Preserving Democracy: A Neo-Conservative Perspective

The Catholic neo-conservative biographer of Pope John Paul II George Weigel wrote an essay in 2018 “Democracy and Its Discontents” that presents a broad view of the populist grievances that threaten our democracy and suggests fundamental truths that can guide efforts to preserve and reinvigorate our democratic way of life.

Weigel, who has become the major spokesperson for Catholic neo-conservatism after the deaths of Michael Novak and Richard Neuhaus, lists six primary problems fueling discontent with our democratic institutions. 1. The globalized economy has left many Americans behind, struggling to make it economically. 2. The “vast overreach” of the federal government has eroded confidence in state and local authority. 3. Elites in the arts, universities, entertainment industry, and mainstream media spew mockery, scorn and disdain for traditional cultural institutions and morals. 4. There is in the U.S. a growing “intuition” that democracy is simply incapable of coping with the vast changes unleashed by the post-modern world and only some form of authoritarianism can save us. 5. The “cult of license” and “libertine hedonism” has left young people with feelings of boredom and purposelessness that lead to “cultural disorientation” and disaffiliation from the democratic project. 6. Populist discontent has been fueled by failures of conservative administrations to meet international and economic crises which according to Weigel, has led to the rise of Donald Trump who is “manifestly unfit to be president,” as Weigel argued back in 2016.

Reflecting on American public discourse in 2018, Geroge Weigel saw an “epistemic tribalism” and a “politics of them” dulls the capacity to see anything of value in what others think and makes it difficult to have a “robust encounter” of competing ideas” that is “essential to the democratic project.” In this situation our political discourse is debased and the other becomes an enemy. Weigel concluded this analysis with a reminder that there can be no democracy without a “minimum of civility” that acknowledges the other may have a valid point.

To preserve democracy in this season of discontent, George Weigel proposes some essential truths that must be reworked into public life.

1. Democracy is by nature an experiment in a people’s capacity for self-government that is not guaranteed to succeed and can fail. It must not only be affirmed but must be earned by every generation.
2. Weigel begins his second truth by explaining that the democratic project has three interlocking parts. First, a political order with elected representatives, an independent judiciary and civil liberties defined by law. Second, a market economy regulated by law but not dominated by the state. Third, a vibrant public moral culture. He argues that today preserving democracy requires special emphasis on revitalizing the moral sphere, especially family life, the “first school of freedom” where we learn to pursue excellence, nobility and solidarity.
3. Preserving democracy requires the cultivation of civic virtues that overcome “expressive individualism” and promote the “common good.”
4. As a society, we must learn how to temper and direct the “vast energies of the free market” so they help rebuild the “foundations of civic life” and do not promote “consumerism” that measures human worth by what persons have acquired and not who they are.
5. Weigel summarizes his final point by insisting that “serious criticism must be responsible criticism.” For him, irresponsible critics include: partisans who will not admit their own mistakes; intellectuals who offer theories but no concrete solutions; and millennials who romanticize premodern political systems.

George Weigel concluded his essay by urging us to develop the virtue of “civic patriotism” based on the self-evident truths knowable by reason and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – fundamental truths about equality and human rights that make us Americans despite our diverse backgrounds.

What is my main take away from Weigel’s essay?