After I wrote my recent essay, Tortured Reasoning, I sent copies via email to several friends I thought might be interested in it. A vigorous and eventually testy debate ensued. No, not about torture; these are my friends, after all. Rather, it was about the term “conservative”, both its definition and whether someone who claims to adhere to Catholic social principles has any business describing himself as a conservative. Interestingly, I did not use the term in the essay, though I did speak of torture apologists on “the Right”, and I did cite a couple of examples, who identify themselves as conservatives. And Tom Storck used the term in his comments on the post. As none of the defenses of torture have come from anyone remotely on the political Left I don’t think Tom and I misspoke using conventional nomenclature, nor were we implying that all conservatives defend the use of torture. I said some time ago all I have to say on the subject in my essay of May 5, 2006, The Imitation of Christ: Why I am not a Conservative, so I just sat back and watched the fireworks.
On the one side were a handful of friends who identify themselves as conservatives, and on the other, a couple of friends who argue that “conservative” is not a fit label for a Catholic; that Catholics can have no home on the American political spectrum. The conservatives initially argued that the defenders of torture and militarism were not really conservatives, as they broke with the true faith, er, ideology, in so many ways. When pressed on the incompatibility of that ideology with Catholic social doctrine they seemed to shift: well, conservatism is not really definable, is more a matter of temperament. The holistic Catholics, for lack of a better term, pressed their point with true Thomistic doggedness and the defenders of conservatism became defensive and prickly.
As my sympathies in this quarrel are obvious, I probably did not describe it fairly in the minds of the conservatives. Sorry, I didn’t follow the arguments closely, though I did keep an eye on them.
I revisit this debate because the most recent issue of The American Conservative arrived the other day, and it has several articles that illustrate the rampant controversy over the Right Wing crackup and the problematic nature of the term “conservative” and its various definitions. TAC, a few issues back announced that it was going to cease publishing a print edition. Happily, reader response to this bad news has enabled them to restructure to a monthly from a biweekly. Thank God, for in spite of its title TAC is my favorite political magazine. It is really a lively and diverse hodgepodge of outlooks: paleo-cons, traditionalists, localists, anarchists, libertarians, as well as a number of writers who could hardly be categorized on the Right at all. What seems to be the common thread is a rejection of neoconservatism, militarism, and the Democratic and Republican mainstream.
The current issue has a number of articles illustrating the general confusion swirling around the term “conservative”. On the one end of the spectrum, Patrick Buchanan offers a pretty conventional “cultural warrior” strategy for a Republican comeback. Similar to this, W James Antle III, associate editor of The American Spectator, also sticks to a pretty normal rightish prescription for a GOP recovery of power. Less conventionally, David Bromwich argues more for the conservatism-as-mood viewpoint, with a distinct anti-war angle. And Rod Dreher wrings his hands over the cultural vulgarity of the Right, making his case for a sort of aesthetic traditionalism.
But surely the most original piece is Bill Kauffman’s Found Cause: Don’t call me a Conservative. Mr Kauffman, as I have noted before, is one of the most original and refreshing (and witty) voices on the American scene. This article is no exception; the sort of raucous, joyous, and unpredictable prose we have come to expect from the author. Unfortunately, whoever decided which articles from the current TAC would be available online skipped this one, clearly the finest in the issue.
Bill Kauffman says:
I do not say this better America would be a conservative America because for half a century “conservative” has been a synonym of-and a slave to-militarism, profligacy, the invasion of other nations, contempt for personal liberties, and an ignorance of and hostility toward provincial America that is Philip Rothian in its scope. The conservative movement, like the empire whose adjunct and cheer-leader it is, is a daisy chain of epicene dissemblers and vampiric chickenhawks who feast on the carrion of our Republic. The c-word is quite simply beyond reclamation.
Well said, and if he had stopped there I would have no qualm with him. But he goes on:
If we have to play Name That Tendency I’d opt for Little American, front-porch republican, localist, decentralist, libertarian, or to borrow Robert Frost’s term, Insubordinate American- anything but C!
