Pooh’s Think

… with comments

Peter Leithart On Political Liberalism

Leithart seems to be backing up and re-checking his brash comments about “liberalism” in Against Christianity (the book that is “for Constantine”). He now writes:

Christopher Insole wants theologians who attack “liberalism” to be more careful about what they’re attacking. He favorably cites Robert Song, who distinguishes the constitutional liberalism of Locke and Kant from the laissez-faire liberalism of Hayek from the welfare liberalism of Hobhouse.

Fair enough. [good] But Insole’s own definition of liberalism seems to be vulnerable to precisely the theological criticisms that Song and Oliver O’Donovan, among others, attack: “by ‘political liberalism’ I mean the conviction that politics is ordered to peaceful coexistence (the absence of conflict), and the preservation of liberties of the individual within a pluralistic and tolerant framework, rather than by a search for truth (religious or otherwise), perfection and unity. The crucial ambition of this sort of ‘political liberalism’ is a refusal to allow public power to enforce on society a substantial and comprehensive conception of the good; driven as it is by its central passion for the liberties of individuals over and above the enthusiasms of other individuals and collectivities.”

Isn’t this privileging of individual liberties a “substantial . . . conception of the good”? And doesn’t the non-pursuit of truth, perfection and unity imply a pursuit of something else – of tolerance and pluralism as the highest political aims? As Alasdair MacIntyre has pointed out, the story of no final stories is still a story; and a political order dedicated to ensuring tolerance is still a political order dedicated to a version of what is “good” for political order.

I would say No, this is not the privileging of individual liberties as a “substantial conception of the good.” Rather, this is more like political institutions performing their common-sense purpose. The literature I am familiar with proposes a form of practical political liberalism as the conclusion to rejecting notions of “a substantial conception of the good.” Leithart’s close proximity to theonomy (last I spoke to him about this, he confessed a growing distance from Reconstructionism), his peculiar role in Wilson World, and his thesis “for Constantine” (as well as my discussion with him about a man’s submission to a community), makes me wonder if there is an important reason he finds it important to criticize political liberalism without qualification. Is there nothing good about the kind of freedom it affords? The protection it permits to citizens? Is there nothing valuable about these pluralistic roads of Rome for the missional Christian? Isn’t it common sense on the Pauline model that the political powers that protect from harm and punish evil, as did the Roman State, are not in the business of pursuing “truth, unity, and perfection?” The silence on this end of the issue is a bit unsettling. Perhaps Leithart wants Wilson to become a new American Pope. I’m not sure.

I’m not here concluding what future political systems may look like; it just may be that a Christian story will so influence society and state that we have far more expressed from our political institutions than mere protection from harm and the punishment of crime. But it would seem to me that our current system is a nice step in that direction; I just don’t see how the fact that our nation was fully racist until the 1960s does not force a bit more humility for the Christian who wants to “go back,” not only to the 50s, but to the time of the Roman Christian Emperor.

November 3, 2006 - Posted by | Uncategorized

1 Comment »

  1. Hi. I would love to dialog here. Great web site. Bring it on. Once again, all posts sent to metzler@moscow.com will be published at http://www.poohsthink.com.

    Michael Metzler
    509-330-1503
    metzler@moscow.com

    Comment by Michael Metzler | November 2, 2006

    By the way: please remove your libelous claim “but he blocks all comments on his blog.” That is clearly an intentionally dishonest way of refering to the simple fact that I don’t have comments. I used to; it was in my favor to given the intelligence and character of my opponent; and when I ceased comments I explained why at length (and have had to repeat myself more than once). I “block all comments” the same way Peter Leithart “blocks all comments” on his blog. Check it out: http://www.leithart.com

    Given this libelous statement right out the gate, I take it that you are a Wilson defender.

    Michael Metzler
    509-330-1503
    metzler@moscow.com
    http://www.poohsthink.com

    Comment by Michael Metzler | November 3, 2006

    Michael,

    If you are so interested in dialog, why not post a link from your website?

    Comment by Pooh | November 3, 2006

    I very rarely post links to web sites until I think I can anticipate what kind of sites they are. I think it is a privelage to earn the blog hits from well read blogs. This principle is the same for business referals. I was tempted to provide a link to this site only to show how silly the opening remarks were about my refusal to allow comments. If I prefered spending my time answering the 101 irrational and insulting comments from Wilson apologists I would have re-activated my comments a long time ago. I prefer to give the read a chance to have a full post right to Pooh’s Think. For some reason this has been a great way of dignifying those who want to take a shot at real dialog while also filtering out the ninnies: they just refuse to send me a post. Strange stuff, but I like the way it has worked out so far. The only folks in this “debate” who refuse accountable face to face dialog is Wilson and his apologists. Given that I don’t like anonynomy on the web unless there is some principles purpose to it, I would ask that you fully disclose your identity and intentions. Word Press is a powerful application, and you have certainly not convinced me yet that you are desiring judicial discourse; in fact, your refusal to pull your opening, libelous remarks suggests that you have no intentions of seeing justice done here. The suggestion that I don’t promote open dialog is simply ludricrous too by the way. However, after nine months of trying open dialog, I’m certainly less motivated about this on the topic of Doug Wilson….

    Yours
    Michael
    http://www.poohsthink.com

    Comment by Michael Metzler | November 3, 2006

    Comment by Michael Metzler | November 3, 2006 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: