On Crunchy Conservatism

Perhaps I’m just really slow, but I have only recently discovered Rod Dreher and his “crunchy” conservatism. I am still learning about this phenomenon, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to share some semblance with “red toryism.” Apparently, to be a “crunchy con” is to be conservative on traditional American social values, particularly the “religiously” grounded ones (e.g. gay marriage). But it is also to oppose some forms of classical liberalism, particularly economic liberalism. Yet, it seems hardly at all comfortable with socialism either, because it is afraid of statism. A “crunchy con” is evidently ardently anti-modern, which includes a skepticism toward science, technology, and secular social theory. Here, we see a similarity with John Milbank and his escapades against secular social theory–and his self-identification as a “red tory.” A “crunchy con” is against globalism, especially when such globalism is a matter of spreading liberalism abroad. Yet, it wants to remain Republican in the American sense of the word. So we have Pat Buchanan’s  American Conservative magazine, which is evidently so Right that it ends up looking Left sometimes. One particular political theology blogger, Davey Henreckson, seems quite sympathetic to a sort of crunchy conservatism. As far as I can tell, and I admit I am at a bit of a loss, this is basically a sort of anti-liberalism that isn’t totally oblivious to the obviously liberal character of global capitalism and the neoconservative agenda of a global war. So, these folks, whose positions are varied, are sort of localists and isolationists that want to maintain community and “traditional” values. Another word sometimes used to describe a position that seems similar is “communitarianism.”

What is interesting about the recent popularity of red toryism and crunchy conservatism is its insistence on the use of the word conservative. On the one hand, these folks want to regain a “true conservatism”–they want to take the honorable title away from the present neoconservative takeover of the Republican party. Now, insofar as crunchy conservatism is an American political movement it is more or less liberal in the classical sense, but seems to be kind of unaware of this. In maintaining the word conservative and “Right,” these folks want to make sure they distinguish themselves from liberals and the “Left.” Don’t mistake a crunchy con for a socialist–they are more of traditionalist communitarian types. They aren’t about unbridled individualism, but they certainly don’t want the big bad state to take away their money.

So, as far as I can tell, Craig Carter sees himself as a sort of “crunchy con.” But, perhaps, he is more thoroughly anti classical liberalism than these folks. I’m not sure nor do I really care all that much, because his views are basically incoherent.

So, what we have here is a sort of Christian traditionalist anti-liberalism. Although most of these folks know quite well that we can’t turn back the clock in order to abort Scotus’ fetus, they sort of act like we should or that we should at least try to steer history in the direction of a society based on “Christian” values. Now how these folks understand Christianity is highly problematic I think and looks something a bit like pre-Vatican II Catholicism, I suppose. Or, perhaps a time before all of that…a time before the nominalists; a time before Ockham; a time before Protestantism. A true conservatism, in this view, is a sort of reappropriation of medieval economics usually all within the framework of a sort of participation metaphysics grounded in a hierarchical ontology (read Radical Orthodoxy). Let me just show my hand here: such a nostalgia for Christendom is utter bullshit; it is quite simply a wretched reading of history and, frankly, it is Constantinian.

How to talk to a liberal

Craig Carter’s central enemy is “liberalism.” In Carter’s view, “liberalism” manifests itself in a variety of ways. He speaks of “liberal modernity,” “left-liberalism,” “the liberal state,” “liberal theology,” and “liberal fascism.” For Carter, modernity is a thoroughly liberal affair. Liberal modernity has caused capitalism and liberal democracy, socialism and communism, atheism and secularism. Liberalism spawned the “sexual revolution”  has led to a “theocracy in Iowa” on the issue of gay marriage, and is the reason why so many fetuses are aborted. According to Carter, Walter Wink is a liberal because of his “demythologizing” of the principalities and powers. And, although he doesn’t say it out right, John Howard Yoder would be a liberal on this point as well. But, of course, it has become extremely questionable as to whether Carter understands Yoder at all. But, that is for another post.

