The recent controversy at our blog over the appropriate relationship between Catholics and the nation-state gives us an opportunity to clear the air, and, hopefully, rebuke the provocative and absurd charges of “Christo-fascism” leveled against some of the contributors to this blog. Such a phrase could have any number of meanings, or be applied (or misapplied) in an arbitrary way.
I do wonder, for instance, whether or not our friend the Catholic Anarchist approves of the Church’s support of Franco during the Spanish Civil War, and the role it played in the Spanish state thereafter. One sometimes gets the impression that, in the view of some people, it would have been better if the Church offered herself up, and all of her flock, to martyrdom at the hands of the communist and anarchist marauders instead of acting in accordance with the most basic instincts of self-preservation. The Franco dictatorship was, of course, practically a democratic utopia compared to the horrors of Bolshevik Russia or Maoist China, especially for Christians.
What about the United States, or shall we say, “the American nation-state”? As in all matters, there are two extremes to avoid.
The first extreme, obviously, is worship of the nation-state itself, though no people in history have ever come close to Thomas Hobbes’ pure worship of the state as such. In Nazi Germany, the state was the guardian of racial purity and Ayran culture, not an end unto itself. In Franco’s authoritarian regime, the state existed to protect the traditional order and the Church. Soviet communism went through a brief period during which Marxist proletarian internationalism was the official ideology, but it began to crumble within a few years, and by the 1930s had vanished without a trace, replaced with the idea of building “socialism in one country”. Stalin revived Russian nationalism, the struggle against Nazi Germany became known as “The Great Patriotic War”, Russia was once again the “rodina”, the Motherland, and even the Orthodox Church was allowed to resurface for a time.
The same story could be told of every other statist regime, whether it had a left or right flavor, a red or a white streak. There was hardly anything less “nationalist” about the Chinese communists than their nominal Nationalist foes they chased to Taiwan. There were differences between them, yes, but those labels do not convey them.
The point of all this is that there has not been a pure form of statism, worship of the state as an end unto itself. This, I don’t think anyone will find controversial. But it bears repeating because it highlights an important truth about human nature; that the vast majority of human beings have never let go of their organic cultures in the service of universal, abstract ideals – including those of religion in general and Christianity in particular (though Christendom was pretty nice while it lasted), and especially the false pseudo-religion of Marxist internationalism. Not even totalitarian regimes can force people to fight “for the nation-state.” Stalin’s reversal of early Soviet idealism is only the most dramatic example of this truth.
But here we want to avoid going too far in the other direction, towards what some might call “Burkean historicism”, the elevation in terms of significance and importance of organic cultural traditions at the near-total expense of abstract propositions and political institutions. These always have, and always will, exist in a symbiotic relationship. No set of propositions or institutions can (or, God willing, ever should) replace the traditional culture of a people; but without such propositions and institutions, especially in the United States, it is hard to imagine what might even be left of culture.
This isn’t to say that America is completely culture-less, but that what culture it does have is not national, but regional. It has never been hard political-ideological differences, but rather regional-cultural differences, that have provided the impetus for polarization and animosity in this country. It was true in 1789, it was true in 1860, it was true in the 1960’s, and it is true today, through our red-blue divide.
If there is anything that can or should hold the nation together, it is fidelity to the Constitution of the United States and the ideals that it was created to embody and protect, such as we find in the Declaration of Independence (see this article I wrote for more). This is as close to a national culture as America will ever come. Christianity weighs in at a close second, and if all continues to go well between Catholics and Evangelicals, that accounts for half of Americans, though if we factor in the probable degree of secularization and liberalization even among these, it is probably significantly less. I don’t think the American framers ever envisioned a collapse of Christianity on the scale we see today. With Thomas Jefferson, I worry and wonder whether or not the basic conception of rights can exist without, as he said, “a firm conviction” that they come from God, whose wrath would fall upon any who dared to violate them.
For the moment it appears that secularists and practical atheists have no problem reconciling their worldview, which is, no matter how one tries to escape or redefine it, essentially nihilistic, and their continued respect for the proposition of the Declaration of Independence; the more entangled the United States becomes with the even more militantly secular institutions of “global governance”, including the United Nations, which promotes “population control” policies under the guise of family planning and women’s rights, the more I question how long our secularists will continue to keep up the illogical pretense.