There is one term in that otherwise fine list that stands out as unsuitable for the adherent of Catholic and distributist principles, and for many of the same reasons that “conservative” does.. I speak of “libertarian”. When both Ron Paul and Howard Stern are described as “libertarian” how could that term have any coherent meaning? And I need look no further than the back cover of this issue of The American Conservative to make my point.
There we find a full page ad for something called “Freedom Fest 2009″, to be held this summer:
Dear fellow libertarians, Unwind, relax and become un-reasonable for 3 glorious days. Join me and a thousand other free minds for the time of your life: Freedom Fest 2009. Just think 7-11 in Vegas. (Huh? Do any definitions of 7-11 make sense in this context?-DN) We have big plans: over a hundred of your favorite speakers… 9 great debates…lots of food and drink…beautiful people…and entertainment galore: Vegas shows and our very own gala Saturday night banquet.
Nathaniel Branden said it best, “I feel an electricity I haven’t felt in years.”
Why Las Vegas?
Conservatives (CPAC) meet in Washington DC but we hate Washington and all it stands for. Doug Casey calls it the Death Star. We prefer Las Vegas, the world’s most libertarian city.
Just allow that to settle in for a moment before I proceed. If Mr Dreher is seeking evidence of cultural barbarism on the Right he need look no further than the back cover of the journal in which his essay is printed.
I recognize only a few of the names that are mentioned in the ad, beginning with Nathaniel Branden, whom I did not realize was still kicking around. Mr Branden was the disciple and adulterous lover of Ayn Rand when that wicked woman was still alive (her name is invoked elsewhere in the Freedom Fest ad). He went on to a career in psychology, where he put the capital Self in self-help. Other names familiar to me include Charles Murray, Steve Forbes, Al Regnery, Bob Tyrrell, and unfortunately the Catholic writer Tom Woods. Ron Paul will also be making an appearance, to his discredit.
If I knew nothing else about libertarianism than this ad, it would be enough to keep me as far away as I could from that political sect. Any group which can cite Las Vegas, the very incarnation of what is most tawdry in the postmodern West, as a model city deserves to be laughed off the stage of public opinion. They ought to rename themselves “libertineists”, and are about as far from a sane vision of the common good as can be imagined.
Catholics can expect no earthly home, let alone a place at the political table. Our City on the Hill is not DC or Las Vegas or the USA, but the New Jerusalem. Our Kingdom is not that of the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians, but of God. In saying this I am not counseling removal from this world or from political action, but if we lose our perspective, if we forget our true home, we will wander lost in the dark, making alliances with those who are ultimately our enemies.
—Daniel Nichols
I have to say that I do dissent somewhat from your summary of that email conversation. I’ll leave it at that, rather than offer my own version, as there’s nothing more tedious than debating about a debate. Although if someone wants to get the permission of the other participants and format the conversation into a readable document I can post it and let people draw their own conclusions.
I know it feels really good to compose the sort of vituperation that Kaufmann does in your quotes from him, but it hardly invites dialog. Well, I suppose that’s not his intent. I wonder that he continues to take money from a magazine called The American Conservative, and from the ISI.
The conservative label as applied to me and many Catholic conservatives is more descriptive than prescriptive. It’s not like I walk around saying “what would a good conservative do in this situation?”, but I find myself on the conservative side of the spectrum most often. My main personal exception from modern American conservative ideology has to do with the illegal alien hysteria.
Conservatism is no more my “home” than people-who-hire-plumbers is my home because I don’t like to mess with drains. If someone says “I can’t be a conservative and a Catholic,” then I respect that; hopefully they respect my choice to influence society as member of a certain political group.
Maclin wrote: “I wonder that he continues to take money from a magazine called The American Conservative, and from the ISI.”
No wondering about that; people like money, right? I doubt he’s going to get recruited to write for TIME. Kaufman is an acquired taste and I’m trying to be generous, I’ll admit.
