An "Idolization" of Democracy?

"I think that, on the whole, the faith that democratic capitalism is the Answer is one that tends to characterize the neocon project."

That's Mark Shea, circa 2006, summing up the "idolatry" of the neoconservative project in his latest post.

Methinks there is more to "neoconservatism" than meets the eye, or the curt dismissal of Mark Shea. For example, here is Irving Kristol, considered the "founder" of American neoconservatism:

Though the phrase "the quality of life" trips easily from so many lips these days, it tends to be one of those cliches with many trivial meanings and no large, serious one. Sometimes it merely refers to some externals as the enjoyment of cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner streets. At other times it refers to the merely private enjoyment of music, painting and literature. Rarely does it have anything to do with the way the citizen in a democracy views himself -- his obligations, his intentions, his ultimate self-definition.

Instead, what I would call the "managerial" conception of democracy is the predominant opinion among political scientists, socialogists, economists, and has, through the untiring efforts of these scholars, become the conventional journalistic opinion as well. The root idea behind this managerial conception of democracy is 'a political system' (as they say) which can be adequately defined in terms of -- can be fully reduced to -- its mechanical arrangements. Democracy is then seen as a set of rules or procedures, and nothing but a set of rules and procedures, whereby majority rule and minority rights are reconciled in a state of equilibrium. If everyone follows these rules and procedures, then democracy is in good working order. I think this is a fair description of the democratic idea that currently prevails in academia. One can now say that it is the liberal idea of democracy par excellence.

I cannot help but feel there is something ridiculous about being this kind of a democrat, and I must confess to having a sneaking sympathy for those young radicals who also find it ridiculous. The absurdity is the absurdity of idolatry -- of taking the symbolic for the real, the means for the end. The purpose of democracy cannot possibly be the endless functioning of its own political machinery. The purpose of any political regime is to achieve some version of the good life and the good society. It is not at all difficult to imagine a perfectly functioning democracy which answers all questions except one -- namely, why should anyone of intelligence and spirit care a fig for it?

There is, however, an older idea of democracy - one which was fairly common until the beginning of this century - for which the conception of the quality of public life is absolutely crucial. The idea starts from the proposition that democracy is a form of self-government, and that if you want it to be a meritorious policy, you have to care about what kind of people govern it. Indeed, it puts the matter more strongly and declares that if you want self-government, you are only entitled to it if that "self" is worthy of governing. There is no inherent right to self-government if it means that such government is vicious, mean, squalid, and debased. Only a dogmatist and a fanatic, an idolater of the democratic machinery, could approve of self-government under such conditions.

And because the desirability of self-government depends on the character of the people who govern, the older idea of democracy was very solicitous of the condition of this character. It was solicitous of the individual self, and felt an obligation to educate it into what used to be called "republican virtue". And it was solicitous of that collective self which we called public opinion and which, in a democracy, governs us collectively. Perhaps in some respects it was never oversolictitous - that would not be suprising. But the main thing is that it cared, cared not merely about the machinery of democracy but about the quality of life that this machinery might generate.

Shea portrays neoconservatives as treating democracy as a panacea for troubles in the Middle East -- their fault in, quoting Shea, "predicated on a sincere religious faith in a false god and that god's power to redeem and heal": overthrow a tyranny, put in a "managerial" form of democracy, and things will right themselves as long as the machinery of democracy is in place.

I think the quote from Kristol -- a neoconservative if there ever was one -- demonstrates that Kristol possesses anything but a faith in democracy as a "cure-all," as "The Answer." Kristol in this case (if I read him correctly) argues against such an idolization of democracy, a concern for establishing the "machinery" of democracy without taking into consideration the development of character that is essential for its very survival.

So when Shea characterizes "the Neocon project" as an idolatry of democracy, I have to wonder how much he really knows of Irving Kristol, the founder of neoconservatism?

You can read more of Kristol's work in Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. For a broader perspective on neoconservative thought, see The Neocon Reader (Grove Press, 2005).

At the same time, it was reading Mark's post that called to mind a passage from Building the Free Society: Democracy Capitalism and Catholic Social Teaching, edited by George Weigel, Robert Royal. (Eerdmans, 1994), a great compilation of essays -- not necessarily "neoconservative" -- on various encyclicals and conciliar documents. This from Kenneth Grasso:

There is no single notion of democracy. Rather, there are various theories, rooted in different understandings of politics and animated by divergent conceptions of nature and destiny of man. Although similar in their institutional and procedural frameworks, the democracies created by these conflicting philosophies differ greatly in their spirit and substance. In the face of the democratic revolution that is sweeping the world today, the key question becomes: Which conception of democracy is animating this revolution?

This is no academic question. History attests that democracy is a rare and delicate form of government that has eventuated more often in anarchy or tyranny than in the regime of ordered freedom it promises. Democratic institutions, as John H. Hallowell has warned, "are a means to freedom . . . but they are not identical with freedom itself." In the end, "it is the way in which they are conceived and the way in which they are used that will ultimately determine their efficacy as instruments of freedom." Not all versions of democracy are equally capable of advancing the cause of the freedom and dignity of the human person, or of providing a secure foundation for a vigorous democratic polity. "The fatality that has worked against . . . modern democracies," Maritain observed, is "the false philosophy of life" they have enshrined at the center of their public life. The direction taken by the democratic experiments of today will depend largely upon what philosophy undergirds them.

Against a 'Managerial' Conception of Democracy

Though the phrase "the quality of life" trips easily from so many lips these days, it tends to be one of those cliches with many trivial meanings and no large, serious one. Sometimes it merely refers to some externals as the enjoyment of cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner streets. At other times it refers to the merely private enjoyment of music, painting and literature. Rarely does it have anything to do with the way the citizen in a democracy views himself -- his obligations, his intentions, his ultimate self-definition.

Instead, what I would call the "managerial" conception of democracy is the predominant opinion among political scientists, socialogists, economists, and has, through the untiring efforts of these scholars, become the conventional journalistic opinion as well. The root idea behind this managerial conception of democracy is 'a political system' (as they say) which can be adequately defined in terms of -- can be fully reduced to -- its mechanical arrangements. Democracy is then seen as a set of rules or procedures, and nothing but a set of rules and procedures, whereby majority rule and minority rights are reconciled in a state of equilibrium. If everyone follows these rules and procedures, then democracy is in good working order. I think this is a fair description of the democratic idea that currently prevails in academia. One can now say that it is the liberal idea of democracy par excellence.

I cannot help but feel there is something ridiculous about being this kind of a democrat, and I must confess to having a sneaking sympathy for those young radicals who also find it ridiculous. The absurdity is the absurdity of idolatry -- of taking the symbolic for the real, the means for the end. The purpose of democracy cannot possibly be the endless functioning of its own political machinery. The purpose of any political regime is to achieve some version of the good life and the good society. It is not at all difficult to imagine a perfectly functioning democracy which answers all questions except one -- namely, why should anyone of intelligence and spirit care a fig for it?

Irving Kristol, from: "Pornography, Obscenity and the Case for Censorship" The Neocon Reader pp. 175-176. (Grove Press, 2005)

What makes a 'Neocon'?

The term 'neoconservative' was originally identified with a group of early (predominantly Jewish) liberals "mugged by reality": former Trotskyites who had become disillusioned with Communism and the increasing radicalism and anti-Americanism of the Left. Some of the more recognizable of these are Irving Kristol (editor of the now-defunct The Public Interest), Norman Podhoretz (Commentary) and William Kristol (The Weekly Standard). (A good documentary on the early years of Irving Kristol is PBS' "Arguing The World, covering the 'New York Intellectuals' Irving Kristol, Irving Howe, Daniel Bell, and Nathan Glazer).

