Don’t get me wrong: I hate liberalism as much as the next guy. But for all I admire Patrick Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed, I think it has one big flaw. I don’t see American republicanism as “liberal” in the way Prof. Deneen uses the word. And, frankly, I don’t see how anyone else does.
Ask yourselves this question: What’s something you would expect find in the United States, had the Founding Fathers not been pure Lockean liberals, but some sort of illiberal traditionalists? The first thing that jumps to my mind is an established church, like the Church of England back home in Blighty.
But then, of course, we had one of those. In fact, we had thirteen. At the time of the Founding, each colony/state had its own official religion. Most of them continued to support an established church well into the 19th century.
That may seem difficult to square with the First Amendment, but it isn’t. The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with freedom of worship and everything to do with state’s rights. It has nothing to do with securing religious liberty among the citizenry. Absolutely nothing. It only exists to ensure that (say) the Anglican Virginia didn’t impose its theology or its liturgy on Congregationalist Massachusetts.
Still, each of the states was allowed to pursue its own religious policy, free from interference from the federal government.
Which they did. For example, the Massachusetts Constitution—whose principal author was John Adams—holds that the state government shall require municipal authorities
to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Our third president supported compulsory worship and state-sponsored religious education. They didn’t teach us that in Mass. public schools.
Liberals and illiberals will both “prove” that the Founders were liberals by quoting Thomas Jefferson’s line about how the Establishment Clause erected a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Which is half-true. Again, T.J. is talking about the federal government. When he wrote those words, ten of the thirteen states still had established churches. As a matter of fact, New Hampshire only disestablished the Congregational church in 1877. Robert Frost was three years old.
We can go on. The point is that the majority of Founding Fathers had absolutely no qualms about using the government to “impose their views” on anyone. They simply couldn’t agree on which view to impose, so they allowed each of the thirteen member-states to decide for itself. They’re not “liberal” as Prof. Deneen would use the term.
What we call “liberalism,” rather, is an aggressive secularism that engenders moral relativism. No doubt it owes a great deal to thinkers like John Locke, who strongly influenced most of the Founders. And no doubt it found a sympathetic ear in figures like Jefferson. But to call American republicanism “liberal” by its nature is lazy. To pretend that any one worldview could encompass thinkers as disparate as Adams and Jefferson (let alone, say, John Dickinson and Thomas Paine) is disingenuous.
So, why is such lazy thinking so endemic?
Mostly, I think, it’s a desire to make history relevant to modern political discourse, and vice-versa. That desire is bound up with the modern writer’s ultimate imperative: to reach the widest possible audience, by any means necessary. If you’re a conservative historian or political theorist, of course you’re going to covet a spot on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Even if that means oversimplifying things a bit.
So, when we ask, “Did the Founding Fathers believe in religious freedom?” we really mean something like, “Would the Founding Fathers support Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz on abortion?”
First of all, who cares? The Founding Fathers weren’t prophets or demigods. They weren’t even demons. They were a group of quarrelsome men with disparate opinions about politics. Many of those opinions were salutary. Others, not so much.
But if you’re asking whether 2021 can be explained by 1776, the answer is, “Hell no.” If anyone tries to blame the Founders because California tried to shut down churches during COVID, remind them that Adams actually made worship compulsory in the Bay State.
The one advantage to this Anti-Founderism is that it takes the blame off of us and puts it on a bunch of old dead guys. It relieves us from the burden of action. If Christianity/the traditional family/moral order/America’s social fabric is falling apart—why, don’t blame lazy, cowardly Christians. Just blame George Washington! And if you want to fix it—why, just replace our “liberal” regime with an “illiberal” one. It’s just that simple!
Well, of course, it isn’t really. Christianity is declining in this country because Christians aren’t preaching the faith to the nations. We’re not serving our neighbors. We’re not passing on the Faith to our children.
But this is hard for us to accept. Because if we’re to blame for going astray, then it’s our responsibility to get America back on the right path. It doesn’t matter how many times we vote for Donald Trump or how much we donate to First Things. We have to do the thing. Politicians and journalists can’t do it for us. We have to bring Christ to the nations—man by man, woman by woman, child by child.
That’s why I admire Prof. Deneen. Why Liberalism Fails ends with a stirring call for massive, grassroots action in defense of Western civilization. It’s similar to, and evokes the name of, Rod Dreher’s “Benedict Option.” Even if one questions Prof. Deneen’s diagnosis, his treatment is spot-on.
This affinity between Why Liberalism Failed and The Benedict Option explain why both works are chronically misrepresented by our politicos. If conservatives decided to try out some of that grassroots action, the PACs, think-tanks, and magazines would stand to lose much of their wealth and power.
Are we doomed, then, to an endless cascade of essays on the Madisonian of Drag Queen Story Hour? Lord, I hope not.
Look: the Founding Fathers were great. Some were greater than others, but they’re perhaps the finest bunch of rabble-rousers since the Apostles. Let’s stop blaming them for all our failures.
If you want a new strategy for American Christians, check out Why Liberalism Failed, The Benedict Option, and my new book The Reactionary Mind. (Pretty smooth, huh?)
But don’t give up on our this country. Don’t give up on our countrymen. And don’t give up on our Founding Fathers. As Charles Péguy said,
How right the ancients were, dear friends, to have celebrated, feasted, and commemorated the foundation of a city; to have realized that the city was a being, a living being, and that its foundation was no ordinary action, but a religious action; something out of the ordinary and solemn, worthy of solemnization…
To honor Founders isn’t a political act, but a pious one. And this much is certain: no movement “on the Right” will ever succeed if it yields to a spirit of impiety.
The Founders deserve our reverence, not because they were perfect men (they weren’t) or because they built a perfect government (they didn’t). They deserve our reverence because they’re our sires, and their vision for this country was basically true and good and noble.
We don’t have to live in their shadow, but we must honor their memory. This is God’s country, after all. The Fourth Commandment applies to the Fathers of our Republic, too.