When I read Daily Kos or Huffington Post, I see a throng of militant secularists who can barely restrain their enthusiasm for a final wave of “progress” that will finally sweep over the Western world and take any serious manifestation of religious values with it. With the exception of a small minority, I must forgive them for they know not what they do, which is not to usher in a wave of progressive but rather a corrosive acid that is destroying the foundations of civilization.
As I have argued thus far, I believe American culture is her central propositions, which are theist at heart and Christian in spirit. In addition to the plain historical and theoretical fact that Jefferson was not copying John Locke in writing the Declaration, there is even evidence to suggest he may have been influenced by the Catholic political tradition. How glorious, in my view, for American Catholics! And this brings us to the Catholic attitude towards the nation-state.
It depends, in the first place, upon what nation-state. If it is the kind of state outlined by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, I think our duty is rather clear. If it is a state lurching ever-closer to IngSoc, it is also clear. In the one case, we obey, in the other case, we resist. In the United States, it is evident that the Papacy has never condemned the American republic. Indeed, in that encyclical Leo wrote,
The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world… (4)
For much of her history, the United States stood close enough to this ideal to earn Leo’s praise, and not a word of condemnation. And why not? Contrary to the hype of the “spirit of Vatican II”, there was no crisis in the American Church prior to the reforms; Ralph McInerny’s What Went Wrong With Vatican II? amply makes the case that the Church thrived in America, in spite of rivalry and persecution at certain points.
The situation has obviously changed today. I would propose that our actual institutions are secularizing and globalizing, drifting further away from a proper interpretation of the Constitution, and indeed holding in contempt those people and those statesmen that attempt to remind them of it. Whether it is right-wing war hawks or left-wing welfare pimps, both are inclined to see the Constitution as a “piece of paper” that stands in the way of imperial ambition and/or global integration.
That’s precisely what it does and what it was designed to do. We have seen a gradual but steady usurpation and marginalization of the branch of government closest and most accountable to the people, the Congress, and a corresponding boldness on the part of the executive and judicial branches. The framers did not want a direct democracy, but they didn’t want rule by judicial decree or executive orders either. That’s why its called checks and balances. It only works if there’s, well, balance.
So, in conclusion, I propose that American Catholics rediscover their fidelity to the ideas of the Declaration – which may well be Catholic ideas, or at the very least inspired by Catholic political theorists – as well as the Constitution in letter and spirit. This would restrain and moderate both sides of an increasingly ugly rift in Catholic America, between the war party and the welfare party, between the “lets send a few thousand more American boys to die in a pointless war with Iran” crowd and the “lets force everyone to buy health insurance and threaten to fine and jail them if they don’t want it” crowd.
Catholics should stand united on the social and political philosophy of the Church, which encourages peace, diplomacy, and fair trade between nations, as well as economic freedom, a reduction in the welfare bureaucracy, increased worker ownership and participation of business, and most importantly a culture of life within them. In doing both Catholics would work within the actual confines of the actual Constitution, which through true federalism practically embodies subsidiarity, and thereby also be good and loyal Americans.
That’s how I roll, anyway.
Oh, and one more thing: The findings and/or recommendations of the USCCB’s left-leaning research staff are not a substitute for a thousand years of Catholic political philosophy or the social teaching as it has been developed since 1891.
Thought provoking. How do you roll with the now all but disintegrated notion via Jefferson and Madison as not one sovereign republic but a collection of small republics?
Very interesting article. I’d love to see more about the reasons for the compatability between Catholicism and America’s founding principles. That’s a subject I feel like I should know more about.
I want to go on one tangent although it’s not important to your thesis. The divide in American culture is more urban vs. rural than region vs. region. A city-dwelling New Yorker, Georgian, and Minnesotan are going to have more in common than any of them would with rural residents of their own states.
A thoughtful post, Joe. Thank you.
Question that you might be a good person to answer, with your political science background: When people talk about a “nation-state” do they mean something other than just “an independant unit of governance consisting of some defined area of land, the residents of that land, and some form of governing institution over that land and those people”?
I’ve at times heard people claim that “the nation-state” is a new invention, springing into existance 200-300 years ago. I’ve also heard it claimed that the nation-state is somehow in tension with Catholicism.