Yes, exactly (to your first two paragraphs).
There’s an essay by Kauffman in the Fall/Winter 2007 Chesterton Review that’s quite good.
I’ll concede on Kauffman since some whom I respect like his writing. I’ve noticed that we’ve both butchered the spelling of his name, but two F’s and one N is indeed correct.
I actually haven’t read much of him, just a few short pieces. He had great piece on Ray Bradbury’s regionalism in ISI’s web journal a while back. I suppose he’s sort of a Hunter Thompson gonzo type, in the sense that one shouldn’t take his wild flights of rage too seriously. One man’s ugly vituperation is another’s high hilarity–depends on whose ox is being gored.
I’ve taken to varying the number of “f”s and “n”s randomly, since I can never remember which is correct.
Speaking of high hilarity, here’s one of my favorite reviews of a Kauffman book.
Live by the sword….
That was me–forgot I was logged in.
Except Bill Kauffman is actually funny, not just snotty. He has what I call sar-charism, which is a gift.
And he takes money from The American Conservative because that is really a misnomer these days. I wish they’d change the name…
But Mr Kauffman has been employed by many startling employers, including the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Reason magazine, The American Enterprise Institute (!), and the Batavia, New York dog pound.
All right, I made the last one up.
Except Bill Kauffman is actually funny
Well, chacun à son goût. I find Mark Steyn a tremendously more witty commentator, plus you don’t need the reference library which the Amazon reviewer mentions.
I think that amconmag may change their name at some point, but I’ll bet that some readers would be bitterly upset about that. “After all,” think they, “we’re the REAL conservatives, dang it all! Not like those Jew (whoops, meant to write ‘neocon’) poseurs!!”
The folks at TAC tired enough of that old slur- that to criticize the neoconservatives means you are an anti-Semite- that they make sure most of the stuff they run criticizing Isreal is written by Jews…
I remember when it was the Marxists you couldn’t criticize without that accusation.
I don’t read magazines, and except for Caelum et Terra, I now avoid the internet altogether. Thus, I come late to the sight of the term “conservative” being abandoned. However, I am happy to see it.
Father Benedict Groeschel likes to say “A conservative wants to preserve the status quo, and I want to blow it up.” To me it seems impossible for a believing Catholic to align himself straightforwardly with a so-called conservative response to every question. Some who are my friends do just that, and it leaves one stupefied.
Can we join together, however, in something? It seems unfair to call secular relativists who advocate for a religion-free public square, “liberals.” Some of them, in fact, are gunning for a public square that is free of religious people. I would name names, but I can’t remember them. Let’s just suppose such people are out there.
What is liberal about it? “Liberal” would mean to defend the dignity of every human individual, and to continuously work to broaden the definition of a person to include more individuals. What we sometimes call liberal seems more like fascism. Their project is to narrow the definition of persons to include fewer human beings; and to criminalize the practice of religion, or criminalize the participation in public debate and public office by people who practice religion. Okay, here’s a name: Al Franken, a current US senator. What were people thinking?
To me, it sounds like fascism. Let us not pay them the undue compliment of calling them liberals.
Certainly if we look at the etymology of the word, liberals are usually anything but liberal. But since the word is used in papal encyclicals as referring to the historical movement away from Christian thought that began with a rejection of Christian economic and political morality, and then moved to rejecting Christian sexual morality, I think we have sufficient warrant for calling such people liberals, despite the original noble meaning of the word. And of course, nearly all people in the U.S. who call themselves conservatives are really liberals of a sort.
And Fascism originally meant something very specific, it wasn’t just a synomym for “you nasty guy.”
Father Benedict Groeschel likes to say “A conservative wants to preserve the status quo, and I want to blow it up.”
I don’t know Father’s original context, but I’m guessing I’d probably agree with it, especially since much of the status quo is neither Catholic nor conservative. But obviously Father is speaking hyperbolically; I doubt he wants to “blow up” the tax exemption for churches and non-profit which is arguably a large piece of the status quo.