In a very loose sense, Catholics like Fr. Neuhaus and Michael Novak might be described as 'neoconservative' in that they were likewise active on the left during the 60's, and experienced profound reorientations in their perspectives on certain political issues over the years (Fr. Neuhaus worked with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights era, and in 1965, joined Heschel and John Bennett in founding "Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam"; Michael Novak describes his break from the Left in "Controversial Engagements" First Things 92 April 1999: 21-29).

Over the course of recent decades and especially in the 90's, the term 'neocon' has come to be used by the left and especially the "antiwar" movement to refer to practically anybody and everybody supportive of the foreign policy of the Bush administration in Iraq, or stretched even further -- as in the contension of Dr. J.P. Hubert that "virtually all of the "hot-button" issues of our day are either significantly impacted or controlled by neoconservative ideology including American foreign and domestic policy" ("The New Stealth World View").

Given the twists and turns in the understanding of 'neocon' over the decades, it is my contention that when the 'neocon' label is liberally applied without proper clarification or qualification, it easily becomes an impediment to the discussion and only adds to readers' confusion.

This is especially the case when whole groups of individuals, publications, or organizations are lumped together, as when the Zwicks issue a mass-condemnation of "Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak, Sirico, The American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Acton Institute and First Things Magazine" in their article "Pope John Paul II condemns neoliberalism in Ecclesia in America, as social sin that cries to heaven" (Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XIX, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999). (The Zwicks furthermore assert that "Neoliberalism is known in the United States as neoconservatism," a spurious charge addressed by Michael Therrien in his essay John Paul II’s Use of the Term Neo-Liberalism in Ecclesia in America").

I hope my readers will pardon this lengthy preface, because I am concerned here by David Jone's use of the term "neocon" in a recent post to Nouvelle Theologie, linking to the latest piece by Italian journalist and 'Vatican specialist' Sandro Magister on Italian Catholic philosopher Dario Antiseri(Disputed Questions. A Catholic Philosopher Argues for Relativism Nov. 3, 2005). David's post is titled "An Italian Neocon", with the following remarks:

[Antiseri] is criticizing, at bottom, Benedict XVI's positions on relativism, nihilism, and the natural law. In this article, it cites his affinity with American thinkers like Novak, Sirico and Neuhaus. Does this surprise anyone? It shouldn't considering this American camp of Whig Thomists have contradicted the last two Holy Fathers on many, many points.

David is well aware that I've criticized the use of the label 'neocon' in the past. Addressing Dr. Hubert's use of the term 'neocon' and his reference to a 'Straussianl' cabal allegedly pulling the strings of the Bush administration, I remarked that:

would be beneficial to "tighten up" his case (as well as a guide to further discussion) by coming to a more concise definition -- that is to say, laying out specific criteria by which one can accurately identify a "neoconservative" and/or a "Catholic neoconservative" -- including a substantiated list of "neoconservative principles" operative in U.S. economic/foreign policy.

So, it should come as no suprise to David that lumping Antiseri and Novak, Neuhaus and Weigel together as "neocons" would bug me to no end. =)

Magister alleges that Antiseri's writings are "read and appreciated in the United States, where he is in the company of Catholic thinkers like Michael Novak, Robert Sirico, and Richard J. Neuhaus." I find this curious, as a specific Google query for his name reveals total of 455 English results in Google). While he is compared to Neuhaus, Novak, a search of First Things' entire online archive for the author comes up with nary a mention. A search of the website for the Acton Institute comes up with a great deal more results, most in Italian.

Antiseri is, however, cited favorably on Lew Rockwell's blog, which purports to be "anti war, pro-market" and is quite fond of the Austrian (or Vienna) school of economics.

Antiseri was also involved in a panel discussion/presentation of book by Luigi Guissiani (L’io, il potere, le opere [The Self, Power, Works]). And back in September 2003, Antiseri reported on the research of scholars like Oreste Bazzichi and Alejandro A. Chafuen (Faith and Liberty. The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics), questioning the thesis of Max Weber that the spirit of capitalism originated in Reformation-era Calvinism, and which rather can be traced to various works of thought and practices in the Middle Ages (especially that of the Franciscans [!]).

But does all or any of this make Antiseri a "neocon"? -- and given the lack of qualification, is it in any way helpful to the discussion? If Antiseri is a neocon, and if Neuhaus, Sirico and Novak are likewise neocons, should we then impute the dissenting philosophical critique of Antiseri to the rest of them? On the contrary, it seems that the very application of the label obfuscates the content of Antiseri's article and the positions of Fr. Neuhaus, Sirico and company themselves.

I think if David Jones were to honor my recommmendation in coming up with a clear and comprehensible list of 'defining characteristics' or indicators of neoconservatism, it would be a greater challenge than he had anticipated.

* * *

On a side note, perhaps it was the translation, but I found Antiseri's piece rather abstract -- thus far, with the exception of this brief discussion on BrothersJudd, it's gotten precious little attention in blogland (I guess John Allen Jr. is the greater draw among religious bloggers).

Perhaps in time Neuhaus, Novak and Sirico will rush to the defense of their neoconservative comrades-in-arms.

Toward a Proper Understanding of Neoliberalism

In "Pope John Paul II condemns neoliberalism in Ecclesia in America, as social sin that cries to heaven", Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XIX, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999, Louise and Mark Zwick reiterate Pope John Paul II's condemnation of "neoliberalism", equating it with 'neoconservatism':

Neoliberalism is known in the United States as neoconservatism. Its Catholic proponents are Fr. John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael Novak and Fr. Robert Sirico. Their publications are available through the American Enterprise Institue, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Acton Institute and First Things magazine.

One can find this charge often repeated on websites such as TCRNews.com -- the most recent being a notation by Stephen Hand on his blog 'TCRMusings' ("John Paul II on Neoliberalism" 10/20/05):

Despite the attempts of neoliberals to explain it away, John Paul II shed a lot of light on their dismissive commentary when he wrote plainly that neo-liberalism is:

"...based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of the specific policies and structures which are often unjust. (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in America, (January 22, 1999), no. 56 emphasis ours)

Thus attempts to baptise this system must fail, just as oil and water do not mix.

Read the entire Apostlic Exortation of JPII, Ecclesia in America in context.

While Stephen does not "name names", it is a good presumption (based on past history) that he would concur with the Zwick's equasion of "neoliberalism" with "neoconservatism", identifying this philosophy with the individuals in question.

One may likewise presume that Dr. Hubert also concurs with the Zwicks, in light of his charge that ""Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena." ("The New Stealth World View" TCRNews.com).

I've already addressed Dr. Hubert's article in my recent post Leo Strauss and the Neoconservative Cabal Religion & Liberty [blog] Oct. 6, 2005), noting that as his "fast and loose" definition of neoconservatism left something to be desired, it would be beneficial to

[come] to a more concise definition -- that is to say, laying out specific criteria by which one can accurately identify a "neoconservative" and/or a "Catholic neoconservative" -- including a substantiated list of "neoconservative principles" operative in U.S. economic/foreign policy.

Stephen advises us to read Pope John Paul II's charge against neoliberalism in the context of JPII's entire apostolic exhortation, which I agree is a very good idea. If we examine the particular section in which the condemnation is leveled ("social sins which cry out to heaven") and the two paragraphs which follow the cited passage, we get a sense of John Paul II's solution to the problem of neoliberalism:

On the basis of the Gospel, the best response to this tragic situation is the promotion of solidarity and peace, with a view to achieving real justice. For this to happen, encouragement and support must be given to all those who are examples of honesty in the administration of public finances and of justice. So too there is a need to support the process of democratization presently taking place in America, (208) since a democratic system provides greater control over potential abuses.

