing the decline?
The core of Integralism seems to be around promoting virtue and the common good. Whose definition of “good” will you espouse? Will an explicit appeal to the Catholic Church be required, or is a more generically Christian (or even just theistic) vision possible? What concrete mechanisms would be required to ensure that the leaders within the US government will pursue the chosen definition of the good? Could this definition be changed? Do you need something as drastic as reforming the Constitution to facilitate this pursuit of the Good, or would less invasive, extralegal measures suffice?
On a similar note, to what extent are you fine allowing for fluctuations in the zeal behind this pursuit, from one temporary administration to the next? Or are you seeking some sort of permanent codifications? In the former scenario, you could perhaps see a president actively seek counsel with the Pope and explicitly make references to the Vatican as some inspiration for policy, during a State of the Union address. This president would be directly stating private religious conviction and motivation for their policy, while still operating within the confines of “constitutional” use of public power. Then the next president may choose to not mention this religious connection at all. Are you merely seeking the enablement and approval for any political leader to be free in explicitly proclaiming their private religious inspiration, or are you looking for an inscribed system that compels even an atheistic politician to attribute some sort of religious connection to whichever “rights” that politician is seeking to promote?
Stated alternatively, are you comfortable having one administration that is explicitly pro-Catholic, implementing certain policies, and the next administration be free to completely remove these? Moreover, are you simply looking for openly Christian messaging spoken by politicians during hearings and press conferences, or are you wanting specific laws that will unequivocally incorporate ecclesiastical verbiage?To what extent do you care about representation of the will of the people? If the majority of citizens want something that is objectively bad, should the government allow it or not? Conversely, do you think the majority of the US citizens should be actively practicing Christians in order to justify a system of government that would be more explicitly aligned with Christian thinking? Or is it perfectly fine to impose a Christian-based system of government onto a non-Christian people?
If it is fine, then where would you draw the line in avoiding the kind of coercion that goes against Church teaching? Obviously, forcing people to profess “Jesus is Lord” would be wrong, but what about “forcing” them to live a life of virtue, such that, on the outside, their lifestyle would very much look like a “good” one? Stated in its sharpest rhetorical formulation, to what extent are you fine promoting something that could represent a Christian approximation of sharia law?
Would you prefer a State that is integrated with a non-Christian religion (e.g. Hinduism) to a State that is completely separated from all religion? Is it better for the State to acknowledge some transcendent tie to the divine, even if it’s through a false god, or is better for it to acknowledge no tie whatsoever? In other words, if you couldn’t get integration between Christianity and the State, what would be the second-best outcome, in your view?
Even if you’re fine with a federal republic, what is your attitude towards capitalism? Is capitalism in its current form compatible with Integralism? Or does your position require some repudiation of love of Market and its narrowed focus on that which can be priced? In other words, qualitative goods you desire like peace, justice, family flourishing, brother- and sisterhood, etc. seem to be socially undervalued, to some degree, because there is no direct market mechanism for pricing these goods, and the modern mind tends to focus excessively on that which can be directly calculated and measured. Our culture also seems to promote the norm of infinite accumulation of exchange value, such that Christians are often faced with a disintegrated separation of “This is my private faith life, but I need to make good money and consequently have my career to worry about.” To what extent does your Integralism require some modification on capitalism and the economy, as opposed to purely congressional reform?
In sum, these are questions I have for both sides of the debate, which I have yet to see be sufficiently addressed. For the “French”-ists, it’s about challenging the sacred (if not, as opponents would suggest, idolatrous) assumption of neutrality and thinking from first principles, and for the Integralists it’s a challenge to get specific with concrete recommendations, as well as being clear as to what kind of disruption is being sought after exactly.
The “revival” of society—whatever it may look like—won’t happen on its own, without the active participation of the faithful. I believe that if we constructively press on both sides of this debate, engaging in good faith, we can successfully narrow our scope and uncover that new equilibrium, which most Christians could rally behind. The 2024 election cycle will be here before we know it, and I hope we will construct together a viable political movement that can fill in the present vacuum of meaning.