Did Liberalism Fail ? (1) Was There a Good Liberalism?

Yes! There was a worthy and noble liberalism: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. In post-war America (1945-65) there was a vibrant, flourishing, generous Catholic liberalism that: defended the working man and fought communists and gangsters for control of the unions even as it accepted private property, markets and economic liberty; that developed a strong safety net to care for the elderly, the sick and the weak (social security, medicare, etc.); that was confident and clear in its Catholic identity even as it reached out to embrace what is best in other religions and cultures; that was passionately protective of ALL innocent, defenseless life in whatever circumstances; that treasured family, fecundity, and the nobility and dignity of both femininity and masculinity; that treasured chastity and fidelity and virtue in all its splendor; that was at once patriotic and internationalist; that fought a cold war even as it sought to assist the needy in the undeveloped nations; that rooted itself in history, tradition, authority and community even as it moved confidently into a horizon of promise; and that found the deepest liberty (thus: liberalism) in pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful! This liberalism flowed from communion and connection: with the past, with the poor, with the future, with the Church and with God! By sharpest contrast, the “liberalism” described by Dineen in “Why Liberalism Failed” is better named “expressive individualism” in that it elevates the perogatives (choice, rights, etc.) of the expansive, imperial individual as an autonomous center liberated from the bonds of tradition, community, religion, and authority. In our society, this expressive individualism finds two expressions: the boundless economic freedom of the (right wing) entrepreneurial, ambitious, wealthy class to build wealth unhindered by regulation, tax or moral connections and the lifestyle license of sexual expression disconnected from procreation (contraceptive) and isolated from both past and future in a futile presentism. The absolute expression of this individualism is, of course, abortion and its cousins including assisted suicide and embryo experimentation. By the logic advanced here, the wholesome Catholic liberalism of the post-war period did not fail but was overcome by a different, darker philosophy of expressive individualism. The tragedy, of course, was that that noble liberalism that expressed itself in the solidarity of the labor movement, the inclusiveness of the Democratic Party and a generous, internationalist patriotism became impotent and passive before a cultural revolution advanced by a far more intelligent and militant secularizing elite. That wholesome liberalism had two blind spots: subsidiarity and sex. Grateful to a strong federal government for release from a depression, for victory in WWII, for an exuberantly expansive economy, and for success over local Southern racism in the civil rights movement, Catholic liberalism was uncritical of “gigantism” of state and economy and entirely forgot the sense of subsidiarity that prefers political and social action on the closer, smaller level. Far more significant, however, as that the Great Generation were inarticulate about their sexual ethic and therefore defenseless before the assault that exploded after 1965. Partly this shyness came from a quiet and solemn reverence that was in itself praiseworthy. However, in retrospect, we also see that the expansive, confident Catholicism (with exceptions) lacked the spiritual, moral and intellectual depth to defend its way of life in the face of the darker, more militant liberalism. Almost effortlessly, this alien cultural energy took over the Democratic Party, the labor movement, the mainstream media, higher education, and entertainment. By a diabolic “transubstantiation” these institutions maintained a continuity of appearance but the heart and soul was replaced by a dark selfishness. Like a body-snatcher from an alien world, these bodies that had expressed Catholic values became possessed by the opposite spirit. It would take the dual pontificate of St. John Paul and the saintly Benedict to revive a vibrant, generous, rooted and fruitful liberalism worthy of the name.

For outstanding articles on the "Failure of Liberalism" see: (http://iasc-culture.org/THR/hedgehog_review_2017-Fall.php)

Catholic in a Late-Liberal World?

In a fine article “A Christian Strategy”Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law compares our current cultural situation with that St. Paul, and the early Church faced, in the Roman Empire. (https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/11/a-christian-strategy). Like our own society, the Roman imperium was multi-cultural and fascinated by Christianity even as it was fiercely hostile to it much of the time. But Paul and company were strategically astute and flexible in leveraging identity and position to their advantage in a pragmatic manner. Without ever betraying their faith or fundamental values, the early Church took full advantage of the benefits offered by the Pax Romana. Consider the providential offerings of this often murderous regime: a superb network of transportation and communication for spreading the Gospel, the Latin language that lives today in the Church, the immense classical tradition and all it has meant to our religion, and so forth. He argues that the Christian today cannot pledge allegiance to any political party or ideology but can enjoy a freedom to work with any coalition that advances the good that the Church values. He cites as example scriptural counselors like Daniel and Mordecai who worked loyally for pagan rulers without compromise even as they advanced the cause of the Jews. And so it would seem that while resistant to a late-liberal regime that is fundamentally hostile to the Church, we need not retreat into defensiveness, fear and resentment but can remain free to conspire with all that remains wholesome, hopeful and true in all the various parties, organizations and movements.