We have to avoid being like the blind men and the elephant. The present conservative coalition is made up of many components, some of them pushing for policies which clash with the faith, others which are good. I would never say “Conservatism is great!” because it’s as silly as saying “Paint is red.” So calling it horrible is meaningless. Some are called to be engaged in politics, eschewing a “puritanism” which is not Catholic in character, and thank God for them.
Good old Father Benedict. Because he has a program on EWTN, which is a bastion of politically conservative Catholicism- I have heard defenses of torture and the bombing of Hiroshima there- sometimes people are shocked at his rare incursions into political territory. I was listening to his program, where listeners call in with questions once and someone asked a question about illegal immigrants. Father responded with a fiery denunciation against any hostility to our brothers and sisters who come here seeking work, and quoted the Old Testament on how defrauding the laborer of his wage is a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance. This last in reference to the fact that illegal immigrants pay Social Security payroll taxes, which they will never receive back in retirement.
You could hear the shock in the room; these folks were not expecting this on EWTN!
From knowing him personally, what politics he espouses is radical, not conservative. Would that he would address such things more often.
Pauli,
You wrote, “much of the status quo is neither Catholic nor conservative.” Well, what does “conservative” mean then if it doesn’t mean conserving what you have, i.e., the status quo? Or is it some ideology which wants to conserve something which doesn’t presently exist? But why do those people get to call themselves conservatives then? If someone wanted to conserve or recreate whatever remnants of Stalism or paganism or any other ideas or systems that were around, would they not be entitled to claim to be conservatives as well?
I think Catholics should have a positive program – it’s called Catholicism, and it has definite implications for all areas of life, individual and social. It does not match with what Americans call either liberalism or conservatism, even when there is some accidental overlap with one or the other of them. The sooner that orthodox Catholics decide that they want to promote Catholicism and Catholicism alone, the better we’ll be.
I’ve concluded that my impatience with this debate about conservatism, and increasing reluctance to participate in it, is partly rooted in a disagreement with your statement above, Tom. I don’t believe that there is a socio-political program that is point-by-point identifiable with Catholicism.
Obviously Catholicism has, to say the least, “definite implications for all areas of life, individual and social.” And 2+2=4. But I think faithful Catholics may come to all manner of different conclusions about the way those implications play out in specific political views and actions. For me, they work out in a way that puts me in the same political camp with many conservatives.
Most of all I’m impatient, to put it mildly, with the constant suggestion that someone who describes himself as conservative is less than fully Catholic.
Maclin,
I’m glad to have you express views on this question again, although I certainly don’t want to test your virtue of patience.
Although it is true that there are many things about which Catholic faith and tradition are indifferent, I still think that there is a broad approach to things which can be called the central tradition, if you will, of the Faith and of the culture created by the Faith. Within that central tradition items range from the de fide at one extreme, to simply what the best Catholic writers have said, at the other extreme. But to me it seems all of a piece in the sense that it fits together intellectually. For example, I have a hard time reconciling what has been authoritatively said by several popes about economics with American conservatism, whereas the papal utterances fit easily with what Belloc and Chesterton wrote. Writers such as they seem to be trying to extend and supplement what the Magisterium says, not trying to explain it away or minimize it, which is the kind of stuff one hears from both liberal and conservative Catholics much of the time – or so it seems to me.
I’ll try to focus on what seems to me the fundamental disconnect. If conservatism is viewed as a set of abstract doctrines of which some are compatible with the Faith and some are not, then your objection is well taken. But it isn’t that.
As Pauli has said above, and as someone said in that email discussion to which Daniel refers, American conservatism is best understood as a phenomenon, not as an abstraction. It’s a set of concrete responses to a concrete historical situation, with a sort of coalition formed around those responses. Not everybody in the coalition has the same fundamental principles, and to a great extent that’s ok.
