You likely think, gentle reader, that the 2012 presidential race is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
That, of course, is true, insofar as the names on our Nov. 6 ballots go.
But the 2012 race for the White House is something more, something more profound — something with deeper historical roots in modernity’s wrestling with political power and how that power contributes to the common good.
This is a contest, to take symbolic reference points, between Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
Both were British subjects. Both had a profound impact on modern political theory. Both knew that religion and politics — Church and state — had been thickly interwoven into the history of the West, although here the deep differences between these two paradigmatic figures begin to sharpen: Hobbes tried to drive religious conviction out of the modern public square, while Burke fashioned a vision of political modernity that drew in part on the rich social pluralism of the Catholic Middle Ages.
In a Hobbesian world, the only actors of consequence are the state and the individual.
In a Burkean world, the institutions of civil society — family, religious congregation, voluntary association, business, trade union and so forth — “mediate” between the individual and the state, and the just state takes care to provide an appropriate legal framework in which those civil-society institutions can flourish.
In a Hobbesian world, the state — “Leviathan,” in the title of Hobbes’s most famous and influential work — monopolizes power for the sake of protecting individuals from the vicissitudes of a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
In a Burkean world, civil society provides a thick layer of mediation — protection, if you will — that cushions the interactions between individuals and life’s challenges.
A Hobbesian world is a world of contracts and legal relationships, period.
A Burkean world is a world in which there are both contracts — the rule of law — and covenants: those more subtly textured human associations (beginning with marriage) by which men and women form bonds of affection, allegiance and mutual responsibility.
Catholic political theorists have always had major difficulties with Hobbes, and not simply for his promotion of what we would call, today, the “naked public square”: a public space shorn of religious conviction.
Hobbes’ vision of the state is far too cold for the social sensibilities of Catholics, who habitually think of society as organic, not artificial or contrived.
By contrast, Burke’s defense of society’s “small platoons” has numerous affinities with Catholic social doctrine, from Pope Leo XIII through Pope Benedict XVI.
Blessed John Paul II, for example, was particularly forceful in his defense of the mediating institutions of civil society, describing them in the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus as schools of freedom: those natural human associations, beginning with the family, where beautiful, willful little tyrants (which is a precise description of every 2-year-old ever born) are transformed into the kind of civil, tolerant adult citizens who can participate in public life through their minds, not just their muscles.
No American presidential candidate is going to run on an explicitly Hobbesian platform. And the complexities of life in a post-modern world are such that a purely Burkean republic is unlikely anytime soon.
The issue here is one of tendencies, orientations, visions of possibility. And at that level, 2012 really is shaping up as a contest between “Hobbes” and “Burke.”
For as the candidates have presented themselves to the country over the past months, and most recently at their conventions, it has become ever more clear that America will choose in 2012 between two paths into the future.
Along one path, there is, finally, room for only the individual and the state.
Along the other path, the flourishing institutions of civil society empower individuals and contribute to real problem-solving. In the former, the state defines responsibilities and awards benefits (and penalties).
In the latter, individuals and free, voluntary associations assume responsibility and thereby thus make their contribution to the common good.
Hobbes vs. Burke.
It’s an old argument. It’s also the argument we shall have between now and Nov. 6.
George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. His column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Comments
Post a Comment
I don’t expect you will publish this comment, but maybe at least one pair of eyes will read it. There is a reason in history for the separation of church and state. Anybody with even a little bit of knowledge will tell you that when church and state were closely aligned, they abused this power in so many ways. The catholic church, although rich in tradition and ceremony needs updating. 100 years from now people will laugh at the homophobias and hypocrisis of this era and will wonder in amazement about the child molestation scandals by priest while they were servants of the Lord, teachers of the Word, representatives of the Church.
Enjoyed your article which helped clarify some thoughts and doubts in my own mind. Thanks!!
Great article. I don’t often agree with President Obama but he has said that this election offers the American people a distinct choice. He is correct and Mr. Weigel defines that choice. There are also other valid ways to do that but I appreciate his input. I just wish the Republican Party would be more articulate in defining that choice. Americans need to know what is at stake.
I do not think that Edmund Burke would support abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life (and possibly the “health”) of the mother.
I do think that Hobbes would support abortion in all cases as well as infanticide (In the Illinois State Senate Obama consistently supported late-term abortions and used his influence in committee to kill a bill that would have provided medical care and protection for babies born alive after an abortion.
The ideological constructs presented bears little resemblance to reality. The political choices we face are not ideological extremes. This either-or argument contributes little to resolving angry division and fails to find common ground for civil discussion of policies that can contribute to the Common Good.
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Internet Television Network
@Sandra Isabel, did you bother to read this very excellent piece before giving your obviously anti-Catholic response? Most average citizens don’t even know who Hobbes and Burke are let alone understand the importance of considering their views and how these ideologies influence politics even until today. Obviously you didn’t read it or don’t understand it.
Sandra, I am sorry that you still feel the pain of the abuse scandal. That scandal indeed had many victims, not only those assaulted but those like yourself who were scandalized, hurt and disillusioned, whose faith suffered a big “assault”. As a mother of a priest I know that the many good priests who strive daily for holiness were also hurt by this abuse. Thank God that the Church is taking the steps necessary to see that such a scandal never happens again. However, the hurt you feel has clouded your understanding of the separation of Church and State. It means that there should be no official state religion because as you said that did lead to abuse of power. But our constitution also guarantees our right to propose in the public square the wisdom of Catholic Social Teaching and other beliefs as possible solutions to our problems. Not to do so would be unjust and shirking our responsibilities as citizens. May I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 2357-2359 to get a true picture of Catholic teaching on homosexuality. It is not homophobic at all.
