tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post115820426308018301..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Damon Linker's TheoconsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159921341635844992006-10-03T19:22:00.000-05:002006-10-03T19:22:00.000-05:00Where did Linker's blog go? Do you know Mr. Fox?&#...Where did Linker's blog go? Do you know Mr. Fox? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="joe at theclash dot com">joe strummer</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159727296443119022006-10-01T13:28:00.000-05:002006-10-01T13:28:00.000-05:00Oddly enough, Damon seems to have deleted his blog...Oddly enough, Damon seems to have deleted his blog. Wonder why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159478626949533382006-09-28T16:23:00.000-05:002006-09-28T16:23:00.000-05:00Noah,Thanks very much for stopping by--as well as ...Noah,<BR/><BR/>Thanks very much for stopping by--as well as for prompting that <A HREF="http://apostatelinker.blogspot.com/2006/09/first-things.html" REL="nofollow">long and revealing post</A>  of Damon's.<BR/><BR/>"Linker's objection can't be that the theocons ally religion to politics, because that's an old tradition in America. Rather, I think his objection is that they ally *reason* to *religion* (or, arguably, subordinate reason to religion, make reason the instrumental tool of religion)--and that's not a *political* project of the *theocons* but a *religious* project of the Catholic church, one that goes back at least to Aquinas if not further."<BR/><BR/>Yes and no. Damon himself in his book does not draw the distinction I do between revivalists like WJB and MLK, and the theocons. Unfortunately, I think this makes some of the arguments he makes about the incompatibility of formal religious appeals to political action and secular political presumptions a little simplistic. The better side of Damon's argument does reveal that distinction, however, and that's what I focus on. Is the better side of that argument also, by implication, an anti-Catholic one? I'm not sure. It may be. <BR/><BR/>While it is certainly true that Catholicism is far more willing to, as you put it, turn reason into "the instrumental tool of religion," and thus presumably is a lot more likely to seek out a language of truly "public" (but also dogmatic) authority than Protestantism, I'm not sure if that captures the whole story. The Thomistic synthesis, with all its political claims, nonetheless was understood as embodying the natural political order; there was no question of building majority support for the Thomistic "agenda." Whereas, in my reading of Damon's argument at least, the theocons are revealed as moderns and quasi-liberals who really do think about their use of the natural law in terms of an "agenda." This places them against the modern world, but simultaneously committed to using the modern world's tools. If this is a problem which is peculiar to Catholicism, it is also peculiar to this specific group of people who seem to think that they can use reason to remind people of natural Christian foundations as well as build populist majorities simultaneously. I would insist that the latter is a project that needs to be and ought to take place through subjective conviction and conversion, a point that Protestant evangelists have perhaps historically been more aware of, even if they haven't always articulated it theologically. (Of course, now that so many evangelicals have themselves adopted the language of Catholicism for different reasons, perhaps the issue is moot.) <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159385733287891072006-09-27T14:35:00.000-05:002006-09-27T14:35:00.000-05:00"One might be tempted to draw a Protestant-Catholi...<I>"One might be tempted to draw a Protestant-Catholic division here, and there may be some truth to that"</I> <BR/><BR/>Quite a lot of truth, I think.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read Damon Linker's book yet, and I'm very much looking forward to doing so. But it seems to me that the difference between MLK and WJB on the one hand and Neuhaus on the other is that the former are Protestant while the latter is Catholic - by which I don't mean simply to call attention to their religious affiliations but to the nature of their religious inspiration.<BR/><BR/>It is very hard for Linker to argue that America has not admitted religiously-based crusades into the public square: abolitionism, temperance and anti-evolutionism are all obvious counter-examples. What is notable about the difference between these crusades and the crusade against abortion is *not* that the abortion cause is sectarian while these are more universal; if anything, the *opposite* is true. Bryan and Garrison were far *more* likely to argue from scripture than is Neuhaus; the temperance crusaders were often *explicitly* sectarian in that their crusade was sometimes overtly and almost always implicitly anti-Catholic.