Damon Linker has blog posts up at New Republic here and here, drawing a reply from Ross Douthat (earlier from Bradlaugh).
I find this paragraph from National Catholic Reporter very puzzling:
From the early 1970s forward, Neuhaus was a key architect of two alliances with profound consequences for American politics, both of which overcame histories of mutual antagonism: one between conservative Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals, and the other between free market neo-conservatives and “faith and values” social conservatives.
The first half of this pair of ideas is obviously well-founded: Neuhaus’s cooperation with figures like Charles Colson was indeed instrumental in getting conservative Catholics and evangelicals to overlook some of their differences in the greater interest of a united front against secularism, cultural modernity, and other enemies. But it would never have occurred to me to call him (as opposed to, say, the late William F. Buckley, Jr.) “a key architect of [the alliance] between free market neo-conservatives and ‘faith and values’ social conservatives”. Leaving aside what is meant by the overpacked portmanteau “free market neo-conservatives”, the general alliance being referred to predated Neuhaus’s conversion to conservatism and grew weaker, rather than stronger, during his period of maximum influence. I can see making an argument that he was a central figure in undermining that alliance, in that he devoted unceasing effort to shifting the focus of conservatism from causes that provided obvious common ground with free-market advocates (like, say, limiting the scope of government) to that of culture war, where the common ground is, let’s face it, a lot more limited. But maybe there’s some case — perhaps relating to his work in Eastern Europe? — for why conservatives of a free-market secular stripe should also be grateful for his career.
National Review’s editorial treatment, by the way, pays tribute to Neuhaus’s facility for Chesterton-style aphorism, giving as an example:
“Whenever orthodoxy becomes optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed.”
I’d say that ranks with top-drawer Chesterton. It is pithy and funny; it is obviously, flagrantly wrong as applied to the world most of us live in; it is, nonetheless, fruitful to think about as an aphorism; and most of the readers who smile at its wit will not take the time to consider where its logical implications lead.
Just so you know, that last aphorism was always written in reference to specific churches, NOT in relation to governments or states. In other words, Neuhaus never used that aphorism to try to suggest that the state mandate orthodoxy; instead, he always used it to criticize (for example) churches like the Episcopal Church, wherein some orthodox belief became option sometime in the 20th century, and then later was basically proscribed (or at least treated as unthinkably retrograde).
“Northerner” brings up a good point. Political and social comments often get taken out of context.
For example, Rob Dreher was quoted as saying “we have too much individual freedom”, which struck me as unreasonable and illiberal. When I read the article that this comment appeared in, I found that Dreher was really complaining about the crass irresponsibility of those who borrow too much (to buy big houses and fancy cars) then are not able to service their debt. What Dreher was really saying is that freedom and accountability are the flip-sides of the same coin and that people should be more prudent in managing their financial lives, certainly a reasonable position to take.
In one of this site’s early posts I quoted Rod Dreher as asserting that there is “too much individual freedom”. For those who’d like to see the original Dreher article from which the quote was taken, it’s here. I am surprised to think anyone reading the quote in context would conclude that Dreher was referring only to matters of family budgeting and not to those of policy or governance. But perhaps Kurt9 is referring to some other occasion on which someone quoted Dreher on individual freedom.
On the question of orthodoxy having to be made obligatory lest it wind up being proscribed, I will just note that the late theologian’s admirers at National Review presented that aphorism shorn of any context as among “epigrams [of Neuhaus that] have entered the language” and serve as a “vehicle for important truths”. Perhaps they were doing him a disservice, which of course would not be the first time that a thinker had been ill-served by followers who pick up on the zeal without also picking up on the hedges, distinctions and qualifications.
Neuhaus’s maxim appeared in this 1997 article (scroll down): http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3618 It’s clear that he was talking about churches.
Perhaps Mr. Olson might be more sympathetic to the maxim if translated to a non-religious context. For example, where a belief in the great Western books becomes optional (i.e., because of a sort of relativist multiculturalism that treats classes on Buffy as the equivalent of a Shakespeare class), sooner or later there arises the sentiment that it’s hateful and bigoted to think that all of those ancient white males might actually be superior.
Translation: where free thought is permitted, every sacred cow eventually ends up as hamburger.
I don’t see the problem.