The irony of “post-liberal” conservatism, and an alternative vision — the Lockean twins
This is part five, the conclusion, in a five-part exploration of natural law. Links to all five parts will be at the beginning of part one. This post will be clearer if you have read the previous parts.
Post-liberal” conservatives today, like those of the National Conservative movement which has received some publicity of late, don’t typically want to get rid of our egalitarian ideals, the rule of law, a market economy and political freedom — all markers of classical liberalism. Post-liberal conservatives often fall back on a sleight of hand in defining “liberal” that obscures their aims. In my view, a better way to characterize what these “post-liberal” conservatives really want is not the end of classical liberalism but a return to a Christian natural law political philosophy, wherein the law and government are dedicated to upholding the good and promoting virtue in a common sense way, rather than to post-1960s radical viewpoint neutrality. The Lockean twins of Christian natural law and liberalism are the reason that America became the most successful and prosperous nation on earth. If we want to “make America great again” what we need is a return to natural law, not the destruction of classical liberalism. It is a sad irony that conservatives have been misled by Leo Strauss into believing they need to overthrow John Locke, the founder of modern Christian natural law political philosophy, in order to return to Christian natural law. For example, Yoram Hazony spends most of his National Conservative manifesto Conservatism: A Rediscovery beating up a “reason alone” secular straw man of John Locke conjured up out of Strauss’s imagination.
Most “post-liberal” conservatives really don’t want to get rid of classical liberalism. It may be that some will believe that the only way to get back to a Christian natural law political philosophy is via an authoritarian philosopher king who can tear down the viewpoint-neutral regime and impose common sense solutions by strength of will. But it should be recognized and made clear that the ideal for which we strive is the return of Christian natural law plus classical liberalism, and not authoritarianism per se. Perhaps some conservatives have given up hope that Christian natural law can be restored under the current system, and judge that the risk inherent to authoritarianism would be worth it. But if that is the case, the new conservatism risks becoming a mirror-world Marxism, imposing illiberalism and chaos in the fervent expectation of a common sense utopia that will never come.
To be honest, I am very aligned with much that the post-liberal National Conservative movement has to say. Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism: A Rediscovery has the basic diagnosis right — 20th century continental philosophy (whether you call it Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, etc.) has infected our American culture and politics, and we now need a return to a conservative, family-focused way of life and way of governing. However, my biggest concerns with the book and the movement is that Hazony and others have bought into Strauss’s deceptive misreading of Locke and liberalism. I would support National Conservatism if the movement proposed a way forward that focused on a return to Christian natural law (which I believe is what the author is really hoping for, though he doesn’t use those words) while maintaining the protections and checks on natural law provided by classical liberalism in its original Lockean conception (not the more recent invention of radical viewpoint neutrality). Instead, Conservatism: A Rediscovery vilifies Locke and liberalism, proposing a sort of tribal framework in place of the grand vision of liberalism. This is very frustrating and unnecessary.
I suspect that part of the problem is that the 20th century legal transition from natural law to viewpoint neutrality is not well understood. In fact, the very idea that viewpoint neutrality wasn’t until recently the objective of US legal philosophy was kind of mind-blowing to me as I was reading into this. The understanding of how things have changed opens up new possibilities of what government could be — and what, indeed, US government was originally intended to be. It seems like the idea of Lockean Christian natural law and its influence on US government and law is now a great secret, hidden so that even most educated people are completely unaware of it. Scholars who do come across the concept of Lockean Christian natural law generally describe it in a way that makes it feel quaint, outmoded, and medieval. This needs to be turned around.
The conservative movement is at a crossroads, searching for an identity and a vision for the future. My political dream is for a revived conservative movement based on what I am calling the Lockean twins of Christian natural law and classical liberalism. My hope is that the “post-liberal” conservatives and traditional conservatives, whether religious or secular, might recognize that this return to a grounding common sense is in fact what we are all aiming for. The viewpoint neutral regime will increasingly reveal its absurdity, and values will inevitably make a comeback. We need to ensure that when the time comes the values we get are the right values. There is no denying it is a long and frustrating road, but the first step of the journey is to fix the destination. After that, there is always room for optimism because of our faith that truth will prevail in the end.