Generally, I would think that “nation state” could refer to the Roman Republic, to ancient Athens or to medieval Florence about as well as it refers to modern nations such as France, India of the US. The one exception I can think of is if one places emphases on the phrase “nation” and takes it that a country should be built specifically around an enthnic and cultural grouping — as is the cast with 19th and 20th century nationalistic movements. In this, I could perhaps see some problems, but in that case I have trouble seeing that the US is itself a “nation-state” in that sense.
Any guidance there?
Jennifer,
I will support candidates who support the Constitution, like Ron Paul. Some people think the political duopoly will last until the second coming, until the end of the earth, or at least the end of the American republic. I think its lease on life is rather shorter, and that a true constitutional party can emerge. Especially at the state level, and especially if nullification and state sovereignty are asserted. Many states are interested in these matters in a way they have not been for some time.
Pinky,
The urban-rural divide is how it looks today, but it has grown out of regional differences that I believe are still in effect.
Your point is true, but only to a limited extent. As a matter of fact, us West Coasters don’t really have THAT much in common with East Coasters in spite of voting Democrat. I’ve lived in Phoenix and Orange County CA all my life – when I went to NYC, I felt like a rat in a cage.
It is true that urban areas are more dark purple than rural areas on average. I think regional differences in this country have been suppressed by the increased efficiency of the two party system. So they don’t matter as much right now – but I think they could again, in the event of a 10th amendment revolt.
Darwin,
When leftists talk about the nation-state, they are also including all of the instruments of “class rule”, especially the military, the courts, the police, and the prisons. In leftist, Marxist, socialist theory, the nation-state is the creation of the national bourgeoisie for the defense of capitalist property forms. It was progressive in the struggle against feudalism and colonialism, but is now reactionary as it oppresses the workers.
The difference between Marxists and left-anarchists? Marxists believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarchists believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat that’s called something else because, in my best impression of Mr. Mackey from South Park, “dictatorships are bad, m-kay?”
Kidding aside, they’re somewhat right, but not entirely or mostly right. Nation-states might be said to have begun with the Treaty of Westphalia at the end of the 30 years war in 1648. The Pope at the time condemned that treaty, not because of the nation-state as such, but because it established the right of princes to choose their own religion – Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist were the flavors at the time.
Nations have certainly existed since antiquity, but the smallest unit of governance was the city-state or the principality – these are the two kinds of government that Machiavelli recognized, for instance. But Machiavelli was also making an appeal for Italian national unity – some say, one of the first explicitly nationalist arguments, in Chapter 25 of the Prince. So everyone sees him as a pivotal and transformative figure.
And, of course, Machiavelli blamed the Church for Italy’s domination by foreigners. And when Rousseau picked up many of his themes, he too blamed the Church for a weak state. So there has been a tension between radical republicans and Catholics. I think Jefferson’s writing and the experience of Catholics in the American republic up until the 1960s shows that the tensions are not necessarily irreconcilable differences.
The Popes never thought so – but one can hardly blame Machiavelli, who lived during a time when Popes were directly involved in statecraft, in political scheming and corruption on the Italian peninsula.
By the time of America’s founding and in the 19th century, the Papacy was under siege and was reacting to all different kinds of extremism and radicalism, in comparison to which the American republic must have seemed a blessing.
All of this, though, is beside the point that Michael Iafrate’s temper-tantrums try to establish, which is simply that supporting the troops = fascism. It’s ridiculous. If one is unconditionally supporting an imperialist foreign policy and insisting that American boys and girls should die for it, that is one thing; I don’t think anyone here does that. People who agree with our foreign policy here really think it is a good one, for various reason – and I strongly disagree with them.
But I do strongly believe in supporting the troops regardless of their mission, because they don’t write the foreign policy, and especially when they return with injuries and problems that the government won’t adequately address. Too many soldiers are thrown out like garbage. If you’re going to support a war and a foreign policy, you have a moral obligation to support the expansion of veteran services as well. That’s why the troops love Ron Paul – no one has fought harder for veterans while also opposing the mad foreign policies that get them injured and killed in the first place.
“Supporting the troops” does not equal fascism. I’ve never said anything remotely like that. In fact I would argue that I support the troops more than the average american because I oppose what the military does to them as human persons. (See Nate’s various writings for more concrete info on this fact.) The problem that I have with the views of, say, Donald McClarey have absolutely nothing to do with the extent to which he “supports the troops.”
So you think the “collection of Republics” is a good idea, and one we should support, through states rights? Do I understand you correctly?
Jennifer,
I think it may be inevitable.
What I think is “good” is for states to assert their 10th amendment rights and to invoke nullification if they must. AZ, for instance, really had no choice but to pass a law preventing Obamacare from going into effect – if it did, it would completely bankrupt the state and shatter the economy. Nullification isn’t simply this matter of principle, it is a matter of state survival.
And it has nothing to do with slavery either. Abolitionists invoked nullification too against fugitive slave laws – the hate-filled liars at MSNBC never talk about that when seeking to smear nullification arguments with racism.
Whether or not this will lead to the downfall of the union, I can’t say. If the feds are smart, they’ll simply not interfere as states do what is entirely lawful within the bounds of the Constitution. If they’re arrogant and thuggish – which they usually are – then they may spark a desperate economic and political rebellion. But I am not for “unity at all costs”, because the costs obviously include an abandonment of the basic right and instinct of self-preservation, to which no reasonable human being, or group of human beings, can submit.
Clear thinking here Joe.
I like how you mention the tradition of Catholic political philosophy. It’s often ignored!
“The Franco dictatorship was, of course, practically a democratic utopia…”
You may posibly have overlooked the hundreds of thousands who died, who were imprisoned without trial and were denied the means and opportunity of earning a living.
Falangist Spain was poor, backward and existed on terror. As it was founded on the overthrow of the elected government, I guess one could expect no less.
Comparisons with regimes that may have been even worse does not mean it was any good. It wasn’t.
Actually by the end of Franco’s regime Spain was more prosperous than at any time in its history, and the entire population enjoyed rising standards of living. The repression by the Nationalists after the Civil War was brutal, but minor league compared to the socialist utopias of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s People’s Republic of China. The repression also moderated a great deal after the first decade of the Franco regime. As for the Republic that the Nationalists overthrew, outside of the Basque regions it existed solely as a result of repression and terror, including the murder of 6,832 Catholic priests, nuns, brothers and sisters. Outside of the Basque regions Catholics were forbidden to practice their religion in the Republic. Churches were converted into warehouses by the Republic, and the contents stolen. Statutes of saints and crucifixes were used for target practice. The Franco regime was in many ways a squalid dictatorship, but it destroyed a far worse regime.
“Comparisons with regimes that may have been even worse does not mean it was any good. It wasn’t.”
To whatever extent it wasn’t, we can thank the enemies of civilization. Franco was the only thing standing between a far greater number of Catholics and the firing squad.
And while the Civil War may have made Spain poor and backward for a time, under Franco she underwent an economic miracle that saw her position rise to, I believe, 9th in the world economy. So there were prosperous years under Franco’s rule.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, during this time the world’s largest and most successful worker’s cooperative, the Mondragon, came into existence. So frankly I don’t think it was all bad. Bad if you were a communist, sure. But they spent enough time making the world miserable for everyone else.
Ah, nice to see we are in agreement on this one Don.
I’d even say Joe that Franco wasn’t an anti-semite! 🙂
Seriously, the Franco regime never returned any Jewish refugees to Nazi Germany, and Franco extended diplomatic protection to Sephardic Jews during the war who lived abroad.
A good recent article on this aspect of the Franco regime.
http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=33478
I get it. Whenever I post a comment revealing how full of it you guys are, it is either deleted (Tito, McClarey) or ignored (Joe).
Michael,
I approved your post as soon as I saw it.
I didn’t see it, deliberately ignore it, and then only decide hours later to allow it. I don’t check the “pending” box every hour.
I approve all comments that meet our posting guidelines.
I’m not referring to the speed with which you approved it. I’m referring to the fact that I have corrected you and yet you still repeat the statement that I think Donald is a fascist merely because he claims to “support the troops.”
I didn’t see your correction before I said it the last time.
Now you’ve clarified yourself. Thank you.
Bull. You’ve never been particularly clear about why you consider some of us fascist. The last time you went off it was over quoting a historic civil war song, for goodness sake. If that’s clarity, I’d hate to see obtuseness.
Well, I only meant that he now says its not just for supporting the troops – though you’re right, what he does actually mean is entirely unclear.
As if what this guy thinks really matters anyway.
Amen!
[…] Culture, Religion & The Nation-State Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)New layout, just as good Blogs…When I Turn On My Computer […]