Can a Christian be a liberal?

So I've joined the discussion, begun at Notes on the Atrocities, on what a contemporary liberal manifesto should look like. I posted this the other night, and got many good responses. The longest and most challenging reply came from Lawrence Krubner, who asked me to explain how I can reconcile political liberalism with communitarian (and evangelical) values. He gave me lots of things to think about.

I'm not comfortable with the word "liberal" myself, because I do disagree with the worldview of what Krubner describes as the "foundation texts" of Western liberalism:

The foundational texts of liberalism are those of John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill - all of which emphasize the rights of the individual against the state and society. Locke suggested a social contract existed, and people held certain rights in their natural state which they did not abandon when they joined human society. These texts also suggest that individualism, even extremely selfish and self-centered individualism, is good for society. Consider Smith's insistence that an individual, pursuing their own self-interest often does more for society than the person who sets out to do good.

If Schwyzer has a way of reconciling liberalism to communitarianism, I'd like to hear it. That would, indeed, be very original...

Perhaps Krubner is pushing the individualism of these classical liberals too hard. But if he is accurate, then of course, there is an ideological and theological divide between evangelical Christianity and liberalism. One problem in this country is that the left is split between its "libertarian" (classical liberal) and "social justice progressive" (communitarian) wings, in much the same way that the right is split between its "libertarian" and "social conservative" branches. A number of evangelicals whom I know are comfortable in the "social justice progressive" camp, but not the "libertarian" group. In other words, we believe that Christians have a spiritual and moral obligation to strive for justice and peace. These are biblical mandates for us. But the extension of justice and peace is not coterminous with maximizing individual freedom! Indeed, it is often quite the opposite, as it seems certain that much injustice results from the abuse of personal freedom.

Krubner worries about the Christian (and secular communitarian) concern with community, and how it undermines classical liberalism. He writes:

What do people really mean when they say they want more community? I'm wary. America seems to me an easy country to meet new people. There is a great variety of organizations to join. It takes very little effort - a free hour or two each week and you can join up with a new group of people who share at least one interest in common with you. In fact, forming community, in this sense, is so easy, that I'm fairly sure that when people talk about wanting more community, they are talking about something else entirely. I'm wary, as I said before. I'm wary - I worry that people are actually talking about non-voluntary forms of community. (Emphasis is mine).

With all due respect to Mr. Krubner, the idealization of solely "voluntary" communities is, I think wishful thinking. The most basic form of community is the family, which in most instances one enters in a decidedly involuntary fashion. We don't pick our parents, our culture, our homeland. Our earliest human experiences are formed not in a democratic community, nor (ideally) in a totalitarian dictatorship. Good families do impose involuntary obligations on their members (ranging from changing one's children's diapers to changing one's mother's diapers), but good families also allow their adult members to choose to opt out of family life.

Christian political thought, back to Paul, used the image of the body as the best way to represent the interconnectedness of the human family and the church. Paul says "the eye cannot say to the hand, I don't need you". As a social justice progressive, I worry that classical liberalism is taking the side of the eye! Radical individualism (which has historically been an ideology which only wealthy men could practice) is the denial of the very kinds of basic responsibilities which Christians see as central to our vision of the body and community. Feeding the homeless, caring for the immigrant, providing health care to the sick -- these are not choices. They are obligations. A progressive vision that I can and will embrace will insist that those among us who see ourselves as least bound by obligations to the larger community begin to take notice of the hands, the feet, and the other parts of the body.

So, no, by the classical definition, I am no liberal. Perhaps on issues where our beliefs coincide (like opposition to the war in Iraq, concern for the poor in this country, opposition to capital punishment) Christian progressives and secular liberals can work together. But on other issues (most obviously the "life" issues like abortion and euthanasia), we may be forced to take opposing sides from our dear friends.

Note: I am also posting a nearly identical version of this at Cliopatria.

Comments

[Russell Arben Fox]

Great post Hugo. Two (admittedly, rather long and somewhat self-promotional) points:

First, I think "liberalism" can refer to both a philosophical system or an ideological orientation. That is, one can embrace a substantive liberalism, and enshrine the principle of the "self-revising individual," for whom all attachments are voluntary and subject to critique and consent; or, one can prefer to interpret the world and act in it "liberally," paying respect to the choices of individuals insofar as is possible within a wider moral framework. In other words, liberalism can be reconciled with communitarian philosophies (like evangelical Christianity) to the extent it is used in a ideological or "adjectival" role. So, rather than being a full-bore "liberal," you'd be a "liberal evangelical" (though of course, given the way the word is used to today, that might cause more confusion than it's worth!). This isn't an original point with me; Michael Walzer, a communitarian political philosopher, has strongly defended the appropriateness of acting "liberally" within the sphere of one's commitments in this way. (I wrote about Walzer's definition here: http://philosophenweg.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_philosophenweg_archive.html#91291708 .)

Second, thanks very much for making the point that obligations cannot (and should not) always be understood as optional. We inherit (and, from the Christian point of view, are called to) various responsibilities by viture of belonging; to think that all such duties are first and foremost subject to the self-interested assessment of the "eye" puts morality on the wrong path from the beginning. I think acknowledging this issue--the possibility that some attachments may be constitutive and authoritative, not subject to individual preference--is the greatest stumbling block facing the left today; it is just too easy for progressives in today's individualistic climate to look at religious communitarians and label them "authoritarians." It's something I've debated around and around with other liberals, and rarely is much progress made--the distance between classical philosophical liberals and those who acknowledge a wider order than the self, in economics and politics and morals, is huge. (One of my many old posts on this topic is here: http://philosophenweg.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_philosophenweg_archive.html#106452049985483597 .)

