Liberal Tradition, Yes; Liberal Ideology, No?

In a provocative essay, R. R. Reno, "Liberal Tradition, Yes; Liberal Ideology, No" (First Things, December, 2017), responds to critics who regard him as shifting to a "mirror image of the anti-American, anti-capitalist left." This is, of course, not quite true, as Reno goes on to show. What interests me here, however, is his reference to Ryzard Legutko's The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, which Adrian Vermeule reviewed sympathetically in the January 2017 issue of First Things, in an article entitled "Liturgy of Liberalism."

As Reno notes, "Vermeule endorses Legutko's central claim, which is that the liberal consensus in the post-1989 West has taken on many of the attributes of the communism that dominated Poland when Legutko came of age. The countries in the West that promote liberal democracy are not islands of toleration, diversity, and free inquiry. Instead, Vermeule writes, echoing Legutko, they are dominated by “a spreading social, cultural, and ideological conformism.” Liberalism has become a religion. Those who dissent are heretics."

Of course, critics will regard this way of talking as hyperbolic and distorting -- like trying to equate perversions such as political correctness with Soviet gulags or Cambodian killing fields. But Reno responds:

But neither Legutko nor Vermeule is equating Berkeley with the closed city of Gorky. They are comparing them—and finding some telling similarities. Both places impose a rigid orthodoxy and stifle dissent. Gorky used secret police, while Berkeley relies on a suffocating climate of opinion. This is a crucial difference, as Ahmari points out. But it does not erase the similarities.

Legutko’s goal—my goal—is not to undermine “liberalism.” It is to clear away some of the blind dogmatism that has built up in the West, especially since 1989. It won’t do to label our efforts “illiberal” just because they call into question the dominant mentality of our time. In fact, that accusation reinforces the totalitarian atmosphere. Contemporary liberalism rarely answers critics. Instead, it silences dissent by labeling it “extremist,” “far-right,” “authoritarian,” and “illiberal.” We can’t come to grips with the problems we face in 2017 if we are constantly policed. And in any event, as Vermeule points out in our last issue (“A Christian Strategy”), our loyalty is to Christ, not to any particular political philosophy or tradition. This transcendent loyalty disenchants political ideologies, and freedom from the idolatry of politics is the soul of true liberalism.

I am not certain that Reno or Vermeule go far enough, in light of Christopher A. Ferrara's penetrating critique of the Liberal tradition itself in Liberty, the God that Failed (2012). But one can learn a great deal from their analysis, which is certainly illuminating as far as it goes.

I should also mention Timothy D. Lusch's exclusive interview with Ryszard Legutko, "A Demon-Haunted Europe: Democracy's Totalitarian Impulse" (New Oxford Review, October 2017), which we have reposted by permission of the publisher here. Lugtko is a professor of philosophy at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, a member of the European Parliament, and one of the more astute critics of the totalitarian impulses in contemporary western liberal democracies.

The problem with "American Exceptionalism"

Jack Kerwick, in "'American Exceptionalism' Reconsidered ... And Rejected," argues that this has become a central dogma of neoconservatism, that it is an ahistorical fiction, a rationalization for globalist imperialism, and at odds with patriotism and Christianity.

[Hat tip to L.S.]

"George Weigel: The Swan Song of the Catholic Neocons"

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9]

A Review of George Weigel’s Lessons in Hope: My Unexpected Life with St. John Paul II (Basic Books, 2017), by Dr. Jesse Russell, Fetzen Fliegen (A Remnant newspaper blog, September 7, 2017):

The notorious journalist and friend of Catholic traditionalist Patrick Buchanan, Hunter S. Thompson once wrote in his famous essay “The Hippies”: “The best year to be a hippie was 1965, but then there was not much to write about, because not much was happening in public and most of what was happening in private was illegal.”

A similar statement could be made of Catholic neoconservatives: the best year to be a Catholic neoconservative was 2001. September 11 had given the green light to the destruction of any country that stood in the way of the New World Order’s goal of global hegemony. With magazines like First Things and books such as Witness to Hope and The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, the very polite triumvirate of neoconservative leaders, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, George Weigel, and Michael Novak, had not only complete control over the American reception of John Paul II’s life and work, but increasing access to the White House of President George W. Bush.