“The rule of law is the necessary condition for the establishment of an authentic democracy”. (209) For democracy to develop, there is a need for civic education and the promotion of public order and peace. In effect, “there is no authentic and stable democracy without social justice. Thus the Church needs to pay greater attention to the formation of consciences, which will prepare the leaders of society for public life at all levels, promote civic education, respect for law and for human rights, and inspire greater efforts in the ethical training of political leaders”. (210)

Comparing for a moment the prescription of JPII with the stated mission of the Acton Institute to "articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing" and especially to:

[educate] religious leaders of all denominations, business executives, entrepreneurs, university professors, and academic researchers in economics principles, and in the connection that can exist between virtue and economic thinking. We exhort religious leaders to embrace the principles of economics as analytic tools in the consideration of economic issues that arise in their ministry, on the one hand, and, on the other, we exhort business executives and entrepreneurs, to integrate their faith more fully into their professional lives, to give of themselves more unselfishly in their communities, and to strive after higher standards of ethical conduct in their work . . .

Examining the various projects sponsored by the Acton Institute or George Weigel's Ethics & Public Policy Center, I'm inclined to think there is some degree of confluence between the work of Fr. Sirico and John Paul II in cultivating moral virtue in the business community and instilling a greater respect for the dignity of man. Likewise, one doesn't have to agree with every principle or program espoused by the Acton Institute or the EPPC to recognize that it is highly unfair to characterize their work (as Stephen and the Zwicks do) as a mere "baptizing" of unbridled capitalism.

In the interest of correcting the erroneous interpretation that John Paul II's condemnation of "neoliberalism" in Ecclesia in America amounts to a general condemnation of capitalism or the free economy per se (indeed, one would have to square this passage with JPII's qualified endorsement of the free market in Centisumus Annus), I refer my readers to Michael Therrien's essay, aptly titled John Paul II’s Use of the Term Neo-Liberalism in Ecclesia in America. Delivered at the Pontifical College Josephinum April 8, 2000, Therrien deals with the specific passage cited by Stephen Hand.

According to Mr. Therrien:

[Neoliberalism] is a worldview held by certain free-market economists who believe man’s social existence should be understood primarily in terms of economic considerations. This system of belief has led many to approach the market as though moral norms have no bearing upon market activity. In other words, an unfettered market itself, it is believed, will take care of the social problems we face.

However, Catholics need to grasp the distinction the Church makes between the free economy and neo-liberalism. This distinction is one of great import insofar as it distinguishes between a morally viable and important economic system in the first case and an immoral philosophical world-view in the second. Certainly these two realities can be related, but they are not necessarily so. In other words, neo-liberalism is not the inevitable outcome of the free-market system; it is only one possible outcome, depending on the moral disposition of the actors within the market. The Church, in as much as it values the fundamental principles of the free economy, understands this, and thus attempts through its social teaching to encourage the international community to place what it would prefer to call the "business economy" at the service of human dignity.

Of the term "neoliberalism" itself, Therrien notes "it is a word that has the potential for serious misinterpretation if it is not properly understood from within the Church’s ongoing dialogue with liberalism." (Thus in the context of the article he addresses some of the criticisms made by Dr. Schindler as well). The frequent use of the term by Stephen Hand and the Houston Catholic Worker, equated with "neoconservatism" and usually in reference to Fr. Sirico, Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak, demonstrates this potential for confusion absent proper clarification and understanding of JPII's thought. For this reason I personally recommend Therrien's essay as a necessary corrective.

Leo Strauss and the Neoconservative Cabal

David Jones has posted a link to Dr. Hubert's "The New Stealth World View, what looks to be an extended indictment of The Straussian Neocon Cabal [tm] which has infiltrated the Bush Administration, seduced Evangelical Christians and Catholics (Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael Novak) alike, imbedded itself in not one but both mainstream political parties, launched a war of aggression against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and seeks to establish an American Empire by the spread a 21st Century Secular Paganism around the globe.

David seeks my comment on this piece -- my time is limited, and I have not yet read Andrew J. Bacevich's The New American Militarism (Oxford UP, Feb. 2004), upon which Hubert grounds much of his argument. Consequently the comments I make here will be rather brief (I also do not want to go too far afield of the specific purpose of this blog). In any case, I hope to explain why I think it difficult to 1) portray neoconservatives as 1) collectively adhering to a specific economic platform (besides a loose endorsement of the free market); 2) portray neoconservatives as a Straussian conspiracy with a stranglehold on the Bush administration.

First, I would like to say that Dr. Hubert's manner of constructing an argument leaves something to be desired, given as it weaves one allegation after another which simply begs for clarification and substantiation. Consider the following:

"neoconservative thinking embraces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill" . . .

"Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena" . . .

"In the economic realm neoconservatives are also Darwinian. [Footnote: "In contradistinction to paleoconservatives who while economically competitive had a basic historical commitment to the Judeo-Christian ethic, including fixed notions of right and wrong as well as fair-play."] Most are devoted to the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith where brute “market forces” are allowed (unfettered) to determine the landscape. [Footnote: 'This is obviously incompatible with Catholic social teaching.']"

I could quote further, but the above should suffice as a demonstration. Perhaps I am alone in my resentment, but I find the use of blanket generalizations here more than a little frustrating.

Coincidentally, it was on the same day that David referred this article to me that I had just finished The Neocon Reader (Grove Press, Jan. 9, 2005), in which I came across several articles which might lead one to question some assumptions made by Dr. Hubert.

For example, let's unpack the following paragraph:

. . . Catholic teaching holds that both communism and unbridled capitalism are morally evil since they are destructive of basic human dignity. Free Market Capitalism must be “managed” in light of the principles of the Natural Law and be sensitive to the true nature of “man” as created in the Imago Dei in order to be just.[footnote: "this includes a proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity as well as an equitable distribution of the world’s limited resources."]

So far so good. I think that if Dr. Hubert bothered to look, he would find some affinities with this proposal in the writings of Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel, Sirico, Buttiglione, etc. There may be some haggling over how the market ought to be "managed" -- but as they share an appreciation of John Paul II's thought there may be some basis for mutual agreeement (or, at the very least, constructive dialogue). So, on the whole, a good start to this paragraph. Moving on . . .:

Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena.[9] This explains why Americans tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers. There is absolutely no inhibition when it comes to generating income whether the so called “free enterprise is morally licit or not. The objectification of women and the young is encouraged (as part of inter-state commerce and ever larger profits; both being instrumentalized through seductive television, “bill-board” ads and motion pictures in order to maximize economic growth). All of this is perfectly compatible with Darwinian neoconservative economic policy and rabid unbridled free market capitalism. This is an example of utilizing persons not as “subjects” deserving of basic human dignity and respect but as objects to be used, abused and discarded (even secular Kantians should cringe).

It seems to me that Dr. Hubert's argument pressupposes a collective adherence by neoconservatives to a specific economic philosophy or platform -- if this is the case, one might request specific citations from the key neoconservatives in question. Furthermore, as he charges that the neoconservatives have seduced various Catholic scholars into their number, I would expect Dr. Hubert to demonstrate how these individuals have given an unqualified endorsement of "the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith" and the philosophy of John Stuart Mill.

Turning to The Neocon Reader, Adam Wolfson, in "Conservatives and Neoconservatives", compares three conservative approaches - traditionalism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism. He makes the following observation:

In contrast to the paleoconservative and the traditionalist, the libertarian is entirely at home in today’s world. He takes his bearings from John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and such twentieth-century social thinkers as Friedrich Hayek. The libertarian spirit is neither backward-looking nor meliorative. It is progressive, and aims at expanding economic freedom and individual choice ever-forward. Libertarians oppose almost all regulation, whether of markets or morals.

It is arguable whether libertarianism is in fact a variety of conservative thought. Hayek once wrote an essay explaining why he was not a conservative, and Milton Friedman has always insisted that he is a nineteenth-century liberal, not a conservative. But there is at this late date no point in playing semantics and quibbling over labels and definitions. From the 1950s to the present, libertarianism has been an important and influential - arguably the most influential - stream of thought on the Right, informing both Republican policy making and conservative ideology more generally. . . .