One such concrete response, for instance, is the belief that way too much power is presently concentrated in the federal government. The people who believe that may have all sorts of different ideas about what the ideal form of government would be. To go looking for a conservative magisterium that can state the definitive theoretical position on that question is to mistake the whole nature of the thing.
Another good way of looking at conservatism is in Francesca Murphy’s description: it’s the search for the least bad option–among, that is, those actually available.
It’s certainly true that some Catholic conservatives get too carried away with political partisanship, and need to be called on it. But the risk of losing sight of principle in the hurly-burly of affairs is inherent in any worldly activity.
Maclin, your latest two posts sum up my position entirely. I don’t believe that there is a socio-political program that is point-by-point identifiable with Catholicism either. And conservatism as a phenomenon is probably the best way to describe the way I view it and use it in a practical sense. Your practicality and exigence should not be mistaken for impatience.
Maclin writes: “It’s certainly true that some Catholic conservatives get too carried away with political partisanship, and need to be called on it.”
You are right here also. I’m working on a letter to Newt G. right now to point out to him that he’s wrong on water-boarding. OTOH, the elephant-sized donkey in the middle of the room, as it were, is that the American Bishops are never called on their loyalty to the Democratic Party. An example of this can be seen in that 90% support single payer health and they signed a statement to that effect. So it’s no wonder that so many are reluctant supporters of the pro-life movement and masters of moral equivalency. This is a much deeper and distressing phenomenon, IMHO.
Pauli-
Are you talking about the same American hierarchy that I see? Once they were weak on abortion, but now it seems they are strong on that and weak on everything else. In the last election many of them appear to have believed there was only one issue, and that the Republicans, contrary to history, are reliable allies on it. Many of them appear to be ardent Republicans themselves.
Your words appear to be more relevant to the hierarchy of the 70s and 80s.
And has Newt Gingrich said anything clear one way or the other on waterboarding? All I have seen is hemming and hawing, which of course is wrong enough…not that I have followed it that closely.
If a mark of conservatism is the concrete response that too much power is presently concentrated in the federal government, then it would seem we would have to consider some identified as leftists as conservatives and some identified as conservatives as, at least, not conservative. As far as military power is concerned, for instance, it would appear that most of those who call themselves or are identified as conservative favor maintaining the current military might of the United States, while many leftists want to dismantle it. But the military power of the U.S. certainly accrues to the federal goverment, not the states, nor to local governments.
It seems to me that conservatives for the most part object to federal power because they more or less hold to Thomas Paine’s maxim that the least government there is, the better — at least as far as economics goes. If this is the case, then conservative response to big government would seem to be based on an idea, even if a rather vague one, and not be so purely concrete as has been described.
I think, too, we could identify rather broad ideas that could be considered as conservative — many of which are not in accord with the leading ideas on the nature of the social order expounded in papal encyclicals and Catholic tradition.
I’ve tried several times to respond civilly to the preceding, and I just can’t bring it off. So I’ll say only that my lack of response does not indicate agreement.
Ok, having given my annoyance time to subside, I’ll explain.
Christopher, I just don’t see, and haven’t seen in other exchanges on this topic, any indication that you’re actually listening to what I’m saying, in the sense of attempting to understand it. It appears that you’re only looking for a chance to score points, and moreover are awarding them to yourself when it looks to me like you’ve missed by yards.
There are several misconstruals and non sequiturs in your response. Experience leads me to believe that an attempt to correct or explain them will only cause them to multiply. Experience also teaches me that when it’s clear a discussion is going nowhere one may as well abandon it early.
Mr. Horton,
Your response is grossly unjust. At the risk of being called a liar as well as a dishonorable plotter, I will say your characterization of my intentions is false. I never use argument to “score points” for myself. And as for misunderstanding you, perhaps I have. Or, maybe, your language was unclear.
I will add that it’s easy to claim that my response contains miscontruals and non sequiturs; but to make the claim while failing to point what the misconstruals and non sequiturs are, is merely an exercise in rhetoric. It is a way of “scoring points” by innuendo and a nod.