Many bishops such as Charles Chaput, Francis George, and Timothy Dolan (whom Weigel refers to as an “old friend”) were the under the spell of Weigel, Neuhaus, and Novak. Even the lumbering, felt-banner-adorned battleship of old liberals called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was turning toward the shores of the “new” Catholic conservativism born from Fr. John Courtney Murray and Jacques Maritain.

But then something happened. Like a Greek tragic hero, the Catholic neocons at the apex of their power, fell from grace.

Ensconced in his "Evangelical Catholic" perspective, Weigel "positively hysterical" over Rome's SSPX overtures

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9] P. J. Smith, "George Weigel and the SSPX" (Rorate Caeli, April 28, 2017):

George Weigel, in his most recent column, has decided that the Holy See should not offer the Society of St. Pius X a personal prelature. It appears from statements by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society, that a personal prelature is the current offer. More than that, it seems that the Holy See is not insisting on the Society’s submission to every jot and tittle of every document of the Second Vatican Council. This is wonderful news.

Many informed commentators noted that the 2012 negotiations between Rome and the Society were torpedoed at the last moment by the sudden insistence of the Roman authorities on such submission. Archbishop Pozzo has conceded in public interviews that there are levels of authority in the documents of that “pastoral council,” and that total assent may not be necessary. And Weigel is positively hysterical at the prospect. Read more >>

Can Snopes be trusted?

Barbara and David P. Mikkelson created the Snopes.com website in 1995 as a now well-known resource for validating and debunking controversial stories in the media about American popular culture, now receiving about 300,000 visits a day. Barbara was reportedly the left-wing "liberal brains" of the couple while David was the chief "researcher." The Mikkelsons divorced around 2014, and Barbara no longer has an ownership stake in Snopes.com, and David has hired employees to assist him on the Snopes message board.

The site gained a reputation for reliability in fact-checking and urband-legend debunking, although as early as 2009 David admitted that the site received more complaints for having a liberal than a conservative bias. More recently, however, during the overheated rhetoric that was the bread and butter of the 2016 presidential election, the reputation of Snopes for reliability appeared to completely tank:

• "Snopes (Snopes.com)" (TruthWiki, August 23, 2016).
• Baxter Dmitry, "Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised" (YourNewsWire.com, August 20, 2016).
• Peter Hasson, "Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger" (The Daily Caller, June 17, 2016).
• "Why Snopes needs to be stopped" (Behavioral Resource Group, October 21, 2016).
• Peter Hasson, "Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention" (The Daily Caller, July 28, 2016).
• "EXPOSED – Guess Who is REALLY Behind Snopes.com?" (AngryPatriot,
• William Martin, "Proof Snopes.com is fake & can not be used for the truth" (Notes/FB, April 30, 2013).

Most (not all) of these articles have an obvious anti-liberal slant, although that fact alone is insufficient to vindicate Snopes from many of the factual inaccuracies alleged in them. But questions about the inaccuracies and biases of Snopes were already surfacing well-before the overheated political rhetoric of the 2016 election season, in one case as early as 2009. See, for example, these two articles

• Viveca Novak, "Snopes.com" (FactCheck.org, April 10 2009).
• "Snopes is run by a man and a woman with no background in investigation using Google" (Accuracy in Politics, May 31, 2013).

Other sources want you to believe that such complaints against the bias of Snopes are themselves mostly unfounded urban legends. For example:

• David Emery (self-styled "Urban Legends Expert"), "Snopes Exposed? Snopes Got "Snoped"? Not So Much" (About Entertainment, originally posted in 2008, updated 2016).
• Eric Hall, "Snopes, 'Liberal Bias,' and trusting the internet" (The Skeptical Librarian, April 27, 2013), who brings up examples of Snopes debunking some politically liberal urban legends.

It should therefore go without saying that Snopes, while it may be counted upon to be fairly reliable in most of its non-political vetting, cannot be consistently depended upon to deliver a politically non-biased verdict on issues of partisan political concern. Why this should come as a surprise to anyone, I don't know. Nobody has a "point of view from nowhere," as philosopher Thomas Nagel once famously declared. Almost all people have political biases; and political commitments are often intensely personal and anything but dispassionate. And Barbara and David P. Mikkelson and any other Snopes writers are no exception.

