Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nationalize or Not?: Matthew Continetti and Chris DeMuth Debate the Future of Conservatism
Matthew Continetti is the author of the new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, an extensively researched and reported history of the conservative movement in America. Chris DeMuth is a former president of the American Enterprise Institute and currently a fellow at the Hudson Institute.
In this conversation, DeMuth states that national conservatives (or “NatCons”) “are conservatives who have been mugged by reality. We have come away with a sense of how to recover from the horrors taking America down.” Continetti counters —in a typically conservative argument— that there is no need for NatCons to break away from the traditional movement, since they’re all in the same boat and agree on most of the important issues of the day.
The elephant in the room in this debate is former president Donald Trump. What he says and does in the next year or two will be crucial toward determining the future direction of the conservative movement. Continetti and DeMuth agree on that.
Published in General
Probably not nice to do so, but I’d also like to commend this recent Peter Robinson Uncommon Knowledge interview:
What a great debate!
This was a good discussion. Thanks, Peter.
I side with DeMuth, myself. I’m not completely sure what he means by “National Conservatism,” as the outlines of this movement don’t quite seem clear yet.
I did find this statement of the principles of National Conservatism, which I generally like. The website nationalconservatism.org states that it is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, and is signed by (among many others):
Overall, this platform seems sufficiently distinct from whatever has been called “Conservatism” in recent decades to warrant the distinctive name “National Conservatism.” It seems to me that there is a great deal of libertarianism and liberal imperialism (of the neocon type) included in what we’ve called “Conservatism” since the 1980s.
Thank you for drawing this interesting document to my attention. I like most of it, too. (Obviously point 7, Public Research – or, at least, the first part – is out of place.)
I’m glad you generally liked it, too. I hadn’t seen it before either.
I’ve come to be skeptical of the viability of religious pluralism. Their point 4, about God and Public Religion, states that: “Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.” I agree with that part.
They proceed to say: “At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children.” I’m not sure that it’s possible to carry out both of these suggestions.
Proceeding to their point 9, on immigration, they say that “today’s penchant for uncontrolled and unassimilated immigration has become a source of weakness and instability, not strength and dynamism, threatening internal dissention and ultimately dissolution of the political community.” I agree with this part. They further say that: “We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies.”
But if public life is rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, and the proper policy is assimilationist, this is undermined by protecting other religious groups, including Jews, that do not assimilate.
It is a conundrum. I don’t think that it’s a good idea, or even possible, to force faith on anyone. On the other hand, it seems to me that protection of religious minorities must necessarily undermine the rooting of our public life and moral vision in Christianity. It may be possible to work out some reasonable accommodation, but it seems to me that this will be difficult.
I’m not sure why you think having a majority Christian Nation while at the same time protecting religious minorities is not a viable system. We have been doing it successfully for 250 years. Very few, if any, countries can boast that track record. I don’t see where it has undermined our public life or moral vision of Christianity.