There's not a single word anywhere in this piece about public policy. I have zero idea what you actually intend "postliberalism" to stand for based on what you wrote. Deenan himself, a poli-sci Ph.D, is little better in this regard. In reading "postliberal" content, I have picked on two general trends. (1) "Postliberals" are more critical of capitalism and consumerism and less critical of social democracy and the welfare state, as center-left economic policies could perhaps incentivize family formation. (2) "Postliberals" should take extremely aggressive positions on culture war issues and seek to create a kind of society where conservative cultural values are hegemonic and have state-backing, as opposed to the neutral public square approach of liberal pluralism. Sohrab Ahamri, for example, has pushed both of these arguments at various points in his career.
Number 1 I basically agree with, but this is hardly different from the "Rockefeller" Republicanism of old or even the position of liberal Catholic writers today (such as Michael Sean Winters at NCReporter or Liz Bruenig). Number 2 is clearly an unworkable stance given the significant shift in public opinion on culture war topics. If you couldn't ban abortion or nudity in movies in the 1980s when scores more people went to church and society was much more conservative, much less end liberal pluralism and enforce a quasi state religion, how to you plan to do that now? Things have shifted so far to the left that typical "conservative" culture warriors today include people in same sex unions (Dave Rubin), supporters of sexual libertinism and abortion (Dave Portnoy) and "trans-exclusive radical feminists" (JK Rowling). The once influential Religious Right is clearly working from a position of weakness. It can't even ban abortion in Ohio and Kentucky. The leading Republican is a vaguely religious thrice divorced New Yorker who supports a 16 week abortion ban (Germany, not exactly a hyper-religious theocracy, bans abortion after 12 weeks).
If anything, you should be extoling the virtues of liberal pluralism, because liberal pluralist concepts are precisely what conservative Christians will need to survive as religious minorities. If you lived in Erodgan's increasingly Islamist Turkey as a Christian, you would be crazy to advocate for a Christian theocracy. That would just lead to more persecution. You would be far better off to make arguments about pluralism and religious liberty and ally with secular and Muslim liberals. That might actually benefit your religious community.
To use a concrete example, many conservatives are worried that people who morally oppose homosexuality will face workplace discrimination in a future woke dystopia. You won't be able to keep a white collar professional job at a Fortune 500 company if HR finds out where you go to church and what your church believes. This is a major concern of Rod Dreher's. An obvious solution to this problem based on liberal principles would be to advocate for expanding Civil Rights law to include moral or political viewpoints as a "protected class", in addition to religion which is already protected. That way, if a white collar Christian gets fired or demoted for his views about homosexuality, he could file a claim with the EEOC or sue the company. Such an expansion of civil rights law could potentially have bipartisan support, because while conservative Christians will be protected, so to would many moral or political views, potentially. Communists and pro-LGBTers could file claims if fired by Christian management. Each side gets to benefit from the neutral public square at the cost of their ability to impose their will on the other.
Instead, the trend among right wing commentators is to attack Civil Rights law and pluralism (potentially their greatest ally) and argue instead that Christians should move to intentional communities (read: cult compounds) or somehow take over the US government and turn back the cultural changes of the last 50 years through government writ (read: insane fantasy).
This is an excellent apology for the need for society to grow beyond the liberal/conservative impasse and create something better. There is a growing perception in society that neither progressivism nor conservatism has the answers; the question is really just what ideology should take their place.
There's not a single word anywhere in this piece about public policy. I have zero idea what you actually intend "postliberalism" to stand for based on what you wrote. Deenan himself, a poli-sci Ph.D, is little better in this regard. In reading "postliberal" content, I have picked on two general trends. (1) "Postliberals" are more critical of capitalism and consumerism and less critical of social democracy and the welfare state, as center-left economic policies could perhaps incentivize family formation. (2) "Postliberals" should take extremely aggressive positions on culture war issues and seek to create a kind of society where conservative cultural values are hegemonic and have state-backing, as opposed to the neutral public square approach of liberal pluralism. Sohrab Ahamri, for example, has pushed both of these arguments at various points in his career.
Number 1 I basically agree with, but this is hardly different from the "Rockefeller" Republicanism of old or even the position of liberal Catholic writers today (such as Michael Sean Winters at NCReporter or Liz Bruenig). Number 2 is clearly an unworkable stance given the significant shift in public opinion on culture war topics. If you couldn't ban abortion or nudity in movies in the 1980s when scores more people went to church and society was much more conservative, much less end liberal pluralism and enforce a quasi state religion, how to you plan to do that now? Things have shifted so far to the left that typical "conservative" culture warriors today include people in same sex unions (Dave Rubin), supporters of sexual libertinism and abortion (Dave Portnoy) and "trans-exclusive radical feminists" (JK Rowling). The once influential Religious Right is clearly working from a position of weakness. It can't even ban abortion in Ohio and Kentucky. The leading Republican is a vaguely religious thrice divorced New Yorker who supports a 16 week abortion ban (Germany, not exactly a hyper-religious theocracy, bans abortion after 12 weeks).
If anything, you should be extoling the virtues of liberal pluralism, because liberal pluralist concepts are precisely what conservative Christians will need to survive as religious minorities. If you lived in Erodgan's increasingly Islamist Turkey as a Christian, you would be crazy to advocate for a Christian theocracy. That would just lead to more persecution. You would be far better off to make arguments about pluralism and religious liberty and ally with secular and Muslim liberals. That might actually benefit your religious community.
To use a concrete example, many conservatives are worried that people who morally oppose homosexuality will face workplace discrimination in a future woke dystopia. You won't be able to keep a white collar professional job at a Fortune 500 company if HR finds out where you go to church and what your church believes. This is a major concern of Rod Dreher's. An obvious solution to this problem based on liberal principles would be to advocate for expanding Civil Rights law to include moral or political viewpoints as a "protected class", in addition to religion which is already protected. That way, if a white collar Christian gets fired or demoted for his views about homosexuality, he could file a claim with the EEOC or sue the company. Such an expansion of civil rights law could potentially have bipartisan support, because while conservative Christians will be protected, so to would many moral or political views, potentially. Communists and pro-LGBTers could file claims if fired by Christian management. Each side gets to benefit from the neutral public square at the cost of their ability to impose their will on the other.
Instead, the trend among right wing commentators is to attack Civil Rights law and pluralism (potentially their greatest ally) and argue instead that Christians should move to intentional communities (read: cult compounds) or somehow take over the US government and turn back the cultural changes of the last 50 years through government writ (read: insane fantasy).
This is an excellent apology for the need for society to grow beyond the liberal/conservative impasse and create something better. There is a growing perception in society that neither progressivism nor conservatism has the answers; the question is really just what ideology should take their place.