Wolfson goes on to chart significant points of distinction between libertarians and neoconservatives in their understanding of freedom and its moral boundaries, the limits of Big Government, etc., all of which lead me to question whether Dr. Hubert is not being to hasty in lumping the two together.

One might raise the observation that Catholic scholar like Michael Novak does seem to bridge this theoretical gap -- Novak is a fellow of what Wolfson categorizes as the economically-libertarian institution The American Enterprise Institute; he appreciates the work of Friederich Hayek (although not uncritical of his weaknesses); however, he draws equally, if not more, from Lord Acton, Alexis de Tocqueville, Jacques Maritain and John Courtney Murray.

Do Americans as a people "tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers"? -- Pornography is a great evil in our society, of that there is no question. But to imply that neoconservatism necessarily entails a "hands-off" approach to pornography out of deference to the free market (or, rather, "unbridled capitalism") is misleading. If we take for granted Dr. Hubert's chief allegation, we presently have a "neo-con" infested presidential administration that is concerned about the spread of pornography, having established a Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in May 2005, with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales making it a top priority.

In "The Neoconservative Persuasion" (Weekly Standard Volume 008, Issue 47 August 2003), Irving Kristol, the very "godfather of neoconservatism" himself, contends that "it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives -- though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture."

If I may recommend to Dr. Hubert another article from the Neocon Reader: "Pornography, Obscenity and the Case for Censorship" (pp. 167-180). It is not a specifically Christian argument (Kristol is, after all, a secular Jew), but he does raise good points about the debasement and alienation of humanity in a pornographic culture and the danger that pornography and/or obscenity poses to the establishment of a democracy as our founding fathers conceived it. He even manages to employ C.S. Lewis. Amusing enough, Kristol in this case was writing in response to an editorial in the New York Times, which had taken the laissez-faire position of letting the market sort it out.

To summarize my concern, I think that sweeping generalizations and allegations of this nature render Dr. Hubert's argument less effective and invites further confusion. Perhaps a reading of Andrew Bacevich's The New American Militarism will bring the light of clarity, but I have to wonder if he is not making the common enough mistake of using "neo-conservative" as a catch-all term for anybody supportive of the foreign policy of the Bush administration. On this note see Think Again: Neocons, by Max Boot. (Foreign Policy Jan/Feb 2004).

* * *

One last aspect I'd like to touch on, and already this post is getting far too long and afield of the themes of this particular blog. Dr. Hubert makes the following claim:

At its core, neoconservatism embraces a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) mentality (epistemologically, metaphysically and morally) in which the historical reality of evil is recognized as foundational, the answer to which is overwhelming power (military and economic) and deception[4] of the masses.

Dr. Hubert credits this Machivellian approach to the influence of Professor Leo Strauss:

The history of American Neoconservatism arguably dates to the early 20th century and several academic German/Jewish intellectuals including Professor Leo Strauss who was purportedly a secular Zionist (Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago) the philosophical progenitor of many contemporary public policy elites including several neoconservative Bush administration officials and other members of the Washington establishment in both political parties. Strauss was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche’s philosophy (itself Darwinian). It was later developed by several first generation neoconservatives including Norman Podhoretz (for many years editor of Commentary) and Irving Kristol. Later, in the second generation came Irving’s son William (now editor of Commentary’s “replacement” The Weekly Standard), Michael Ledeen, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among others. . . .

Dr. Hubert cites as his source for this startling revelation Jim Lobe's sketchy article, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003, which in turn is largely based on a polemical work by Shadia Drury (Leo Strauss and the American Right).

I'll confess that I'm not directly acquainted with the thought of Prof. Strauss or Shadia Drury, and in this post I'm very much reliant on those who are familiar with their works. Drury's work on Strauss, however, appears to be regarded with squeals of glee from Bush-haters (confirming their worst suspicions about the Right) and cautious skepticism or outright derision by serious readers of Strauss -- for starters, see Ken Masugi's review "A Leo Straussian Conspiracy Washington Times Feb. 4, 1998).

I also stumbled across this blog entitled "Leo Strauss and the Politics of the Present", founded by Jon Feinberg and a liberal collective with the ambition of "focusing on the political and philosophical writings of Leo Strauss in an attempt to create a critical history of the forces that contributed to the emergence of the current conservative stranglehold on American politics and American thinking" (brevity, it seems, is not their forte). For reasons as yet unknown (short attention span? internal group rivalries? censorship under the Patriot Act?) the reading project lasts all of three months, with Mr. Feinberg urging readers in his last post to "read Drury cautiously" (Dec. 22, 2004): "So, I've finally made it into Drury's book, and, the further in I venture, the less impressed I am. . . .")

In any case, much of what I've read in connection with researching Hubert's charge strongly suggests that while Straussians did have a prevalent role in the Reagan administration and helped to establish a principled case for American anti-communism, the influence of Strauss on the foreign policy of the present Bush administration is rather questionable, as is the portrayal of Leo Strauss as "grand architect" of neoconservative thought.

I'd like to address the reasoning behind Hubert's assertion that Strauss "was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche's philosophy (itself Darwinian)." Now, a great many folk could be construed as being "avid opponents of modern liberalism" or critical of modernity: David Schindler, Christopher Lasch, Alisdair MacIntyre, to name a few. To predicate Strauss' opposition to liberalism on his appreciation of Martin Heidegger seems to me rather specious, since nothing is offered to clarify exactly what Strauss admired about Heidegger or Nietzsche.

Further investigation would reveal that Strauss (who was a student of Heidegger) was impressed by his intellectual prowess (Strauss remarked of Heidegger "I had never seen before such seriousness, profundity, and concentration in the interpretation of philosophic texts"), and yet went on to protest Heidegger's capitulation and subordination of his philosophy to National Socialism. Strauss was likewise concerned by the prevalence of relativism, nihilisma and radical historicism in contemporary German philosophy and the inability of the social sciences to establish a bulwark against totalitarianism.

Kenneth R. Weinstein elaborates on Strauss' concern with Heidegger in "Philosophic Roots: The Role of Leo Strauss, and the War in Iraq" (The Neoconservative Reader pp. 199-212):

Strauss saw liberalism threatened theoretically by the philosophically informed belief, developed through modernity, that unaided human reason could not find permanent principles. Hitherto, Western thought had been shaped by what Strauss characterized as the tension between two most compelling alternatives for developing a comprehensive account of the whole: reason and revelation, or as Strauss put it figeratively, Athens and Jerusalem. Though Strauss left the Orthodox Judaism in which he was raised as a youth, he took the Bible seriously, saw revelation as offering the firmest foundation for morality, and criticized the atheism of the Enlightenment's more strident figures.

After early modern political philosophy, especially in the Enlightenment, unmasked the claims of revelation in the name of reason, late modernity took to unmasking the claims of reason. The growing importance ascribed to history in philosophy by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) meant that nature was no longer a standard for man. The rise of historical consciousness was especially a threat to the U.S., a regime based on the unalienable rights ascribed to man by America's Founding Fathers. Radical historicism, as seen in the writings of Friederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Martin Heideggar (1889-1976), made the defense of intellectual rationalism and democratic republicanism increasingly difficult. Nietzsche's view that beliefs are values, mere creations, paved the way to cultural relativism as well as to nihilism.

In the face of the crisis of the West, in particular historicism and relativism, Strauss turned to the great authors of the past. In contrast to most contemporaries, Strauss sought to understand these thinkers as they understood themselves, not assuming that their ideas wer shaped or limited by the times in which they lived . . .

Mars' Hill Audio (Christian journal) profiles Strauss and this turn to the classical philosophers:

Strauss's most famous work is Natural Right and History (1950), in which he documents the rise and fall of the idea of natural right, or what is right by nature. Contemporary social science, Strauss argues, embraces both relativism and the distinction between fact and value. Thus social scientists today believe their work must be entirely value-free and objective. But, Strauss contends, this gives us no basis for the ultimate principles we choose. In keeping with his ancient-verses-modern dichotomy, the distinction between classical and modern natural right is of great significance to Strauss in Natural Right and History. Classical natural right claims the good life for man to be "the life that is in accordance with the natural order of man's being, the life that flows from a well-ordered or healthy soul . . . The perfection of man's nature." However, beginning with Hobbes, modern natural right finds the possibility of man's perfection wholly impractical, instead championing the instinct of self-preservation and the rights of the individual.

Weinstein's article further serves to counter the liberal portrayal of Strauss as "neoconservative war propagandist from the grave". According to Weinstein, while there are indeed distinct Straussian elements in the positions of some those supporting the war, one could just as well employ Strauss in building an intellectual case against it:

"Though many prominent Straussians supported the Iraq war in some fashion, a number of Straussians expressed doubts, both privately and publicly. In fact, there seem to be numerous theoretical justifications in Strauss' own understanding of politics to think that the anti-utopian Strauss might have been skeptical of parts of the enterprise of the war -- especially the notion that regime change would help, as some of the more exuberant supporters of the war believed, to bring democracy to Iraq."

Thomas G. West provides an example of a Straussian argument against regime-change in excellent fashion in Leo Strauss and American Foreign Policy The Claremont Review of Books Volume IV, Number 3 Summer 2004).

There are a number of other good articles to explore Strauss' thought as well as his relationship with / influence on the neoconservatives (and conservatives of other stripes) which I've recommended below.

* * *

In closing, I'd like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Hubert (and Stephen Hand). If not for them, I may never have been inspired to research this particular conspiracy or the works of Dr. Strauss.

Although Strauss does not appear to have a great influence (if any) on the thought of the distinctively Catholic "neoconservatives" (it was pointed out to me that Novak mentions Strauss' Natural Right and History briefly in On Two Wings, only in approving Brian Tierney's criticism of Strauss' theory of natural right), he nevertheless strikes me as a thinker I should becoming minimally acquainted with.

I wish to recognize the post Iraq: Just War?, following up on a recent discussion between Chris Burgwald and Dr. Hubert, which addresses in part Dr. Hubert's position on the war in Iraq and Catholic just war tradition. (Readers are also invited to peruse "The Catholic Just War Tradition and the War in Iraq" website for further resources on this important debate).

Finally, with respect to Dr. Hubert's liberal application of the "neocon" label, I think it would be beneficial to "tighten up" his case (as well as a guide to further discussion) by coming to a more concise definition -- that is to say, laying out specific criteria by which one can accurately identify a "neoconservative" and/or a "Catholic neoconservative" -- including a substantiated list of "neoconservative principles" operative in U.S. economic/foreign policy.

* * *

Related Links on the Straussian Neoconservative Cabal

• Straussian.Net - a good place to start, if anywhere. The author, Jeffrey R. Wilson, has done a good job of documenting what he calls the "Straussian Conspiracy Wave of '03" (April - June 2003). I'd say Hubert & co. are a couple years too late?

• What was Leo Strauss Up To?, by Steven Lenzner & William Kristol. The Public Interest Fall 2003:

  The only way to begin to understand Leo Strauss’s political thought is by studying his writings. This may seem a simple rule of common sense. Yet a glance at the current controversy over Strauss’s supposed influence on contemporary American politics and foreign policy suggests that this rule is easily ignored.

  The controversy turns on a legitimate question: “What was Strauss up to?” - or, more precisely, “What was Strauss’s intention?” But it would be misleading to attempt to understand Strauss by ascribing to him an influence, whether beneficial or nefarious, on current policy debates, and then inferring from the alleged influence what his aims really were. It makes far more sense to turn first to Strauss himself - that is, to his writings - in order to understand his political teaching. Then one might evaluate his intentional as well as inadvertent influence on today’s policy debates. . . .

• Leo Strauss Natural Right and History (1953), by Hadley Arkes. First Things 101 (March 2000): 39-40. More of a reflection than a review of the book itself, but hey, it's Arkes (i.e., worth reading).

• Leo Strauss: Conservative Mastermind, by Robert Locke. A critical appraisal of the philosopher and his ideas -- absent the hystericism of the left. FrontPage Magazine. May 31, 2002.

• Leo Strauss and American Foreign Policy, by Thomas G. West. The Claremont Review of Books April 25, 2003. Contra Shadia Drury, Thomas West makes a case against American expansionism on the principles of Strauss:

  My impression as an outside observer is that Straussian influence in the administration has been grossly exaggerated. But let us assume for discussion's sake that it is strong. Since Strauss has been wildly accused of everything from being an admirer of Hitler to being a devotee of Wilsonian progressivism, I think it high time to clarify Strauss's understanding of foreign policy. I shall argue that although there is some common ground, Strauss's overall approach is quite different from that of Kristol, Kagan, and other prominent neoconservatives in and out of the administration. . . .

• What Hath Strauss Wrought?: Misreading a Political Philosopher, by Peter Berkowitz. Weekly Standard June 2, 2003.

• "The Leo-Conservatives, by Gerhard Sporl. Der Spiegel August 4, 2003.

• Tim Robbins' Ghostwriter, by Terry Teachout. The Straussian Cabal's enginnering of the War in Iraq was alluded to in a play directed by Hollywood actor Tim Robbins (Imbedded), in which a character named Pearly White [named after prominent neoconservitive Richard Pearle] is made to recite a line attributed to Strauss . . . only the quote in question is totally bogus. Terry does some detective work and uncovers the source.

• Straussian War Conspiracy Exposed The following exchange is taken from a "teach-in" sponsored by Bill Bennett's Americans for Victory over Terrorism at UCLA on April 2 and later broadcast on C-SPAN. (The full transcript is available on AVOT's website.) Two very shrewd students seem to have stumbled onto the Dirty Little Secret of this war . . .

• "The Straussians are Coming!", by Clifford Owen. Claremont Review of Books April 28, 2005. (Review of Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, by Anne Norton. Yale UP, Sept. 2004). The author reviews yet another book -- apparently there is a market for exposé of the Straussian Cabal's inner circle.

• The Real Leo Strauss. New York Times June 7, 2003. Jenny Strauss Clay, a professor of classics at the University of Virginia, defends her father's name in the face of his detractors.

• "The Princely Protocols", BrothersJudd.com. Oct. 28, 2003. Responding to Shadia Drury's interview on the "Straussian cabal" in the Bush administration, Orrin Judd observes:

  Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the Left's fear of Straussianism is their insistence that its elitist anti-democratic aspect is a dark and jealously guarded secret. It is, of course, the classic conservative critique of democracy that such a system is not necessarily liberal--does not protect liberty. No one was better aware of this than the Founders, who wrote a rather anti-democratic Constitution and created a Republic, based on those of ancient times, rather than a pure democracy. In order to believe the Straussian disregard for democracy to be unique to them and a secret, you not only have to ignore the Federalists themselves, but folks like de Tocqueville in the past and both the more popular writings of the neocons, like Fareed Zakaria's Future of Freedom, and the best writings, like Robert Kraynak's Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, of those the Straussians have influenced.

  And, finally, David Cohen would like to inform us that We're All Straussians Now BrothersJudd May 11, 2003:

  Let's note a couple of ironies. The Bush administration, according to the popular press, is either helmed by an ignoramus with no intellectual curiousity, or it is controlled by several secretive cabals, including one whose inner circle are political philosphers. Liberals, who consider themselves, ipso facto, intellectuals, are entering their fourth decade on a rudderless ideological boat. Finally, it is liberalism, not conservatism, that believes that the world must be run by a small group of enlightened philosophical despots, who tell the masses (infected as they are with false consciousness) what they need to hear.

  I have to admit, though, that this is my path to religion. I have never had a direct revelation and have never felt G-d's intercession in my life (although I have lived a blessed life). Looking at history and at the current state of the world, I have decided, for reasons that have been rehearsed here many times, that religion, particularly if at odds with a powerful state, is necessary to secure our liberties. If that strategic religiosity makes me a Straussian, so be it.

