Mark,
Your diatribes against “Americanism” and Catholic Conservatives would be justified, if:
(a.) There were something particularly “American” about what you call “Americanism” (but there isn’t), and,
(b.) There were something particularly Conservative about the things you criticize in Catholic Conservatives (but there isn’t).
Let me spell out the relevant principle, here:
When one criticizes a thing, one can either criticize the thing WHOLESALE, and thus argue that the thing ought not exist; or, one can criticize the FLAWS in the thing.
And when one criticizes the FLAWS in the thing, one must differentiate between flaws which are part of the identity or nature of the thing, and flaws which are deviations from the identity or nature of the thing.
If the flaws are unbearable and are intrinsic to the identity or nature of the thing, then criticizing those flaws as unbearable is the same as saying the thing shouldn’t exist.
But if the flaws are not intrinsic to the identity or nature of the thing, but are deviations from its identity, or even destructive of its identity, then to criticizing those flaws is actually to call the thing to BE ITSELF, to champion it against its own degradation.
For example, one may justly criticize the Catholic Church in various ways, such as for failing to adequately catechize the laity in various ways.
But one would not say that the Catholic Church was, itself, intrinsically evil because it produced poorly catechized Catholics! That would only make sense if the Church, as part of its core identity, intended and championed bad catechesis…which is the opposite of the truth. Indeed, to criticize bad catechesis in the Church is to call the Church to be ITSELF, as it is supposed to be: The pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the teacher of “everything [Jesus] has commanded [us].”
Got it? That’s the principle; let’s apply it.
Re: “Americanism”: Spell out the particular philosophical assertions and policies that make up what you’re calling “Americanism” and you’ll find that while they’re rampant in America, and perhaps became rampant in the U.S. earlier than elsewhere (in Europe or Japan, say), they are (a.) not unique to the U.S.; (b.) worse outside the U.S. than in many other places; and most importantly (c.) not intrinsic to the values and principles by which America defines itself. This does not mean that they aren’t bad. It doesn’t mean they don’t happen to be particularly bad in America. It just means it’s silly to call them by the name “Americanism,” for the same reason that it’s silly to call pedophilia by the name “Catholicism.”
Re: Conservative Catholics: Mark, you’re funny, and a credit to the Church in many ways, but you’re a dishonorable polemicist (and thus a discredit to the Church) in one respect: When debating against someone with whose conclusions you disagree, you habitually ignore the actual steps by which they arrived at those conclusions, and replace them with absurd straw man arguments (at best caricaturing their actual reasons) and insinuations of evil intent to arrive at their conclusions.
Then, when they complain that “that’s not what we said, nor ever thought,” you claim that you weren’t misrepresenting them, because you correctly identified their conclusions.
This pattern has become so predictable as to be a sort of signature flourish in your writing.
Two examples:
EXAMPLE 1: “But when alleged conservative Catholics tell me that they would rather get their social teaching from a talking hairdo on FOX than from the bishops…”
Who, precisely, told you that? I’m confident no-one did, and certainly not in those terms. That’s how you’re characterizing the belief of some conservatives that a minority of American bishops allow their leftist political leanings to warp the teachings of the Church, causing them to view political and economic pronouncements from said bishops with skepticism. But you don’t say it that way, because it is neither funny (and you prefer to be an entertaining writer when you can) nor as easy to argue against.
EXAMPLE 2: “...their gospel of democratic capitalism, laissez faire, and disregard for the weak…”
The term conservatives use is “free-market capitalism,” as an approach to the structures of the economy; just as “constitutional democratic republicanism” is their approach to the structures of government. They don’t, as a rule, say “democratic capitalism” as a term. “Laissez faire” is an important part of the mix, but is a shorthand for opposition to protectionism and to the anti-capitalist “corporate welfare” of onerous regulations which makes entrepreneurialism impossible by making compliance costs too burdensome to be borne by any but the largest firms.
As for “disregard for the weak”: You’re embarrassing yourself. You ought to know by now—the statistics are publicly available, and there are books about it—that conservatives in America, as a culture, give roughly twice as much alms to the poor as their left-leaning neighbors (both in absolute dollar amounts, and as a percentage of income, and at every income level). Conservatives also volunteer more, give blood more, and contribute more to their churches, thus allowing the churches to assist the poor.
They don’t, by-and-large support the welfare state because it is unconstitutional (so that having it, in spite of its unconstitutionality, undermines the rule of law in the U.S.) and because they believe it tends to harm poor people far more than it helps them.
You may disagree about the constitutionality question—which brings up the question of whether stare decisis or the demonstrably obvious original intent of an author should prevail—and you may believe they’re wrong about the harm that the welfare state does to poor people. But that would lead you into arguments that you apparently don’t have the patience for. You prefer, in rank disregard of the evidence of their generous voluntary giving, to say they believe in a “gospel” of “disregard for the weak.”
Contemptible slander, sir. And damnable, if this was knowing strategy rather than invincible ignorance on your part.
Your books are good. Your sense of humor is good. Your love of Chesterton is good.
Your slander is not. I respectfully suggest that you stick to what you’re good at.