 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:03:32 |
Another weekend, another Ruminant - this time with Jonah talking about the intellectual backdrop of conservatism, and what early conservative (and progressive) ideologies might have to say about today’s coronavirus response. Join Jonah in a cloud of cigar smoke inside his own car to talk about the New Deal, Trump’s call to LIBERATE [INSERT STATE HERE], and more.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
As to the noise. I liked the birds. You yelling over the lawn mowers to defend your definition of conservatism might have been a good audition to replace Rush when that comes up. I’m just saying
Jonah,
You often say you reject single reason explanations, but you appear to defend Classic Liberalism as the reason for our Liberties and our wealth. Maybe Classic Liberalism isn't a "single explanation", but if it's not then I'm concerned it's too vague as a concept. Is it a system that brings about all good things of Modern Society or do all those political realities that bring about Modern Society fall into a cluster of beliefs (not a single reason) that are contained under the umbrella? To not belabor it, Is it a "just so" story that Classic Liberalism brought about Modern Society?
I think I've actually heard or read where you addressed this and you acknowledged that Classic Liberalism (and the closely associated Enlightenment) came about at a time to take advantage of the opening of society in many areas. I believe you've where you agreed, that the Renaissance and The Scientific worldview predates the widespread adoption of Classic Liberalism, but that Classic Liberalism brought these things to fruition.
I believe it's reasonable that the Christian Worldview is responsible for all these things. Catholics started the University System. Only in the West did Science as we know it flower. Under the Christian worldview, we recognized the inherent dignity of man. I recognize it's a "single explanation".
I think perhaps we are wired to find a "single explanation", much like we are attracted to strong leaders or Kings.
If there is a "single explanation" that is worthy is a commitment to Truth. The post-modern relativism that declares that truth is relative is not self-consistent. Perhaps so much of the madness of modern Society is this belief that Truth doesn't exist.
Catholic Integralists believe we have the Truth and that Society should be based on Truth. Classic Liberalism has allowed falsehood to rule. Sure, we should allow people to be wrong, but any system that adopts Law inconsistent with essential Truth should be rejected. Classic Liberalism not only allows for people to be wrong, it allows for a Society where being wrong is promoted, promulgated and being right is suppressed.
Catholic thinkers spent centuries refining what the True and Good are and they shouldn't be dismissed as mere Religious thinkers. I don't see any real engagement with the arguments of Aquinas.
This, I think is what Vermeule is saying when he points to an ultimate Originalism of the Constitution. Texts that attempt neutrality of any particular religious worldview don't capture the Original Morality of the Founders, which is their Original Intent. I refer to this quote from John Adams often, but only because it's so relevant to this point: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I don't believe the Founders would have seen Drag Queen Story Hour as "One of the Blessings of Liberty", just as there is no principled Constitutional stand against unlimited porn in public. They certainly wouldn't have thought abortion should be a Federal issue nor would they take seriously Same-Sex Marriage. Classic Liberalism is powerless here.
I would readily agree that we should use more local Institutions other than the Federal Government to halt this degeneracy, but I would also not limit it such that we cannot use Federal Government here. The Federal Government where a lot of these battles are being fought and we have to engage here also.