I said “it appears.” In other words, it’s the way you come across to me.
I think I explained why I regard it as fruitless to go further in explaining my objections to your response.
Your inability to respond to the specifics of Mr Zehnder’s criticism does not help your case, Maclin. And by Francesca’s definition any sane person would qualify as a conservative.
And if “conservative” really refers to temperment or mood, I am a conservative insofar as I honor traditional culture and folkways. Heck, I worship in a rite essentially unchanged for a thousand years, and chant in tones as old. On the other hand, my temperment also includes an instinctive preference for the underdog; St Louis of France, in a letter of instruction to his son, told him that in hearing a case of a rich man against a poor man to always prefer the side of the poor man until proven wrong. There is this rage against injustice in some of us that I don’t see among the self-indentified conservatives. This combination of traditionalism and radicalism is a Catholic one. The person at home with this paradox will not easily become an ideologue.
And I have noticed that contradiction in right wing critiques of government as well: the government can only screw everything up, except- though they rarely aknowledge this directly- when it comes to the military. And, by the way, isn’t the military health system “socialistic”?
Yes, Mr. Horton, “it appears” you know how to weigh an “it appears.” It is an artful dodge. One can say whatever one wants and take cover in an “it appears.” At least, that’s how “it appears” to me.
But, don’t be troubled; I shall bow out of any further discussion on this forum now or in the future.
Aw, Christopher, don’t do that; some of us value your words.
St. Louis of France, in a letter of instruction to his son, told him that in hearing a case of a rich man against a poor man to always prefer the side of the poor man until proven wrong.
Mr. Nichols, in a world as simple as this hackneyed example sets forth I think we should all be able to agree. But take a conservative issue like lawsuit reform. What it addresses is an abuse of the system which really exists in the real world, things that are really going on, not the courtroom drama of a made-for-TV tearjerker. What we see clogging up our courts is very rich trial lawyers bringing class cases against super-rich firms by using the “poor” who get $4.99 for mailing in a SASE. The losers raise the price of their products to cover the cost and change their advertising to limit their risk.
I don’t think that liberals and conservatives would disagree that the proverbial rich man has a natural advantage over the proverbial poor man and in iffy cases involving these well-beloved archetypes I’m fairly certain that judges and juries are able to act with a merciful prudence and still serve justice.
I apologize, Christopher, for my inability to keep my temper in check, though not for the substance of what I’ve said apart from anything hostile to you personally. The running insinuation of heterodoxy in these discussions keeps me on a pretty short fuse.
It’s I, not you, who should stay out of the conversation here. And that’s what I plan to do. I encourage you to remain.
Thought you all might enjoy the relevancy of this essay to this discussion:http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3945
Mr Pauli- “This hackneyed example” is from the reading from the Divine Office on the feast of St Louis in the Latin rite.
The example you cite is another case of the rich exploiting the poor. As for your certainty that the rich and poor are treated equitably by the justice system, that is naive indeed. I thought that conservatives prided themselves on their realism.
And Maclin, I must admit I am bewildered by your reaction to this conversation, as I was in the aforementioned email exchange. I have known you a very long time, 25 years or so, and you have always impressed me by your even temper. Something is obviously getting under your skin, and no, I am not implying heterodoxy…
Bizarre things happening with the spam catcher, which seems to pick on Tom Storck for no reason that I can tell. The following comment from him was flagged as spam, approved as non-spam, appeared on the site, then mysteriously disappeared again:
–
Thomas Storck
Pauli wrote, “But take a conservative issue like lawsuit reform. What it addresses is an abuse of the system which really exists in the real world, things that are really going on, not the courtroom drama of a made-for-TV tearjerker. What we see clogging up our courts is very rich trial lawyers bringing class cases against super-rich firms by using the “poor” who get $4.99 for mailing in a SASE. The losers raise the price of their products to cover the cost and change their advertising to limit their risk.”
