I’ve heard Andrew Sullivan give roughly the same talk — on the rise of “Christianism,” on the related growth of a politics without doubt, and on the bankruptcy of modern conservatism — three times over the last six weeks, and the third time was the very best. It was the presentation of his brand new book The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back at the Cato Institute, which was followed by an outstandingly intelligent discussion/debate with commentator David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times and author of Bobos in Paradise and other books.
Particularly sharp was the debate between Sullivan and Brooks toward the end. Sullivan lit into the Republican Congress and presidency for its grossly irresponsible expansion of federal spending and Brooks responded that, true as that may be (and he’s hardly as exercised about it as Sullivan is), it can’t be ascribed to the influence of “Christianist” religious certainty. Sullivan shot back that it was the reliance on the religious right that has kept the current crop of “crooks” in power, as they shovel money out the door to every special interest in the nation, and that Karl Rove & Co. have maintained their grip on power by marching their backers to the voting booths to vote for virtue against vice, patriotism agains treason, God against Satan.
I don’t fully agree with Andrew — or maybe I think he has the emphasis just a bit off — when he puts so much emphasis on doubt as a fundamental feature of a truly liberal political order. (Not all structures have to be infinitely iterated, so it’s not reasonable to be as doubtful about the importance of doubt as it is to be doubtful about this or that particular claim, for example. The adage “Moderation in all things” does not itself have to be applied moderately. Similarly, it seems to me that a liberal politics of doubt and process, rather than certainty and result, has nonetheless to rest on some deep certainties, such as that individuals have rights and that power should be limited. But in the context of Bushian and conservative insistence on the virtual treason of doubting their authority, an Oakeshottian emphasis on uncertainty and doubt is certainly a good antidote to the arrogance of power.) The whole brilliant event can be watched or listened to here.