Neoconservative?

I never considered myself a neoconservative until the catatastrophic collapse in Afghanastan. I didn't know how much I loved the Pax Americana until I saw its imminent dimise. When Bush invaded Iraq I judged that it failed to meet the criteria of a just war. In the 1990s I thoroughly agreed with D.L. Schindler's blistering critique of the neoconservative Catholicism of Weigel, Newhaus and Novak. But now, in the context of the demented, feeble incompetence of Biden and the xenophobic, nationalistic isolationism of Trump, I am nostalgtic for the heroism of the FDR/Churchill generation, the purposefulness of Eisenhower/Nixon/JFK, the decisiveness of Reagan/Bush Jr.

The expression "neoconservative" first referred to Marxists who became disenchanged with communism and came into the light during the Cold War. Coming out of the 60s it referred to a movement of Jewish secular leftists into a conservatism that rejected incipient pacifism for international/military strength, the socialism of the New Left for free enterprise and limited government, and cultural liberalism for more traditional, if not necessarily religious, morality. More negatively it became associated with the pro-Israel, interventionist advisors who encouraged Bush to invade Iraq. a "neoconservative" has been defined as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality. This is about right: the position entails a certain disenchantment with the naive romanticism of the Left and a discoverty of the power of evil, understood as sin/communism/terrorism/crime.

By an interesting analogy, in Catholicism a similar trajectory occurred by an influential cohort of theologians who strongly endorsed the changes written by Vatican II but vigorously resisted the more extreme implementation of them in the alleged "spirit of Vatican II." The most famous and important of these is Joseph Ratzinger. He was the youthful golden boy of the liberals at the Council but was horrified at the violence, chaos and nihilism of 1968. He did not change is core theological beliefs but these positioned him in an entirely new posture going into the 1970s. He was a key founder of the Communio journal with DeLubac, Balthasar and others as a counterpoint to the progressive Concilium school of Rahner, Kuhn, Schilibeeckx and others. I believe Avery Dulles followed a similar path: steadfast in his foundational Catholic faith, he also transtioned from a "relative liberal" to being a "relative conservative" as the culture and Church around him transformed going into the 1970s. I myself followed this same path: leaving college in 1969 I had strong liberal sympathies but within a few years I became a stolid Catholic and passionate culture warrior under the influence of some holy, learned Jesuit theologians (mystic Joe Whelan and forementioned Avery Dulles) as well as the cursillo and charismatic movements.

The theology of these liberal-turned-conservatives might be described as "neoconservative." It sprang from the resourcement theology of the 1940~50s which informed the Council with its dual dynamic: a "conservative" return to the sources, scripture and the Fathers, beyond a sterile scholaticism and an openness to the new, to all that is ennobling, true, good and beautiful in modernity, beyond an anxious late-Tridintine defensiveness. After the council, this school of thought was developed by Balthasar, Ratzinger and Woytija as the Communio school and implemented by the powerful dual pontificate. So todays Church is a three-way contest between the progressives who break with tradition in favor of cultural liberalism, the surging traditionalists who want to retrieve the past and even cancel the Council, and the resourcement-communio-neoconservatives who honor the Council in as a continuous development of the Tradition. Pope Francis is viciously hostile to the traditionalists, discontinuous with and discouraging of the "communios" and erratically supportive of the progressives.

Returning to the "neoconservative" title, I must...at the end of the day...reject it in light of the argument between two competing neoconservativisms: that of Weigel/Novak/Neuhaus (First Things) and that of father-and-son-Schindlers-and-friends. Both are orthodox Catholic, both followers of St. Pope John Paul. They differ in their evaluation of the American project. Former are positive about our constitutional founding and the entire liberal order of markets, limited government, rule of law, democracy, human rights and so forth. The later are more deeply, really metaphysically critical of the liberal order as fundamentally anti-Catholic in its founding and development and inherently prone to an individualistic, isolating culture and polity. By this logic, the pathologies of the USA today...atomization of the individual, abortion, sexual license, mega-government and global corporations, demise of the family and intermediate communites...are all rooted in, or at least encouraged by an enlightenment founding that was residually Christian but in a diminished, deist, rationalist, minimist fashion. On this matter, I agree with the more negative judgment. I cede the "neoconservative" title to those with a more positive view of our national legacy. This includes, by the way, Reno (current editor of First Things) who has endorsed the Trump project, although in a sophisticated and nuanced "Catholic" fashion, as well as the standard three-pillar (strong military, free markets, moral conservativism) of Reagan, Paul Ryan and the Republican establishment.

With all that said, while I grieve the passing of the 1945-2021 world order, I cannot yearn for the Pax Americana since our national culture has become so decadent and divided. My allegiance goes less to my nation than to my locality (urban, ethnic, working-and-poor Catholic), my tribe (Catholic) and my empire (Catholic).