NOTE: The conclusion of this post was edited on October 13, 2005]

Re: [Stephen Hand] "Democracy and Neoconservative Economics"

A quick response to the latest musings from Mr. Hand's blog (appropriately entitled TCRMusings): "To A Friend Who Wrote Regarding Democracy and Neoconservative Economics" (- Via la nouvelle théologie)

[Hand:] While I would rather live under any monarch who implemented the social justice teachings of JPII, than any democracy based merely on the will of the 51% or judicial oligarchy, I do not fault democracy per se.

Q: How would a monarch "implement" the social justice teachings of JPII?

[Hand:] In our case, it seems to me we have so many ambiguous statements in the Constitution that the court oligarchs can twist it whichever which way. In the last 40 years they have twisted it in the direction of Hell itself.

No disagreement there.

[Hand:] "If we could definitively and forever repair the ambiguities, plug the holes in that constitutional dyke (e.g., a "right to privacy" need NOT imply a right to abortion) then our system of government would be so much more helpful.

No disagreement there.

[Hand:] "So I have hope for democracy, but recognize that the patient in this country is very sick. "A little error in the beginning becomes a great error in the end," said St. Thomas.

I see very little disagreement btw/ the WT's and AT's as to the current state of our nation, the weakness of our institutions and the tyranny of the judiciary (see Neuhaus' Naked Public Square and First Things' "The End of Democracy") -- but they part company at the solution for society's ills.

Neuhaus ("Liberalism of John Paul II" First Things 73 May 1997: 16-21): "There is no doubt that the American experiment is constituted in the liberal tradition. Since we cannot go back to the eighteenth century and reconstitute it on different foundations, we must hope that the foundations on which it is constituted are not those described by Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, Richard Rorty -—and David Schindler."

Question: If Schindler's diagnosis is correct, that liberalism is inherently perverted beyond all hope, that liberalism itself in all its myriad forms, whether that of the 18th century or the debased, secularized version of today, is at the root of society's ills -- what, then, is the "Augustinian-Thomist" solution?

Schindler (THREADS interview): "we need to reinstate a right relation to God on all levels -- not only at the level of intention, but at the level of the logic of our culture. Our relation to God has to inform not only our will, but how we think and how we construct our institutions." Given the poverty of recommendations as to how we can "[re]construct our institutions" in Heart of the World, one must wonder whether merely "plugging a hole in the [constitutional] dyke", propping up the liberal institutions of democracy, is an inevitably futile effort, inasmuch as it is a participation in the "con game" of liberalism.

[Hand]: "I truly think the seminal Catholic Neoconservatives (not any of their know-it-all nasty groupies) are very good men who really have the best interests of the world in mind

Couldn't resist getting a jab in there, could you, Stephen? -- Nevertheless, to the degree that we can eschew these kind of remarks, I daresay we might be on our way to a genuine, civil dialogue.

[Hand]: it's just that they mix Calvinist and Catholic notions and do not sufficiently recognize that the market cannot make moral decisions and distinctions. If the Playboy channel is popular, the market will reinforce it, the Gross National Product will reflect it, and Wall Street will bless it. We need moral men and women to regulate an amoral market economy with moral regulations / laws.

I'd like Hand to clarify the "mixture of Calvinist and Catholic notions". As far as the rest goes, there is possibility for agreement. For example, Novak would likely concur with Hand that "the market cannot make moral decisions and distinctions." He would likely add that we cannnot reify "the market" as some kind of disembodied entity. "The Market" as the sum of individual decisions is only as good as we make it, and individuals as such bear moral responsibility.

Stephen portrays Novak as an advocate of unbridled capitalist greed, unrestrained by law or morality. This picture simply doesn't cohere with my reading of Novak, who insists that business and the market economy cannot prosper without a moral foundation. Consider:

A capitalist system is only one of three systems composing the free society. The economic system is checked and regulated by both of the other two systems: by the institutions of the political system and by the institutions of the moral/cultural system. Capitalism does not operate in a moral vacuum. Those who fail to live up to the moral standards implicit in its own structure are corrected by forces from outside it. Thus, capitalism supplies only some of the moral energy present in the free society as a whole. There are moral energies in the democratic polity to call it to account. And there are moral energies in families, in the churches, in journalism, in the cinema, in the arts, and throughout civic society to unmask its failings and to call it to account.

This is as it should be. For the free society is not constructed for saints. There are not enough saints on earth to people a free society. A free society must make do with the only moral majority there is — all those citizens called to a noble destiny, indeed, but often weak, tempted, egocentric and quite imperfect. In imagining the free society of the future, it is important not to be utopian. This century has built too many graveyards in its so-called utopias. The citizens of the 2lst century will warn one another against the mistakes of the 20th.

In addition to systemic checks and balances, there must also be internal checks. James Madison wrote that it is chimerical to imagine that a free republic can survive without the daily practice of the virtues of liberty. A free society depends upon habits of responsibility, initiative, enterprise, foresight, and public spiritedness. It depends upon plain, ordinary, kitchen virtues. Citizens who are dependent, passive, irresponsible, and narrowly self-interested will badly govern their own conduct, and their project of self-government is bound to fail.

It is, therefore, a crucial act of statesmanship to identify and nourish the cultural habits indispensable to the practice and survival of liberty. The free society cannot be made to thrive on the basis of any set of moral habits at all. Where citizens are corrupt, dishonest, halfhearted in their work, inert, indifferent to high standards, willing to cheat and to steal and to defraud, eager to take from the public purse but unwilling to contribute to the commonweal, and entirely self-aggrandizing, self-government must fail. Many peoples of the world, in fact, have shown themselves incapable of making the institutions of liberty work. The road to liberty, Tocqueville warned, is a long one, precisely because it entails learning the habits of liberty. Not any habits at all will do. The road is narrow and the gate is strait.

From "Wealth & Virtue: The Moral Case for Capitalism", National Review Feb. 18, 2004.

Ceasefire? -- Hardly, but it's a start.

In the April 1999 issue of First Things, Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus notes a symposium published in the The Catholic Social Science Review on "David Schindler vs. Neoconservatism". One of the contributors, Mark Lowry of the University of Dallas, offered an overview of the controversy and "concludes with a list of propositions to which he thinks all parties -- Schindler, Novak, Neuhaus and Weigel -- could agree":

a. While the Church respects the proper autonomy of the temporal order and never favors any one particular political regime in principle, the liberal state is compatible, in practice, with Catholicism, as articulated in Dignitatis Humanae.

b. The extent to which the liberal political order is a good setting for the Catholic faith is a legitimate matter for continued discussion. The "Catholic Moment" theory ought not be construed in such a way as to suggest that the liberal regime is necessarily the ideal home for the Catholic faith in this world, even if it is the best available home at the present time.

c. The liberal state is something of an indeterminate and, hence, vulnerable entity. While in its current American manifestation it is less than promising, it contains a capacity for improvement. Liberal ideology need not accompany liberal institutions.

d. Concretely speaking, the liberal regime, for all its vulnerabilities, is the best political option currently available. This is not to say that the Church endorses it (a strategic alliance) as her favored choice of all conceivable political regimes, which would violate the Church's principle regarding the proper autonomy of the temporal order.

e. The liberal state in America will never totally harmonize with the richness of the Catholic onto-logic (nor could any temporal regime); still, the cultural dimension of a liberal regime (as well as the economic and political dimensions insofar as they are affected by the cultural dimension) can participate in that logic. While shunning a strategic alliance with liberalism, we can make varying kinds of tactical alliances with it.

f. The degree of that participation, and the ways in which such participation might be increased, is an important matter for continued discussion. Varying kinds of tactical alliances can and should exist side by side. Undoubtedly, a Protestant ethos pervades much of American life, but even that ethos can and does participate in Catholic truth, and can be nourished by contact with the Catholic tradition.

g. Catholics should strive to bring the fullness of their faith to their engagement in the temporal order, even though the temporal order never will echo perfectly that fullness (the "eschatological principle" in Catholic social thought).

h. Because that faith is so much under siege, we must be especially dedicated to work in harmony with one another, nourished by a theological and pastoral magnanimity within the parameters of the authentic Catholic faith.