<BR/><BR/>Linker's objection can't be that the theocons ally religion to politics, because that's an old tradition in America. Rather, I think his objection is that they ally *reason* to *religion* (or, arguably, subordinate reason to religion, make reason the instrumental tool of religion) - and that's not a *political* project of the *theocons* but a *religious* project of the Catholic church, one that goes back at least to Aquinas if not further.<BR/><BR/>So I suspect that Linker's argument really *is* an anti-Catholic argument, rather than an argument about the proper boundaries between religion and politics in America.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I don't mean that disparagingly. There is nothing wrong with making an anti-Catholic argument. I'm a Jew; I think Catholic teaching on a whole host of issues is literally and profoundly wrong. And I don't have much use for a religious version of PC that rules out of bounds certain kinds of criticism as "anti-religious bigotry." But I believe in calling a spade a spade. And if Linker doesn't have a problem with a scripture-quoting William Jennings Bryan denouncing teaching our kids that we're descended from apes, but he worries about theocracy when Robert George says that any reasonable person conversant with biology who believes that murder is wrong *must* support the abolition of abortion, well, let's just say I think I've made my point. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Noah</A>Noahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12945329316119532583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159384432987277142006-09-27T14:13:00.000-05:002006-09-27T14:13:00.000-05:00I don't mean to say that the answer is obvious, Ru...I don't mean to say that the answer is obvious, Russell. I should say that, insofar as I understand the natural-law tradition, I am not (to coin a phrase) a natural-lawyer. I have serious reservations about the usefulness of natural-law language in intra-Christian debates as well as debates with others. But I am not a political philosopher either, so I may be missing or misunderstanding something in the tradition. I am just saying that I do not see in Linker's book anything that could be construed as evidence for his key claim unless the validity of the key claim is already assumed.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Alan JacobsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159273374898894232006-09-26T07:22:00.000-05:002006-09-26T07:22:00.000-05:00Alan,I also apologize for being a little slow in g...Alan,<BR/><BR/>I also apologize for being a little slow in getting back to this.<BR/><BR/>"I think the key phrase in your response is 'the construction of a public language of religiosity.' What the theocons, as far as I can tell from my unsystematic reading of them, say is that they want to (re)construct a public language of morality. As Americans, they say, they want to restore a strong moral language as the cement of public life and discourse; as Christians, of course, they wouldn't mind if people followed the trail back from the morality to the religion that gave rise to the morality, but that's not their actual project."<BR/><BR/>Ok, now this is a serious challenge to what I take from Damon's book; if what the theocons really do want to do involves the construction of a <I>morality</I>  within the liberal order through appeals to American history and its Christian roots, etc., then much of my concern about them falls. Generating a moral consensus is not, I think, a bad conceptual fit (to say the least!) with majoritarian politics in the way generating a public religion is.<BR/><BR/>I'll have to think about this for a while, and do some more reading. My initial take, however, is to think you're eliding some of the evidence Damon generates, however indirect it may appear. There is their frequent presumption (on display most recently in Robert George's claim that, logically, every serious Christian needs to be vote Republican) that moral arguments which are solely based on appeals to the authority of the natural law tradition are entirely and uncomplicatedly applicable to political questions of the day. There are Neuhaus's comments about the place of atheists and Jews in a Christian country. There is their constant invocation of America's Christian tradition as something we need to show "fidelity" to, as opposed to something which can be used as part of an ongoing (presumably "moral") interpretation of America's meaning. I admit one could probably argue that none of these amount to anything necessarily "dogmatic" or relious in some institutional sense; as I said, I'm going to have to think about your challenge Alan. But I don't think the answer is as obvious as you suggest. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159271882740811982006-09-26T06:58:00.000-05:002006-09-26T06:58:00.000-05:00Also Anono,"What do you suppose really propelled h...Also Anono,<BR/><BR/>"What do you suppose really propelled his seemingly dramatic conversion from a theocon into an author of a book denouncing theocons as an unprecedented danger to America? Isn't it a bit weird?"