[Hugo]

I really shouldn't dabble in political philosophy when I can just send everyone over to you! Readers, go to Russell' blog, now!

Great comments, especially this:

I think acknowledging this issue--the possibility that some attachments may be constitutive and authoritative, not subject to individual preference--is the greatest stumbling block facing the left today; it is just too easy for progressives in today's individualistic climate to look at religious communitarians and label them "authoritarians."

Perfect.

[Jonathan Dresner]

Agreed. I've been trying to make the point that we are already subject to limitations, requirements, forced contributions to causes we don't personally support.

From my quote file: "Business succeeds rather better than the state in imposing its restraints upon individuals, because its imperatives are disguised as choices." -- Walter Hamilton

[Lawrence Krubner]

I'm thinking I'd like to reply to this, but I also feel like I don't know enough about where you're coming from to make my reply as intelligent as I'd like it to be. Have you written before on the issue of non-voluntary communities, and could you please point me to those posts? I'd like to read up on your thinking on this matter. If you've never written on this subject before, could you point to work that's influenced your thinking on this matter? Your quote from Saint Paul is interesting, but I'd like to hear the whole argument, hopefully in your words. More broadly, have you written before on the possible conflict between Christianity and liberalism's focus on the individual? Could you point me those posts, or to posts elsewhere that have influenced your thinking?

[Lawrence Krubner]

Related to this issue, Robert McAfee Brown argued that Christianity is not inherently right-wing in his terrific 1961 book "The Spirit Of Protestantism". I posted some quotes and some thoughts about that book back in February:

http://www.krubner.com/index.php?pageId=2384

[Hugo]

First off, Stephen Carter's wonderful "Liberalism's Religion Problem" in First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/articles/carter.html

But see also the discussion around the supreme court case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, where the court allowed the Amish an extraordinary degree of latitude in choosing how to educate their children. Most liberals hate this case -- I see it as an absolutely crucial one.

[Lawrence Krubner]

Can you perhaps point me to an editorial regarding Wisconsin v. Yoder that you agree with? Or, perhaps, one you completely disagree with? If I google the case, I imagine I'll get lots of hits, none of which will necessarily give me a sense of how you think about the case.

[Hugo]

My mother commented on this post in an email, and it is so good, I am reproducing it:

Dearest,
A far older source than any you quote is Aristotle who said that the man
who would choose to live outside the state [community] was either a beast or
a god but not a human being. He said, in this context that a severed finger
was not a 'finger' but just a hunk of flesh. He said that the
state[community] was prior to the family because it defines the family and
the family is prior to the individual. In other words, we could not be human
individuals without the family and the community - they create both the
possibility of being human and of being a genuine individual - rather than a
beast or a god. And the sort of individual we are depends a lot on the sort
of state we live in.
Hobbes, always more honest and thorough than Locke, holds a social
contract theory and a theory of inalienable human rights, but he also holds
that we need a community to survive and without it,
""...the life of man, poor, solitary, nasty, brutish and short."
The problem with Bentham and Mill is that while they did say all those
things about liberty, they were both such thoroughly nice people that they
could not imagine a world where the 'internal moral santions' - the guilty
conscience that makes us feel badly when we hurt others - wouldn't be
obvious. They both believed strongly with Hume that there is a natural human
sympathy that makes us care about others.
While of course there is a strong connection between classical
liberalism and capitalism - they arise together - the excessess [sp] of
individualism that we see are much more the result of capitalism than of
Locke et.al. The rampant individual is the best consumer! That ugly
bumpersticker of a few years back - "He who dies with the most toys wins!' -
That is NOT the voice of Locke or Bentham or Mill.
Tons of love from your Mother - a liberal

[d-rod]

If your question were phrased "Can Christianity be used to promote liberal values and causes", Hugo, the answer would have to be yes. But it can and has also been used to promote illiberal values and causes.

Fortunately, the Bible is not the inspired word of God and Christians rarely read it.

[Ralph Luker]

Hugo, If you don't mind my saying so, as my students would put it, your mother is "the bomb."

[Lawrence Krubner]

The letter from your mother is nice, but she seems to be talking about forms of community that spring up rather automatically. When people talk about wanting more community, or when they say America is lacking community, what are they are talking about?

You reply to my worries by mentioning two forms of non-voluntary community: family and state. Has the law been used to outlaw the family or outlaw the state? I hope you'll excuse me putting the question in extreme form, but I'm trying to make a point. I don't think people are talking about the family or the state when they talk about America needing more community.

As to the connection between individualism and consumerism, surely we can admit there is big difference between the two? Some Christian right-wingers have moved to places like Idaho in an attempt to escape much of the American "community" and they would be horrofied by a line of reasoning like this: "the state[community] was prior to the family because it defines the family and the family is prior to the individual." They hope to get their families free of the clutches of the American state, and they reject a defintion of family that suggests it proceeds from the state. Yet they should not be confused with an ideology that says "The rampant individual is the best consumer!... "He who dies with the most toys wins!'" While embracing the individualism of self-reliance, many of them are quite wary of consumerism.

[Lawrence Krubner]

I've been wanting to write a reply to this post for a very long time, but I've as yet been unable to write anything as comprehensive as I'd like. Realistically, I may never have time to write a comprehensive reply, and so I'll have to allow this entry to act as my reply:

http://www.krubner.com/index.php?pageId=18305