Skip to main content

Catholic anti-liberalism

I read Kevin Williamson because he is a really good writer. I only agree with him about forty percent of the time but, because he is such a good writer, he sometimes manages to pin down something really important in just a few words and, by doing so, really clarifies the issues.

A good example is this comment.
Michael and other likeminded anti-liberals take a relatively optimistic view of the state and what it might reasonably be expected to accomplish, and a relatively pessimistic view of the people and what they might get up to left to their own devices. I take the opposite view: I believe that the modern democratic state is inclined to be slightly more savage and backward than the demos that constitutes it.
Williamson doesn't mention Catholics specifically, just anti-liberals but the Michael he is talking about is Michael Brendan Dougherty who is both Catholic and anti-liberal. Williamson is also Catholics. Is he a liberal though?

I wonder sometimes whether there isn't something deeply anti-liberal about Catholicism. In his response, Dougherty suggests that Williams thinks the difference between them is just a matter of style,
The ongoing disagreement to which Kevin Williamson refers is, I think, deeper than mere attitudes toward the state or the people. On some questions, it seems to me, Williamson prefers elite consensus and liberal restraint and I prefer the majority opinion. On others we are reversed.
From what I've read of Williamson, that is more or less a correct characterization. Williams does prefer elite consensus and that has produced an anti-Trumpism in him that is every bit as toxic as David French's.

And so I ask my question in a slightly different form, "Does Catholicism tend to produce a tendency in adherents to trust institutions and to distrust individuals?" Or, to put it another way, "Does Catholicism tend to promote Toryism?"

I've been thinking about this on off ever since High Hefner died. In the week after his death two podcasts came up in my feed and I was struck by how similar they were. One was a Catholic podcast and the second was a feminist one. Both condemned the man for the same reasons. Then I went looking for others. And it struck me that we need crass vulgarians like Hefner and Trump precisely because they are crass vulgarians. They are willing to think and say the sort of things the rest of us instinctively censor. That doesn't make either of them heroic but it does make them useful. Having people like that come along and disrupt things every once in a while is a good thing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Political realignment

What does it mean when economists start to praise moral (moralistic?) critiques of society from establishment conservatives? Here is Tyler Cowen on Ross Douthat's new book: Excellent book!  It has a real dose of Peter Thiel (and some Tyler Cowen), and most of it comes as fresh material even if you have read all of Ross’s other columns and books.  Imagine the idea of technological stagnation tied together with a conservative Catholic critique of decadence, and in a convincing manner with a dose of pro-natalism tossed in for good measure.  I think, as my title for this post indicates, that you can see evidence of a realignment here. People who didn't used to be political bedmates are becoming political bedmates. I think the real motion here, just to be clear, is on Douthat's part. We see people who used to be establishment conservatives—Douthat, Kristol, Goldberg, Dreher, Ponnuru, French—embracing technocrats. As with so many other things, we're turning back to the 196...
Post a Comment
Read more

Meditiations and Confessions

This is from the Meditations as quoted by John Sellars in his book, The Art of Living , These three thoughts keep always ready to hand: First, in what you do that you act not without purpose otherwise that Right itself would have done [...] The second, to remember the nature of each individual from his conception to his first breath until he gives back the breath of life [...] The third, to realize that if you could be suddenly caught up into the air and could look down upon human life and all its variety you would disdain it [...] Sellars goes on to say that these three connect to the three divisions of Stoic philosophy. "The first is concerned with actions and impulses and corresponds to 'ethics'." The second, meanwhile, "is concerned with the true nature of individuals and corresponds to 'physics'." Finally, "the third is concerned with the analysis of impressions and value judgments and thus corresponds to 'logic'." At ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's been a good year for manly movies

The trend would seem to be against manly movies. Responding to fully justified complaints that men (overwhelmingly white men) have been over-served by and over-represented in movies over the years, filmmakers and critics have been shifting the emphasis to movies for and about people who are not men. The results of this shift have been a mixed bag. But a funny thing has happened. Although there are many fewer movies for men we have also seen the return of very high quality films about manliness, both what it should be and what it should not be. This year I've seen two truly excellent movies about manliness— Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Joker . I haven't seen Ford v Ferrari yet but I have a good feeling about it. When I say "return of very high quality films about manliness" it raises the question, "When was the last time we saw such movies?" These movies never truly disappeared. Fight Club is a great movie about manliness. But it was an anomaly. I...
Post a Comment
Read more