Neuhaus remarks: "I might have an editorial quibble with a phrase or two, but sign me on. I haven't checked with Novak or Weigel, but would be surprised if they did not agree."

I could easily envision the so-called "neoconservatives" nodding their agreement to this list of nuanced propositions. Based on what I've read -- and haven't read a great deal, although I hope to remedy that during the remainder of this summer -- I have a difficult time envisioning David Schindler or Tracy Rowland giving their consent. But it's something worth discussing.

Neuhaus and the "reappropriation of the liberal tradition."

With respect to theology the neoconservatives and the 'Communio' school are largely in agreement with each other. Both are strong supporters of Pope John Paul II and steadfast in their commitment to the orthodox Catholic faith. As Neuhaus says, the debate between them boils down to the neoconservatives' support of 'The Murray Project' -- square Catholic teaching with the American democratic experiment [and free market capitalism] -- and the conservative critics like David Schindler who "accuse Murray and those like him of selling out authentic Catholic teaching to a desiccated and desiccating liberalism."

Neuhaus clarifies some points in his dispute with David Schindler in his article The Liberalism of John Paul II (First Things 73, May 1997). The article is a response to Schindler's book Heart of the World, Center of the Church, in which Schindler summarizes his argument in three points: 1) to "challenge the regnant liberalism which would claim that it (alone) is empty of religious theory in its interpretation of the First Amendment and indeed of Western constitutionalism more generally"; 2) to "seek a truly 'Catholic Moment' in America" -- after the teachings of John Paul II against John Courtney Murray; and 3) to "expose the con game of liberalism which enables it, precisely without argument, to privilege its place in the public order." Of course, Schindler and others believe Neuhaus & Novak to be implicit in this "con game of liberalism."

In an interview with David Schindler blogged earlier, he had said of self-interest: "Of course we can't suppress that impulse forcibly; if we try, we end up in totalitarianism. But that doesn't mean we should bless it as a virtue of necessity. The call to sanctity requires a transformation of self-interest and its replacement, insofar as possible, with love." One reader of this blog (Hank_F_M) challenged Schindler's conflation of self-interest with selfishness and greed:

Thomas Sowell (not a Catholic, but an influential neocon economist) in his book Knowledge and Decisions approaches [self interest] as each individual choosing the interest he serves and thus makes decisions on it. While the decision may be greed, it is often to do what is necessary to fulfil ones proper duties to family and society, and perhaps in some cases to altruistically serve the community beyond ones duties. (That is my summery of a key idea in the book)

This reduces the dichotomy that Schindler points out. If we are making decisions to respond to the call of sanctity and love in imitation of Christ then the economic and social systems should operate in a manner much more in a much more human manner. It also allows for intelligent decisions in the face of the fact others will not act accordingly and without imposing a totalitarian an unacceptable regime on them.

Neuhaus criticizes Schindler for having engaged in a similar reduction of "liberalism", putting

the worst possible construction upon the liberal tradition, and on the American cultural, legal, and political expression of that tradition. In doing so, . . . [handing] an undeserved victory to those who interpret the liberal tradition in ways that we all deplore. With John Courtney Murray, I suggest that our task is to contend for an interpretation of liberalism that is compatible with the fullness of Catholic truth. ¹

Liberalism, says Neuhaus, is "a very pliable term." Of the varieties that exists he notes the laissez-faire economic liberalism condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum & John Paul II, the libertarianism of a political minority in American culture ("a thought experiment for college sophomores of all ages"), the "republican liberalism of virtue" and the "communitarian liberalism of Tocquevillian civil society".

Clarification of what one means by "liberalism" is imperative in this discussion, if not only because Neuhaus & his colleagues would actually agree with Dr. Schindler's critique of a certain kind of liberalism, or even that "Christian thinkers have been too ready to trim the Christian message in order to accommodate the ruling cultural paradigm of liberalism." Of the many criticisms of liberalism raised by Schindler and others -- that it is 'purely procedural', excluding a consideration of ends (and thus its claim to 'neutrality' inherently anti-religious); that it is premised entirely on self-interest, excluding consideration of transcendent truth or divine law; that it is "inextricably tied to the dynamics of capitalism" and condusive to a culture of rampant material consumerism -- Neuhaus maintains that these are not no much an indictment of liberalism per se but distortions of liberalism, and that he, Novak, Weigel and others are "contending for the soul of liberalism." This struggle is absolutely crucial, because

There is no going back to reconstitute the American order on a foundation other than the liberal tradition. A great chasm has opened between the liberal tradition and what today is called liberalism. That is why some of us are called conservatives. Conservatism that is authentically and constructively American conservatism is conservatism in the cause of reappropriating and revitalizing the liberal tradition.

Neuhaus devotes the latter part of his article to a proper understanding and appreciation of individualism in light of Pope John Paul II's teaching in Centesimus Annus (recommended as an "invaluable guide" to the revitalization of the liberal tradition). ² Noting that individualism developed in frequent tension and even conflict with the Catholic Church (perceiving it as radically anti-clerical and anti-Christian), Neuhaus credits John Paul II with having "replanted the idea of the individual and of freedom in the rich soil of Christian truth."

Concerning the human person, John Paul II cites an earlier encyclical Redemptor Hominis: "[the] human person is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission . . . the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption", to which is appended: "This, and this alone, is the principle which inspires the Church's social doctrine." (53) For Neuhaus, CA's recognition that man recovers and attains his dignity in responding to the call of God ("to transcendent truth"), can lead Catholics in America to appreciate individualism, properly understood and articulated in 'The American Experiment':

This is not individualism in the pejorative sense, but it is commensurable with the modern achievement of the idea of the individual. It is commensurable with the constituting ideas of the American experiment, in which the state is understood to be in the service of freedom, and freedom is understood as what the Founders called "ordered liberty"—liberty ordered to the truth. And there are, as the Declaration of Independence declares, "self-evident truths" that ground such freedom and direct it to the transcendent ends of "Nature and Nature's God."

Theistic references in the Declaration are not merely superficial allusions to appease the public; they are essential to the Founder's argument "that this constitutional order is premised upon moral truths secured by religion." As we can see in the numerous writings by Michael Novak, George Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus, re-discovering the religious vision of the Declaration and other writings of our founding fathers is a critical element of the Catholic re-appropriation of the liberal tradition. ³

Neuhaus' article is worth reading in full, as there are too many points to cover here. Altogether it is an excellent explication of Centesimus Annus and the specific goals of those 'neoconservatives' engaged in 'The Murray Project.'

---

1. Referring to our very first blog, Fr. Zieba contended that "there is liberalism and there is liberalism", the former distinguished by relativism and a radical autonomy free of moral constraints, the latter distinguished by an appreciation of freedom's relation to and dependance upon absolute truth. "The Liberalism That We Need", First Things 40 (Feb. 1994).

2. Those interested in Fr. Neuhaus' reading of Centesimus Annus might appreciate his Doing Well & Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist (Oct. 1992), or Michael Novak's The Catholic Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism, both of which focus on the Pope's encyclical.

3. See, for example, Michael Novak's The Faith of the Founding (First Things April 2003), or his recent book: On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (Encounter Books April 2003). See also "Christianity and Democracy", a formal statement written by Fr. Neuhaus in 981for the Institute on Religion & Democracy, "to set forth the Christian case for, and stake in, the liberal democratic order."