For now, let’s talk a little more about Carter’s enemy: liberalism. Carter is enthralled with liberalism–he really thinks it is the root of everything wrong in the world. Although Carter goes to great pains to understand and define liberalism, he nevertheless necessarily equivocates when he applies the term to both “neoconservatives” and people like Obama. On the one hand, Carter wants to talk about liberalism in the classical sense of the word. On the other hand, he wants to talk about liberalism in the popular North American sense. So, we have liberalism in the classical sense: key representatives are people like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc. Today, liberalism is the dominant viewpoint–it is the implicit framework of both the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. But, in trying to find the roots of this political viewpoint, Carter stretches back to the very foundations of “modernity.” Despite his Baptist affiliation, more and more, Carter is becoming convinced that the Protestant reformation and the nominalists before it really spurred on modernity and therefore all of the problems Carter sees in the world. Next, we  have liberalism in the popular North American sense: liberals are people like Obama and Jim Wallis. Although Carter thinks that the Republican party and particularly the neoconservatives work within a broadly liberal framework (in the classical sense), in his mind they are less liberal. Or, at least they oppose abortion and gay marriage. For Carter, abortion and gay marriage is the height of what he calls liberal fascism–the word “liberal” here is used in the classical and popular sense. One thing is certain in all of this: Carter is decidedly not a liberal.

A few comments are in order. To be against liberalism in the classical sense is not necessarily to make one a conservative, because we’re talking about a particular philosophical viewpoint not a place on a spectrum. In contrast, in the popular sense the opposite of liberalism is indeed conservatism. And so we have the Democrats and the Republicans. But, let’s be clear on this: both parties are liberal in the classical sense. Carter, however, does in fact believe that the opposite of liberalism in the classical sense is conservatism, but if liberalism is not a place on a spectrum, what is conservatism in this context? For Carter, “true conservatism” is basically anything pre-modern. In Carter’s own words, “What I call true conservativism is a political philosophy that historically and logically precedes modernity and calls into question all the nominalism, individualism, rationalism and materialism that flows from the Enlightenment and is expressed in the two great Enlightenment religions: Capitalism & Marxism. True conservatism emphasises the family, localism, agrarianism, tradition, religion, duty & natural law.” So, there you have it, true conservatism in one word is a magical view of something called Christendom.

Carter loves all things genuinely conservative and hates all things liberal. He despises the “evangelical left” for their “socialism” and for their pro-choice politics. He despises Obama because he’s a liberal fascist baby killer. He really despises what he calls “liberal theology” which as far as I can tell is pretty much anyone he disagrees with or anyone who draws at all from modern critical methods. What he identifies as liberal theology is highly problematic in my view. Rowan Williams is a liberal? Oh come on… However, he talks about how he likes Milbank, MacIntyre, Yoder, Barth, de Lubac, von Balthasar, even William Cavanaugh! Yet, he doesn’t seem to be at all aware that all of these folks accept and use modern critical methods. He opposes socialism, but seems totally unaware that many of these folks were or are in fact socialists!

Carter’s criticism of liberalism leads to his criticism of capitalism, but the alternative is not socialism. For him, in economics and increasingly on political and ethical issues the alternative is Catholic social thought. Interestingly, what Carter finds in Catholic social thought is a way out of his predicament between capitalism and socialism. But, what he fails to understand is that the strands of Catholic social thought upon which he draws is thoroughly influenced by liberalism and modernity. In his opposition to socialism, John Paul II took a decidedly liberal path–he advocated some form of tempered capitalism, even at a global level. Indeed, whereas much of previous Catholic social thought had been ardently anti-liberal and anti-capitalist, in many ways he opened the door for a Catholic acceptance of the liberal order, including democracy and capitalism.

So, there is a great deal of irony in all of this. As Carter has opposed liberalism in the classical sense he has found himself opposing liberalism in the popular sense. He wants to be a “true conservative” which places him both on the pre-modern side of things and the conservative side of things on the popular political scene. But his move toward a popular political conservatism, which stems from his hatred of the “evangelical left,” ironically leads him to tacitly accept a sort of tempered liberal politics in Catholic social thought. Thus he finds himself in line with the First Things crowd because they complain and equivocate a lot about liberalism and they oppose abortion and gay marriage.