<BR/><BR/>I don't know if it's "weird"; admittedly, such turnarounds like that aren't common, but they aren't unheard of either. I actually do know a fair amount about Damon's intellectual/spiritual journey over the last several years, but I don't think it's my place to talk about it. I'm sure he'll write about it himself in the future. In the meantime, check out his new blog--appropriately titled <A HREF="http://apostatelinker.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">The Apostate</A> . <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1159271643174046402006-09-26T06:54:00.000-05:002006-09-26T06:54:00.000-05:00Anono,Sorry I've been away for a while; I had a co...Anono,<BR/><BR/>Sorry I've been away for a while; I had a conference last week that kept me busy. Thanks for contributing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>"Are you saying that theocons are dangerous because, say, they argue against the governmental recognition of gay marriage?...What *specifically* does it mean for a 'certain dogmatism' to be 'incumbent upon those who wish to show fidelity to the American experiment.' Dogmatism about what? Incumbent HOW?"<BR/><BR/>You're reading too much into my review on the one hand, and not enough on the other. First, please note that I never in my review call the theocons "dangerous"; that's Damon's label, not mine. Now, I do think Damon has shown (if one can avoid being distracted by his polemical overreaching) an important way in which what they are doing is damaging or troublesome, but that hardly warrants paranoia over their influence. I think what Neuhaus, et al, have had to say about gay marriage and whatever else is as legitimate a part of the national debate as what anyone else has or will have to say.<BR/><BR/>What Damon has helped me to see, however, is that there is something worrisome about a religious language which states that 1) America's soul (as revealed through history, etc.) is defined by natural laws; 2) natural laws can only be effectively understood and instantiated through Catholic Christianity; and so therefore 3) American politicians and political movements that do not derive their principles from Catholic Christianity are not just purusing immoral ends, but are also pursuing <I>unAmerican</I>  ends. As someone who has learned much from the Catholic Christian tradition, I admit to being bothered by--even, yes, a little frightened by--a group of people seem intent on arguing that existing partisan arrangements (the Republican party, George W. Bush, etc.) are near-perfectly adaptable to that tradition, and that anyone who accepts the authority of that tradition must logically accept its present-day realization with the GOP platform.<BR/><BR/>Why do I find that frightening? I guess because I <I>really</I> don't think appeals to religious authority ought to be used to transform very particular political battles into referendums on one's place in the enternities. Majoritarain democracy is not a very appropriate tool for developing a religious worldview. I think what Damon has gotten right is that the theocons do not see any problem with identifying the articulation of religious dogmas with the development of a political platform. But there are problems with that; among other things, as I say in my review, it brings out the worst elements of populism, encouraging people to see their salvation and their citizenship as one, and thus to also see their opponents as both unAmerican and as their theological enemies. Which is not a healthy thing for any polity. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158803005402695292006-09-20T20:43:00.000-05:002006-09-20T20:43:00.000-05:00Sorry, Russell, I was non compos mentis for a few ...Sorry, Russell, I was non compos mentis for a few days. I think the key phrase in your response is "the construction of a public language of religiosity." What the theocons, as far as I can tell from my unsystematic reading of them, <I>say</I>  is that they want to (re)construct a public language of <I>morality</I>. As Americans, they say, they want to restore a strong moral language as the cement of public life and discourse; as Christians, of course, they wouldn't mind if people followed the trail back from the morality to the religion that gave rise to the morality, but that's not their actual <I>project</I>. Linker insists that the moral language is just a smokescreen for a program that is essentially and consciously religious. And what I say is: where's the evidence? I have tried to find in his book and elsewhere <I>one</I> clear piece of evidence to support the thesis, but I haven't turned it up yet. I'm not saying it doesn't exist — if you can find it for me, I's be obliged to you. As far as I can see, Linker simply <I>assumes</I> the truth of his thesis, suspiciously interprets the writings of Neuhaus et al. in light of that thesis, and calls that evidence. But the way he conducts his prosecution makes his thesis non-falsifiable. If the theocons don't own up to their nefarious scheme, that just shows how deeply nefarious it really is.