To:Sandra Isabel Vargas Magallon It has become so boring to hear the comments about priests who have abused children without hearing about priests who have done so much good for children and people in general. You would never say that people 100 years from now would marvel at WOMEN, DOCTORS, AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL could so easily murder unborn children in numbers that far surpassed the number of human beings lost to wars. The truth is that NOT ALL women, doctors, and medical personnel were guilty but only those whose respect for all life was misunderstood or perverted.
Translation? Vote for Dems and “they” will legislate immorality, like death to infants. Vote for Reps and we’ll have a world where good hearted people take care of everything! (Those crazy Dems would rather ask ALL taxpayers to ALL chip in toward the common good.) But I digress. Being a credentialed Mediator (NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY), I disagree with the use of that term in Mr. Weigel’s article. I agree with Ms. Magallon’s comment re: Separation of Church and State. Without separation, there has been abuse and will be abuse in the future. Re: Abortion - While I will continue my opposition to abortion as birth control, and try to change hearts wherever I have influence, I will continue to fight against minimizing crimes of rape and incest & for medical treatment within 72 hrs. For that reason, and the “common” good, I will support the Affordable Care Act. As an independent, I will continue to argue against single issue voting!
What is the Common Good of abortion?
Agreed, Mr. DeVol. From the point of view of an outsider like myself, it seems true that the Democrat party does look a lot like it is Hobbesian. But I cannot see any resemblance between the Republicans and Burke, except perhaps at the “lip service” level… I am happy I don’t live in the US, because the choice this year seems particularly difficult. At least in Canada we have 3 major parties to choose for… Hopefully, what I have read about very early efforts to form another party, Christian Democrat, in the US might bring some manner of change, probably not this year, but by 2016.
Mr DeVol, I fail to see where we are going to find common ground as to what is best for the Common Good between now and November 6. If you don’t see a difference between large and small government, secularism as opposed to freedom of religion, limitless abortion as opposed to personal responsibility, etal, I’m not sure you don’t sound just like kumbaya.
In simple terms Mr. Weigel has hit the nail on the head. Mr. DeVol I could not disagree with you more. Hobbes believed that we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue). We have that now with Obama and the Dems embodied by the HHS mandates and other Presidential mandates that change laws (by passing Congress) or by choosing which laws to enforce. It will only get worse the longer they stay in power. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg of the “Nanny” state. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Ms. Vargas-Magallon the Catholic Church has survived and florished after many scandals in it’s history and will survive many more. In the words of Cardinal Consalvi to Napoleon Bonaparte who was expounding on his power to destroy the Catholic Church: ““Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.” Christ founded His Church to last forever and it is still His church.
Sandra, shame on you, have you ever made a study on abuse of children, it not only a very few priest, but ministers from other religions as well as married men, teachers. If you deny GOD he will deny you. I think you had better do a better study on this subject. I will pray for you as well as I know the other people who read this article.
With all due respect to George Weigel, Mark Levin has written extensively about both Burke and Hobbes and their influence on modern politics in both ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ and his recent bestseller ‘Ameritopia’. Now granted, Mr. Levin is not looking at this from a Catholic perspective. However, his insights and understanding will provide any reader a wealth of knowledge pertaining to the modern day Statist.
I agree with Mr. O’Neill about the “Nanny” state. I deal with government on behalf of industry (family owned businesses, primarily) and they are regulated by so many agencies from various levels of government that many have gone out of business from the added costs. Currently, when I seek refuge in my Catholic Faith I encounter a truly terrible priest sent to our tiny rural church (probably to get him where he could do less harm than in a big city parish.) HE threatens people with arrest if they do not do what they are told. I think we need to separate this church and state issue. In the meantime- I know so many GOOD priests that I simply attend somewhere else. Ms. V-M needs to know that acts of individuals cannot fell the Church. It is indeed still Christ’s Church!
Thank you so much, George, for your always compelling logic and rhetoric. The coming election will indeed determine whether or not the greatest experiment in representative government can any longer endure with liberty and religious freedom. Only twice in 85 years have I doubted our nation’s endurance. The first time was when Obama was elected to fulfill two prophecies. After losing the election in 1936, Norman Thomas said socialists would take over our nation without firing a shot The stigmatic Padre Pio said before he died that our nation would be taken over, but it would only be for a short time. I pry to God he meant only four years. If Obama is reelected my doubt will be realized and the American voters will become confirmed traitors. My military career fighting the enemy now entrenched on our shores, and the lives of all those who died defending freedom and liberty in our nation’s history wiil have been in vain.
Romney is no Burke, period.
Matthew:
But Obama is a Hobbes.
A superb, brief analysis of the choice we face. Let us not go the way of “Leviathan”. How any Catholic could chose to do so is a puzzlement.
After watching both political conventions and ‘stewing’ over the results for several days, I have decided to vote for Bill, followed by Hillary in four years. At least we know the Clinton’s can govern down the middle.
Stephen DeVol
CITVN Executive Producer
Catholic Internet Television Network
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.