Michael Novak and the theology of Caritas

While not one of the original 'neoconservatives', Michael Novak follows in their footsteps, having experienced a transition from the radical left in early years to a gradual appreciation and support of capitalism and 'The American Experiment.' In the First Things article 'Controversial Engagements', he identifies several underlying elements of continuity in the stages of his thought -- probably the most important of which is his experience of caritas:

According to Novak, caritas is the metaphysical ground of reality, the dwelling place of God -- "a dark and terrible form of realism best symbolized by the Cross on which He willed his Son to die.":

The greatest continuity in my work is this affirmation that the basic energy, power, and force in creation is caritas. In this otherwise vast and possibly empty series of silent galaxies, the Creator made humans in order to have at least one creature able freely to respond to Him -- either with love or not. Caritas is the one energy that matters. In it, we are first related, before we are solitary. We first receive, before we act on our own. We are first empowered, before we take responsibility for our own acts. We are first endowed, before we have rights. In all these things, all humans are linked together. Creatures depend. That is the great "intuition of being" that Jacques Maritain talked about. ¹

In a recent interview with Zenit.org, Novak elaborated on this concept: "Caritas is to will the good of the other . . . it is love aimed at the real, not the apparent, good of the other." It is also marked by a realistic understanding of human nature, of human sinfulness, calling for "realistic judgments rather than illusions, appearances and sentimentality." It should play an active role in shaping the institutions of society "to liberate the poor of the earth from the prison of poverty." This must be accomplished by an economic system which "rests upon, and nourish, voluntary cooperation", and is marked by a respect for "the human person as the originating source of human action -- the chief cause of the wealth of nations." Most importantly, it must:

"be based upon the presupposition that humans often fail in love, and only rare ones among them base all their actions thoroughly upon realistic love. Caritas must guide institutions in a realistic, not utopian, aim of establishing a free society." ²

It is this recognition of caritas which influenced his transition from a left-wing socialist to a Catholic seeking to integrate his faith with an appreciation for "democratic capitalism" and the American tradition. In 1979 Novak was asked to give a lecture at Notre Dame at a conference for Chicago Laypersons, on the topic of "the continuing neglect of the laity in the Church" in the years after Vatican II. He began by calling attention to this presence of caritas:

"Through the work of our minds and hands," I said, "the life of the triune God expresses its own love and truth and healing power, not all at once, imperfectly and in the darkness, but yet effectively. We build up the social institutions by which human history is slowly, very slowly, transformed into God's own image. As our God is triune -- a communal God -- so is our vocation communal."

Whereas many of Novak's contemporaries insisted that such a reconstruction of the social order in God's image would entail a rejection of capitalism, Novak devoted the final part of his address to the need to understand capitalism's religious possibilities: "The capitalist system, after all, was the system in which most Notre Dame graduates would work. There could not be a realistic theology of the laity, or theology of work, without a theology of capitalism." Novak recalls this occasion as his very first public defense of capitalism. Predictably, he did not find a very receptive audience ("No one would speak to me. I had violanted an important Catholic taboo . . . I had excommunicated myself from the Catholic left.") ³

Unfortunately, there were obstacles which prevented the development of such a "theology of capitalism." For Novak, the problem was twofold: On one hand, economic theorists had abandoned religious & philosophical considerations in their attempt to model their profession after the physical sciences. On the other, many theologians had aken an adverserial stance toward economic activity, as something "vulgar and crass, if not evil." Novak acknowledges that "whatever the present model of political economy, it will not measure up to the height and depth of the Kingdom of God. It will always be inadequate." Nevertheless, those commited to an incarnational witness must not refrain from "[going] out into this city, whatever its stage of moral and religious development, and try to incarnate the Gospels in it as Jesus incarnated God in history."

Novak spends the much of the article detailing this transition in his thought and those who have influenced him along the way, including the eschatological witness of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, his years at Holy Cross Seminary (1949-56), the philosophy of Jacques Maritain, and the life and work of St. Thèrése of Lisieux:

St. Thèrése (1873 - 1897) is the teacher of the Church about the everyday exercise of caritas, in ways so humble that they mostly cannot be seen, even though their effects may be subjected to the tests of the gospel. She taught me the importance of thinking small and honoring the humble things that I at first tended to despise. For the theology of the laity and the theology of work and the theology of daily institutional life, her work has been described -- by no less an authority than Hans Urs von Balthasar -- as revolutionary.

Quoting from one of his early books (A New Generation: American and Catholic), Novak writes that "in solving the crucial problems of Americans and Catholics in America, one needs 'a consistent point of view, [one that is] empirical, pragmatic, realistic, and Christian.'" He believes he has been faithful to this vision. Whether he has accomplished this is part of the present discussion. For those who are just beginng to read his works, "Controversial Engagments" is a very helpful introduction and overview of the many tangents of his thought.

1. "Controversial Engagements". First Things 92 (April 1999): 21-29.
2. Michael Novak's Recipe for a Civilization of Love. Interview with Zenit.Org. July 17, 2003.
3. Novak's 1979 lecture at Notre Dame would be better described as his "first public religious defense of capitalism." Novak ahad written a book in 1978 called The American Vision -- "my first neoconservative book" -- in which he introduced his conception of democratic capitalism and the aims and visions of the American tradition, laying the groundwork for his subsequent writings.

A brief clarification of the term "neoconservative"

"Neoconservative" was originally a pejorative term applied to the original band of New York Jewish intellectuals, liberals critical of communism who believed themselves to be increasingly alienated from the anti-American counterculture of the 60's. As Michael Novak recalls:

Virtually all [of the "neoconservatives"] had a history as men and women of the left, indeed to the left of the Democratic party . . . Then at some point their more and more frequently expressed critique of left-wing excesses, especially in domestic policy, involved a direct rejection of socialist categories of thought. Since the left had few counterarguments to wheel into the battle, the Left turned to name-calling. It was the Socialist Michael Harrington, indeed, who coined the term "neoconservative" for this small band and their friends, intending it as an insult.

In those days (the mid-1970s), it was thought that there was really no genuinely conservative movement in the United States as there always had been in Europe. In America, it was said, there is only one variant or another of liberalism — the old fuddy-duddy liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, or some blend of European socialism/social democracy.

Thus, to call a foe who had long been identified with the Left a "conservative" was thought to be a lonely literary ostracism. To prefix that with "neo" was to suggest something like "pseudo" or "not even genuine." No historical tradition or cultural movement called by that name could be decried anywhere in sight. Just a tiny band, cast out into the darkness of intellectual isolation.

The neoconservatives rose to a position of influence during the Cold War and the Reagan Administration. Their role in determining policy diminished during the Bush (Sr.) and Clinton administrations and has been resurrected with the election of George Bush Jr. As Joe Hagan notes, "After the Cold War ended, neoconservatism came to be associated with an aggressive foreign policy. . . 'neoconservatism' has since become the fast-and-loose, catch-all term for hawks," defending the current Bush Administration's "war on terrorism" and campaign in Iraq.

The intent of this website is not to examine the meaning of neoconservatisim per se, but rather the question of the Church's reconciliation with classic notion of liberalism (democracy, human rights, and free markets). Those making the argument in support of this proposition are sometimes referred to as "neoconservatives." The Houston Catholic Worker, for example, commonly refers to Richard J. Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Weigel as neoconservatives in their editorials -- and tend to group Avery Dulles under this category as well. I am not sure whether these authors would define themselves as such, but for those who are curious I am making use of the term simply for lack of a better one.

Relevant links:

• The Neoconservative Persuasion, by Irving Kristol. Weekly Standard. August 25, 2003.
• President Bush's Neoconservatives Were Spawned Right Here in N.Y.C., New Home of the Right-Wing Gloat, by Joe Hagan. The New York Observer, April 28, 2003.
• Neocons: Some memories, by MIchael Novak. National Review May 20, 2003.
• The End of Neoconservatism and This Time: Neoconservatism Redux, by James Neuchterlin. First Things 63 (May 1996) and 66 (October 1996), respectively.