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="jacobsar at gmail dot com">Alan Jacobs</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158786986794741502006-09-20T16:16:00.000-05:002006-09-20T16:16:00.000-05:00Also, since you seem to have known Linker for a lo...Also, since you seem to have known Linker for a long time, what do you suppose really propelled his seemingly dramatic conversion from a theocon into an author of a book denouncing theocons as an unprecedented danger to America? Isn't it a bit weird? After all, I understand (from early reviews) that Linker uses especially harsh language in denouncing the "End of Democracy" symposium from First Things. Yet that symposium took place in 1996, and it wasn't until 2001 that Linker started working at First Things. So the symposium couldn't have bothered him THAT much. What really occurred in the meantime to trigger his distaste? <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anono at hotmail dot com">Anono</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158721829616319002006-09-19T22:10:00.000-05:002006-09-19T22:10:00.000-05:00Russell -- you say that theocons are dangerous bec...Russell -- you say that theocons are dangerous because they desire: <BR/><BR/><I> the construction of a public language of religiosity that makes a certain dogmatism--one which gets associated with a single political agenda--incumbent upon those who wish to show fidelity to the American experiment. That's not a project of broad spiritual revivification; that's a project aimed at engaging and empowering specific sets of believers into acting in concert.</I> <BR/><BR/>Here's where you lose me by becoming far too abstract and fuzzy -- which, no offense, seems to characterize some of your points in the post as well. I read that, and I read it again, and again, and I still have no idea what it means in concrete, real-world terms. Are you saying that theocons are dangerous because, say, they argue against the governmental recognition of gay marriage? That would hardly work here; until just within the past few years, nobody on earth recognized gay marriage, so the fact that the theocons make arguments for this position hardly marks them as a dangerous novelty in the American experiment. <BR/><BR/>Well, maybe you're not talking about gay marriage. But do be specific: What *specifically* does it mean for a "certain dogmatism" to be "incumbent upon those who wish to show fidelity to the American experiment." Dogmatism about what? Incumbent HOW? Are you merely saying that if people don't agree with the dogmatic beliefs (which ones?) of Neuhaus, he'll write another Public Square column in which he deems that his opponents are not showing fidelity to the American experiment? In other words, Neuhaus might -- gasp -- make an argument about something? How on earth is that supposed to be frightening? How does it affect anyone's actual life? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="anono at hotmail dot com">Anono</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158677190499279362006-09-19T09:46:00.000-05:002006-09-19T09:46:00.000-05:00I don't know what Damon himself would say, Nate, b...I don't know what Damon himself would say, Nate, but having followed the book through it's development, I would guess that the manuscript was probably much too far along to incorporate Douthat's arguments in <I>FT</I>  by the time his essay appeared. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158583753789644772006-09-18T07:49:00.000-05:002006-09-18T07:49:00.000-05:00Linker's book seems to have missed the FT counter ...Linker's book seems to have missed the FT counter attack against the recent spate of theocracy books. (<A HREF="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0607/articles/douthat.html" REL="nofollow">See here</A> ) Was this political, or was the timing on Linker's book simply off? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="nboman at wm dot edu">Nate Oman</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158578851085855792006-09-18T06:27:00.000-05:002006-09-18T06:27:00.000-05:00Yep, I did notice Silus. Thanks for letting me kno...Yep, I did notice Silus. Thanks for letting me know though; it's good to find out that I personally know at least one other reader of Dreher's blog!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the compliment Nate.