I’m certainly open to the possibility that trial lawyers are abusing the system in such cases – but what I’m not sympathetic to is the usual conservative response, namely, to fortify the already rich corporations and make it more difficult to sue them. It appears to me that in too many controversies the facts are selected to justify one solution or the other, whereas an impartial survey of the situation would often indicate some third (or fourth or fifth…) way to remedy the problem. We can’t hope to improve things if we ignore the real instances of injustice or abuse brought up by either side. We have to investigate them, try to understand what they mean, and try to remedy them with an eye toward the common good.
BTW, Dan, your statement, “This combination of traditionalism and radicalism is a Catholic one” is a nearly perfect summation of the Catholic attitude on socio-cultural matters. Thanks for stating it so clearly.
I too am sorry that Maclin says he is bowing out of these discussions. I was hoping that we might make some progress in sorting out the question.
Maclin,
Thank you for your generosity. I fear at times I can display too much doggedness, and let my rhetoric get the better of me. But my intent is not to use discussion as a competition — something I deeply hate. Truth is a common good, not a contest.
I would like to clarify one thing. I do think there are orthodox political and social ideas. I think, on the level of principle, the Church speaks to these things, and one is bound to hold the principles the Church enunciates, though much freedom is allowed on the level of application. Of course this means that I think that certain political or social ideas are heterodox. These ideas may be “conservative” or “leftist” or whatever — but if they are not in accord with the mind of the Church, they depart from the truth.
As for those who hold ideas that are what I would call “heterodox” — it is not my place to judge whether their adhesion to such ideas is material or formal. On the level of pure discussion, it is not even important (though in real life, of course, it certainly is.) I know many such people, and they are in many or most respects good folks who sincerely want to be Catholic, at least as far as I can judge. All of us, in fact, probably hold some notions that are not in accord in with the Catholic faith — and it is on account of us all that I think it important to have careful discussions of the principles we hold and the political associations we make so that we may help each other stay true to the Catholic faith. After all, nothing is more important than this.
You’re welcome. I appreciate your conciliatory words. No hard feelings.
Thank you, Daniel, for that last paragraph “Catholics can expect no earthly home, let alone a place at the political table., etc.”…..something that is all too easy to forget, over and again…at least that has been my experience…over and again.
I found a quote I like. It actually was written with reference to the relationship between Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants and Evangelical Protestants, but I think it applies to a “T” how Catholics think about conservatism. Just take out the word “evangelical” and insert “conservative.” Here is the quote:
“One person disavows, another accepts only with qualifications, and another unreservedly wears the evangelical label either in general approval of the movement’s direction or with a determination to “take it back” to a moment in the past when it supposedly described people who think as we do.”
I have also found a quote I like which is relevant to the topic at hand:
“When someone tells me he is a conservative, I want to know what it is he wishes to conserve. And I ask the question with a certain intention to harass, for I have always had trouble understanding how the beliefs which most Americans understand to be implied by the word “conservative” could reasonably merit that term.
“….what does it mean to believe oneself a conservative in a society which grows daily more attached…to practices and principles utterly irreconcilable with those one wishes to conserve?….how many of society’s assumptions may one reject before one becomes, intellectually at least, a revolutionary?”
-Maclin Horton, 1991
Whenever someone tells me he is a revolutionary, I want to know what it is he wishes to revolve.
The words “conservative” and “liberal” when used in the modern American political context bear no relation to dictionary definitions except by accident. They are labels for modern phenomena, or they have become such. When dealing with these, I think it most useful to treat them in context.
I’ll drop this thing and concede the point altogether if you can show me a case like this scenario. A number of academic types speak to a groups of young Catholics saying things like “Have you ever noticed that liberals aren’t into liberating what needs to be liberated and conservatives aren’t into conserving anything worthwhile?” They all react by having spontaneous conversions, saying “We are all going to go to confession immediately and will go to daily Mass and say the Rosary from now on!” A year or so later you notice that there is a Catholic Political Party which is as large as the other major parties ready to contend in a major election.