The book was a bracing read for me as Stout takes on some thinkers who have profoundly shaped my political thinking, thinkers like Stanley Hauerwas and Alasdair MacIntyre. Hauerwas and MacIntyre, along with John Milbank whom Stout also takes aim at, have leveled strong criticisms at Western liberalism. This argument has been echoed and elaborated by many, but the main thrust of the argument is that liberalism is hostile to and corrosive of religious faith. Or, at least in MacIntyre's case, hostile toward any shared moral worldview that defines the collective good we pursue as a people. In adopting a posture of indifference toward values, the liberal state is antagonistic toward the value claims made by its citizens, demanding that those values be regulated to the private sphere. The only thing allowed in politics are appeals to instrumental reason. Faith claims are to be rejected.
This line of argument should be familiar to many. It's been a common line of attack from political theologians since MacIntyre published After Virtue. But Jeffrey Stout pushes back and argues that these attacks are both confused and highly destructive.
As for the confusion, Stout makes the point that thinkers like Hauerwas and MacIntyre mistake liberalism for democracy. Liberalism and democracy, argues Stout, are two different things. Christian political theologians, however, tend to conflate the two. In their vigorous attacks against liberalism these theologians have unwittingly disparaged and undermined democratic norms and traditions. This has caused many Christians to view democracy itself as an evil, or at least an obstacle to overcome. Dreams of a theocratic state emerge, calls for Christian nationalism. And much of this has been caused, according to Stout, by thinkers like Hauerwas, MacIntyre, and Milbank who, in decrying "liberalism", have thrown democracy under the bus. This lack of a distinction between the two, liberalism versus democracy, has had catastrophic effects upon the Christian political imagination and witness.
What does Stout mean when he claims that democracy is different from liberalism?
Stout argues that democracy, at its heart, is a virtue tradition. Democracy is characterized by civic virtues and norms by which a diverse and pluralistic society agrees to conduct the shared project of governing themselves. Generations ago we used teach these virtues in "civics" classes. Virtues such as mutual respect, practical wisdom, humility, patience, justice, and friendship. Respecting the will of the people and accepting the outcomes of elections. Stout points to people like Walt Whitman as among those who helped define and laud the virtues of the democratic tradition. Consider Whitman's poem "Election Day, November, 1884":
If I should need to name, O Western World, your powerfulest scene and show,The grandeur of America isn't found in our natural beauty. Not in Niagara Falls, the Rocky Mountains, or Yosemite. The most awe-inspiring sight of America is election day. Our diverse population, full of "paradox and conflict," peacefully coming together to make a collective discernment about the future of our nation, the next test in our on-going experiment in popular government.
'Twould not be you, Niagara--nor you, ye limitless prairies--nor
your huge rifts of canyons, Colorado,
Nor you, Yosemite--nor Yellowstone, with all its spasmic
geyser-loops ascending to the skies, appearing and disappearing,
Nor Oregon's white cones--nor Huron's belt of mighty lakes--nor
Mississippi's stream:
--This seething hemisphere's humanity, as now, I'd name--the still
small voice vibrating--America's choosing day,
(The heart of it not in the chosen--the act itself the main, the
quadriennial choosing,)
The stretch of North and South arous'd--sea-board and inland--
Texas to Maine--the Prairie States--Vermont, Virginia, California,
The final ballot-shower from East to West--the paradox and conflict,
The countless snow-flakes falling--(a swordless conflict,
Yet more than all Rome's wars of old, or modern Napoleon's:) the
peaceful choice of all,
Or good or ill humanity--welcoming the darker odds, the dross:
--Foams and ferments the wine? it serves to purify--while the heart
pants, life glows:
These stormy gusts and winds waft precious ships,
Swell'd Washington's, Jefferson's, Lincoln's sails.
True, election days are risky. As Whitman says, things could go "good or ill." Today we welcome "the darker odds." But those bad outcomes, says Whitman, only help ferment the wine. Our mistakes become a purifying process. In a democracy we try things, and if things go badly, we change and correct course. If this next administration is a disaster, well, it'll be voted out in four years. We will be back at the polls to course correct in four short years. Electoral politics create "stormy gusts" but on those turbulent waters waft the "precious ships" of the democratic dream of "We the People."
A lovely vision. But a vision that requires civic virtues. Stout's point is that, yes, liberalism demands you keep your values to yourself. But democracy doesn't. True, if you want people in a pluralistic society to care about your values and share your political project you're going to have to figure out a way to create political collations. But people with diverse values can make common cause. So do the work. Engage in the democratic process.
Given this, we must take care not to demonize democracy when we attack liberalism. For when we do so, argues Stout, we undermine the virtues needed to do the hard work democracy demands of us. And we are starting to reap that whirlwind. By lumping democracy in with liberalism, Christians have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In attacking liberalism Christians have jettisoned democratic norms and virtues. But democracy has never been opposed to religious values. Vote your conscience. That's America. As Whitman's poem describes, our values showing up at the polls are what makes our politics so paradoxical and conflictual. But in this "swordless conflict" Christians must not turn their back on the experiment, to run away from "We the People" to enthrone a Christian king.
What is demanded of us, therefore, on an election day are virtues. Civic, democratic virtues. Showing mutual respect to our fellow citizens, accepting the outcome of the election, patiently waiting for the next election, and doing the hard work of collation building in the meantime. Liberalism may be opposed to your values, but democracy is not.
Today is our "choosing day." Show up and vote. And do so as a person of both Christian and democratic virtue.