Ben Shapiro - Donald Trump is Destroying Conservatism

Agree or disagree, you'll find this interview with political commentator Ben Shapiro quite engaging:

Pat Buchanan: Donald Trump rise is a rejection of a quarter century of Bush Republicanism

Julia Hahn (Breitbart, February 18, 2016), writes:

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.

... Buchanan explained that “America is rejecting the Bush immigration policy,” which has “proffered amnesty” to “12 million illegals… because it said the United States is helpless to do anything about their presence here.”

“America’s establishment has failed America,” Buchanan said, “The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

Read more >>

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

"Synod & Council: The Conservatives' Failed Strategy"

Boniface, "Synod & Council: The Conservatives' Failed Strategy" (Unam Sanctam Catholicam, October 8, 2015):

I have not offered much thought or commentary on the 2015 Synod thus far; my reasons are fairly the same as those offered by Ryan Grant in his recent article "Why no synod coverage?" (Athanasius Contra Mundum, Oct. 7, 2015); at any rate, by now there is ample evidence to prove that Synod 2014 was rigged, and nobody should be surprised that the 2015 Synod will be pushed towards a predetermined outcome as well. Rorate just had an excellent piece suggesting that the Synod is turning into Vatican III. Radicals will always hijack these sorts of deliberatory bodies, taking advantage of procedure to relentlessly drive their progressive agenda.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Anyone who has been paying attention should not be. What is surprising is not that the liberals are trying to turn this into Vatican III, but that the conservatives are making the same fundamental errors they made at Vatican II.

Say what you want about the liberals, but they know how to set an agenda and ram it through. They position themselves to get the right press at the right time. They appeal to the emotions. If they want something done, they get their people in the right places, dominate committee discussions, relentlessly use the parliamentary processes to drive their agenda, and shut down opposition. They find pretexts to eject orthodox candidates from seminary. They orchestrate the firing of faithful Catholic journalists. In short, they fight.

I have been in government before, and I tell you, those who win are not necessarily those who have the best or "right" ideas, but those who know how to use the existing authority structure to facilitate the implementation of their ideas. They fight and they use the system and its structures to fight for them.

Conservatives do not fight, at least not in this manner. Sure, they think they do; we talk about fighting the good fight and all that, but by and large conservatives do not try to drive their agenda.

Conservatives tend to take the misguided position that merely speaking the truth is sufficient. That, in the face of the liberal onslaught, it is enough to calmly reaffirm the Church's constant teaching, perhaps in the naive confidence that the truth will always win out in the free marketplace of ideas. Are the liberals ramming through a heterodox praxis? Publish an article on the Church's real teaching. Are they dominating the procedures of a meeting to get their people on the right committees and drive their agenda? Give a talk. Just speak the truth. Hand out copies of a book.

Maureen in Exile. Mark Enthroned.

As Guy Noir's telegram states:

First Ann Coulter, now MM... Oh well...

Sandro Magister, "Homosexuality on the threshold of the Synod: Two Conferences in Rome" (Settimo Cielo, as translated by Rorate Caeli, September 30, 2015)

... as a prophecy of this:

R.R. Reno, "No More Tirades" (First Things, September 29, 2015)

... followed up by pertinent eulogy:

Ben Domenech, "A Note On First Things And Maureen Mullarkey" (September 30, 2015).

... followed up by Mark Shea as the new tone-setting American Catholic voice who laughingly calls others malicious and batshit crazy:

Mark Shea, "A Suggestion for R.R. Reno at First Things" (Patheos, September 30, 2015).

... "batshit crazy"? "lunatics"? "roaring and frothing"? "atavistic nuttiness"? "Frankenstein"? "nuts"? "non-serviam to the gospel"? "twisting themselves in pretzels of hatred and defiance"? "hard hearts"? "enemies of Peter"? "repent"? Sound like someone you'd like for a spiritual director?

One reader wrote in and said about R.R. Reno's recent article on Mullarkey at First Things: "If you look at FTs trustees, specifically Russ Hittinger, and then read an interview he did about Pope Francis, and [consider] Hittinger's place on a Pontifical Commission, you'll complete the circle."

Meanwhile, Rosman the provacateur asks: "To What Degree is First Things Responsible for Iraq?"

In case you missed it: now HERE's a brazen move: Artur Rosman going for the heart of Neo-Con-dom (no pun intended): "To What Degree is First Things Responsible for Iraq?" (Patheos, July 23, 2014).