The Real Fight: Classical Liberalism vs. Authoritarian Progressivism

A Fight Worth Having: Classical Liberalism

vs. Authoritarian Progressivism

by Benjamin L. Smith

What threatens human flourishing today are governments inspired by authoritarian progressivism.

Patrick Deneen’s recent article “A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching” is certainly worth reading. According to Deneen, the most important struggle within American Catholicism is a fight among conservative Catholics that pits those who emphasize classical liberal ideals of self-governance and free markets against “radical” Catholics who are suspicious of the ideals of the American founding. The former tend to think that Christianity is compatible with liberalism, whereas the latter insist that liberalism is universally based on a false anthropology and therefore inherently flawed.

If Deneen’s description is accurate, then the fight between Christian liberals and radicals (for lack of better titles) is not worth the time because the radicals are attacking a straw man; they err by over-generalizing. It is true that Christian liberals are sometimes oddly romantic about the founding of America, but it is also true that radicals are oddly critical. Was the founding of America flawed? Of course it was. So were the foundings of all political communities. Real political communities are not “ideas” but historically conditioned associations that arise out of ad hoc historical processes. Of course, ideas matter, but history is not an evolution of ideas. Contra Hegel, ideas and becoming are not the same.

But the really important point is this: the radical school should recognize that many Christian liberals share their anthropology, differ with Locke, and yetaffirm liberal norms for government. There is nothing sub-par or incoherent about this stance.

Shared Anthropology Can Result in Different Political Philosophy

Two philosophers may share the same anthropology in general and still differ in detail; they may share similar first principles without sharing secondary or tertiary premises; they may share principles and differ on application. Contrary to what is held by the rationalist tradition of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, philosophy—especially political philosophy—is not akin to a geometrical system of deductions.

Neither Catholic anthropology nor classical liberalism represents a homogeneous block. For most contemporary Christians who embrace classical liberalism, liberalism is primarily a normative account of the scope of government and law. To be sure, some historically important versions of liberalism rely on self-sovereignty or contract theory, but one may argue in favor of limited government and the rule of law for other reasons. Similarly, one may affirm the naturalness of the family, social interaction, and political community without endorsing the modern bureaucratic state and central planning. In fact, a whole array of options is available to political thought. The radical school misses the nuanced diversity of political arrangements and seems to think that one can deduce only one set of political norms and applications from very general anthropological truths. This approach is heavy-handed and overly general; it fails to respect the importance of political prudence and historical realities.

Many Christian liberals and “radicals” embrace the same anthropology, and few serious thinkers believe that government is neutral. Christian liberalism distinguishes itself by its view of the relationship of government to pre-political goods. One way of defending this approach may be appropriated from the work of John Finnis. According to Finnis, the goods of human flourishing are primarily (but not exclusively) instantiated in pre-political institutions: families, churches, traditional colleges, small businesses, local community, friendships, etc. The primary role of government and law is to facilitate the flourishing of these institutions, not replace them.

Similarly, Christian liberals are attuned to the needs of the poor and the importance of education, but they believe that these should be handled by pre-political institutions except when the obstacles are so great that the only solution is government intervention. They care for local community, custom, family, and religion just as much as their radical brethren do. Nevertheless, like Thomas Aquinas, Christian liberals restrict the practice of government to the political common goods of justice and peace.

In this perspective, human law threatens the wicked, punishes injustice, prohibits outrageous depravities, secures peace, and protects custom. One need not endorse self-sovereignty or social contract theory to embrace thissort of liberalism. Indeed, a desire to limit the scope of government is completely consistent with the Christian recognition of the limits of reason and the fallen character of the human heart. Legal coercion and the threat of punishment curb evil, but laws are still administered by human beings who are prone to evil. Hence, the power of government must remain limited in scope. None of this contravenes Christian anthropology. Rather, it is one way of developing and applying Christian theology and conservative values.

..............

Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com