In my last post I pointed out that he distorts the views of the dead. By this I mean he misinterprets and distorts the views of theologians like Yoder, Barth, de Lubac, and von Balthasar. Yet, even these folks are beginning to feel unsafe for Carter because of their liberalism or modernism or whatever. So, reaching back to Augustine and Aquinas and the pre-moderns is the only answer.

Now, the more serious point that I would like to make is related to the reception of John Howard Yoder. If Carter thinks his politics are in line with Yoder’s then he is out to lunch. Carter’s nostalgia for Christendom, his appeals to natural law, his anti-socialism, his anti-modern stance, his apparent acceptance of capitalism, is not in line with Yoder’s thought at all. Moreover, Carter’s entire theological framework is the epitome of what Yoder called Constantinianism.

Thoughts on the future of Liberation Theology

Although the phenomenon commonly known as “liberation theology” is extremely diverse, there seems to be some common methodological threads running through the work of its proponents. What I want to highlight here is how self-proclaimed liberation theologians almost always identify experience as a highly appropriate methodological starting-point for theology. In particular, for many liberation theologians the experience of the poor, the suffering, the oppressed, is primary and methodologically fundamental. In much of the literature, the role of experience becomes such a priority that it is identified as the central criterion of adjudicating between good and bad theologies. If theology does not directly and explicitly address the plight of the poor and complicity of the rich in oppressive policies, than theology is seen as, ultimately, irrelevant to the poor, and irrelevant to politics. For much of liberation theology the emphasis is on the priority of praxis over theory. It does not assert that theory is unimportant, it is just simply accorded a secondary role. In the words of Jon Sobrino, “theology is a second act, within and in the presence of a reality.” Liberation theology is thus essentially reactive–it is a reaction, in the mode of reflection–on both the concrete experiences of an oppressed people and God’s revelation in Christ.

(Caveat: I am aware of the generalizations taking place in this post. Liberation theology is not univocal and I don’t want to treat it as such, but I’m trying to draw out some key elements that I’ve noticed in much of the literature).

Here’s my question: Doesn’t the role accorded to experience, as the primary theological category, appear deeply strange and problematic when liberation theologians watch it receive equally high status as it is employed to bolster the efforts of right-wing ideologues?

The debate, then, becomes centered on questions of experience–which quickly heads into who has the best evidence from the social sciences to prove, for instance, that collectivism works better than capitalism to relieve poverty, to create happiness and wealth, etc.

For those of us influenced by Barth, or more broadly what is some times referred to as “postliberalism” a la George Lindbeck, or for those influenced by MacIntyre or Milbank–even for those of us who have been influenced by Foucault and the geneaological tradition, we tend to find ourselves quite skeptical of appeals to experience to ground or frame theology. Interestingly, many of these thinkers also claim to stand firmly on the radical Left.

Let me be clear, when I say experience I do not mean to suggest that we really have a choice in the matter. I am not suggesting that we can somehow choose to not use experience in our theological reasoning. Of course, we are all shaped by and use our experience. It is totally absurd to think that we can reflect outside of our own particular history. What I am calling into question is something altogether different–it is the specific move made by much of liberation theology (a move which seems to me to owe more than a little to modern theological liberalism and therefore also to capitalism) that sees experience–or the natural–as more fundamental than revelation.

Again, I want to make clear that my concerns about liberation theology come from a very specific place. I am highly sympathetic to their concerns, but I am highly skeptical of their method at times. This became clear to me at this years AAR Consultation of Liberation Theology session. I’m not going to get into the details here, but I got the feeling that if this is the future of liberation theology it is doomed. If liberation theology works within a framework of modern theological liberalism it is finally a doomed enterprise. I say this because of my conviction that modern theological liberalism is disciplined by capitalist logic through and through, which is of course the very thing liberation theology seeks to resist.

Slavoj Žižek “Resistance is Surrender”

Check out Slavoj Zizek’s latest provocative review of Simon Critchley’s new book in the London Review of Books.  In this article he mounts a scathing critique of various popular anarcho-Leftist movements. 

Day of Labour Movements

Today is May Day – the International labour movement day and also the day my mother was in labour with me until 7am in 1983. It is a day to celebrate those who labour and those who fight for justice and equality. I’m proud to have been born on such a special day.