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158578762758916652006-09-18T06:26:00.000-05:002006-09-18T06:26:00.000-05:00Alan, I respect what you're saying, but the key po...Alan, I respect what you're saying, but the key point in your criticism is the nature of these "affirmations." If I agreed with you that Weigel and Neuhaus were primarily looking to revive/restore/revivify Christian and communal precepts that formed the background for America's political traditions and institutions, I'd have far more complaints about Damon's book than I already do. But the fact is that I <I>am</I>  persuaded that the contemporary theocon project goes beyond what you describe. I think the real insight to be found in Damon's survey of their writings is not his criticism of their historiography (as you note, that is in some cases a fairly easy target), but what they hope that historiography (and sociology, etc.) will help accomplish: the construction of a public language of religiosity that makes a certain dogmatism--one which gets associated with a single political agenda--incumbent upon those who wish to show fidelity to the American experiment. That's not a project of broad spiritual revivification; that's a project aimed at engaging and empowering specific sets of believers into acting in concert. And as I try to say in my review, I think that is theologically problematic within a liberal context. Among other things, it plays to some very negative elements of populism--and as I'm something of a populist, I would like to protect that political perspective from all possible (even unintentional) abuses. If populist sentiments--the weak against the powerful, the masses against the elites--which arise organically from our society are interpreted as conforming to a specific, objective religiosity, that's a recipe for danger, a danger that, for example, did not much characterize the work of those spiritually and morally energized by the religious language of Martin Luther King or a dozen other such revivalists. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="foxr at friends dot edu">Russell Arben Fox</A>Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158436583396284012006-09-16T14:56:00.000-05:002006-09-16T14:56:00.000-05:00If you look at the quotation from Weigel that Link...If you look at the quotation from Weigel that Linker says summarizes the theocon position, and then look at Linker’s summary of it, you can discern the elementary error that governs his whole book. Weigel’s summary of John Courtney Murray has a twofold thrust: first, the political/ethical judgment that this country needs to return to “those ‘elementary affirmations’ upon which it was founded”; and second, the historical claim that those affirmations ”were not the original product of the Enlightenment and its American deist heirs, but of the Catholic medieval theory of man and society.” Then Linker’s summary: “Either the United States would return to its medieval Catholic roots or the very existence of its democratic order would be imperiled.” But of course neither Weigel nor Murray says that, as is obvious to any competent or fair-minded reader. They say that America needs to return to those “affirmations” themselves in order to be politically and morally healthy; they don’t say anything about returning to “medieval Catholic roots.” (Since no one in the history of American governance has been aware of those supposed roots, “returning” would scarcely be the right word anyway, would it?) They obviously would prefer people to see the justice of their historical argument — that the picture of humanity that guided the Founders was not invented in the eighteenth century — but it is not necessary that anyone accept that argument in order to accept the affirmations about human dignity and value that reigned at this country’s founding. (As it happens, I don’t think their history, on this point, is very good.) So there is actually nothing “sectarian” at all about the claims that Weigel and Murray are making. But by inaccurately combining the two claims into one, Linker is able, he hopes, to create an impression of sectarianism. And I’m sure he will succeed. No one has ever gone broke by telling one segment of the American public that their political opponents are scheming monsters bent on taking over the world. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2006/09/damon-linkers-theocons.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="jacobsar at gmail dot com">Alan Jacobs</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158366536226929552006-09-15T19:28:00.000-05:002006-09-15T19:28:00.000-05:00"MLK shamed and praised America; he didn't catechi..."MLK shamed and praised America; he didn't catechize it."<BR/><BR/>This is a wonderful line. I am still thinking about whether I have anything else to say on this... <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="nboman.people.wm.edu" REL="nofollow" TITLE="nboman at wm dot edu">Nate Oman</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1158354036115170042006-09-15T16:00:00.000-05:002006-09-15T16:00:00.000-05:00( Did you notice that you were mentioned over at ...( Did you notice that <A HREF="http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2006/09/russell-arben-fox-on-theocons.html" REL="nofollow">you were mentioned</A> over at the <A HREF="http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/" REL="nofollow">Crunchy Con's blog</A>? )<BR/><BR/>Posted by <A HREF="http://silusGROK.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="silusGROK at gmail dot com">Silus Grok</A>Silus Grokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10934750518150584644noreply@blogger.com