[n.b. Traditionalist Catholic perspective]

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note....notes-theocons

The Theocons?

December 2006


In First Things (Aug./Sept. 2006), Richard John Neuhaus tipped us off about a new book called The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (Doubleday) by Damon Linker, who was Associate Editor and then Editor of First Things from May 2001 through January 2005 (Neuhaus is Editor in Chief). Neuhaus called Linker's an "attack book" on First Things and himself. Jeepers-creepers, a mole high up inside First Things. Intrigue. Espionage.

Gotta get this book.

We've been quite critical of Neuhaus. We read the book, but it's largely a dud. Linker's book was obviously a rush job.

From our point of view, the book is not an "attack book"; in fact, Neuhaus looks good to us in the book, with certain exceptions.

"Theocons" is short for theoconservatives, but in all of our dictionaries, "theoconservative" does not appear. So, what does theocon mean? Is it intended to imply a theocrat or theocracy? But Neuhaus is not a theocrat. He fully supports John Courtney Murray, an advocate of the separation of Church and State, and Neuhaus supports Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, which essentially abandoned the Confessional State and allowed for the separation of Church and State.

Linker says: "On the surface, the triumph of theoconservatism in America would change very little." But then Linker says: "This is the revolutionary religious ideology that is transforming the political and cultural landscape of our time." You can see why this book was written hastily. You can't have it both ways.

So, what is a theocon? Theocons oppose abortion, homosexuality, same-sex "marriage," pornography, drugs, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, etc. That's what we had in the 1950s — and before. Even Linker admits that "for most of its history the United States has been a thoroughly Christian Nation...." Americans were in the large majority theocons then. Even Stalinists opposed abortion, homosexuality, same-sex "marriage," pornography, drugs, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, etc. In spite of their atheism, the Stalinists were kissing cousins of the theocons! So, what is a theocon?

Linker says that Neuhaus is described as a neoconservative. But Linker says: "This is a mistake.... Most neoconservatives, for example, are secular and Jewish. All theocons, by contrast, are deeply religious, and most are Catholic." Originally, a long time ago, neocons were mostly secular or Jewish, but their movement has spread far and wide over some 35 years. And it has gone to the top. Just think of Vice President Dick Cheney and now ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both certified neocons, and neither Jewish nor secular.

Linker undercuts his case when he acknowledges that Irving Kristol (the key neocon, who is Jewish) "endorses an explicitly religious culture for the United States." In the "mid-1980s the neocons had come to share several theoconservative assumptions and goals...." Then, "in late 1984, Kristol approached Neuhaus to ask if he would be interested in editing his own magazine. Kristol regretted having recently taken on responsibility for the quarterly journal This World, as he was looking to pass it along to someone in the ‘family.'" This World eventually evolved into First Things, with heavy funding from the neocon Olin, Bradley, and Scaife Foundations.

As for the neocons and theocons: It's a distinction without a difference.

This book is an enigma.

Linker quotes Neuhaus: "Given a decision between what I think the Church should teach and what the Church in fact does teach, I decide for the Church," and again quoting Neuhaus, one must "think with the Church." But in Linker's chapter on "Theocons at War," he notes that Neuhaus was gung ho for war on Iraq, but Linker fails to mention that the Pope and the Holy See vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq. Here is where Linker could have nailed Neuhaus for failing to "think with the Church." But Linker is appealing to a secular audience that disdains what the Catholic Church teaches.

Linker notes that Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and George Weigel "had long ago traded in any intellectual respectability they once possessed on matters of war and peace for the opportunity to serve at the pleasure" of President George W. Bush, all of them consultants to the President. Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel are "freelance propaganda ministers for the President." Here Linker is right on the money.

Linker ostensibly is a "born-again" secularist. The subtitle of his book is Secular America Under Siege. This is a wild exaggeration. America has abortion, homosexuality, pornography, drugs, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, etc. None of these things are under siege or in any danger. However, no Christian nation would allow these things. The Democrats may speed up secularism a bit. The Republicans may slow it down a bit (perhaps lulling Christians into thinking that all is well), but the Republicans will not reverse it. In order to reverse secularism, we will need much stronger medicine.