The Sinister Fantasies of New Right International Nationalism
The main example of this change is a November article in The American conservative, co-written by Pecknold, Ahmari and Pappin. The article, “In Defense of Cultural Christianity,” began with four scenarios: a cohabitant Matteo Salvini, the former Italian Deputy Prime Minister, waving a rosary at a political rally; a divorced Marian Maréchal Le Pen, the former French politician, declaring Christianity the foundation of French identity; a Bible illiterate Donald Trump waving a Bible during a photo op condemning anti-racism protests; and Orbán using public money to restore churches in a predominantly secular country. The conclusion was that none of these apparent examples of hypocrisy were problematic, but rather were laudable examples of a culturally Christian order that “did not guarantee the salvation of every soul, but … a established structures that made such a thing easier. ”The four leaders may be bad Christians, but their adherence to Christian symbolism -“ the vapors of religiosity, ”as another NatCon speaker put it – could go further in establishing the culture that fundamentalists want purity alone. After all, if “the awakened ideology” had been able to conquer the public square despite the fact that “its faithful believers form a tiny part of the population”, cultural Christianity could have done the same, and thus “save the country that looms large. ‘adopt.
For Hazony, the argument demonstrated an exciting transition to pragmatism, similar to his own lecture proposal, which he also repeated at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Hungary this fall. the American Conservative The article did not call for a total conversion of the public, but rather a negotiated agreement that Christianity should dominate the public square, even in places where the population is far from devout. He also renewed the vows between nationalism and mainstream religion, since the four examples of “cultural Christians” the authors chose were also clear nationalists. Here are the building blocks of a new conservative fusionism.
“In historical terms, this is how the conservative movement has operated since the 1940s and 1950s,” said Jerome Copulsky, researcher at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. “You had these different wings of the conservative movement, like the Catholic traditionalists, the agrarians of the South, the libertarians, the Cold Warriors, but you face this liberal beast. So you find the Venn diagram where you all have a shared space and move on. Many of today’s right-wing marriages of convenience are negotiating similar truces between his jockey factions: from minor differences, like Deneen and Ahmari not calling themselves fundamentalists, to broader questions of how to reconcile claims universality of Catholicism with nationalism.
While “no serious Catholic can take an uncomplicated nationalist position,” Ahmari told me, he supported the “new nationalism” in a “narrow and tactical” manner. Nationalism was good “insofar as it opposes the utopian ideal of a world without borders which in practice leads to universal tyranny”, atomizing people into “self-maximizing consumer-gig workers. And threatening traditional belief. Nationalism could control these abuses, and cultural Christianity could help. “The bottom line is that cultural Christianity is this vestigial structure that cannot be eradicated,” he explained. As liberalism falters, this structure could “help reconnect Western nations to their deepest roots and accelerate moral renewal, even and especially among populations that lack a deep and spiritual faith.”