Italy is poised to turn even farther to the Right. After the
Atlantic Establishment (via its media outlets) tried to stoke a Russia-gate
type scandal, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini decided to make his move and by
calling a snap election he is attempting to turn the tables on his enemies in both
Rome and Brussels.
Taking the pulse of Italian society, Salvini has decided the
moment is right to ditch his Cinque
Stella/Five Star (M5S) coalition partners and for his League party to rule
on its own (with him as prime minister) or form a new coalition, this time with
either Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia
or with some of the smaller and yet openly fascist parties (such as the FdI and
ALI) that inhabit the perimeter of the Italian political spectrum.
In addition to the Italian Establishment, Salvini has many
opponents in Brussels, Berlin, London, Washington and certainly Paris and yet
he undoubtedly has some friends within the Trump administration. While not a
member of the Visegrad (V4) bloc, Salvini has taken Italy in the same direction
and his domestic popularity continues to grow. This combined with recent gains
by the Right in Spain and Greece mean the EU Establishment is in a state of now
permanent angst.
Some have wondered if Salvini may have reached too far and
done so too fast. He's rolling the dice. If he succeeds he will become (in
terms of Italian politics) something of a living legend. If he fails, many in
the Atlantic Establishment will breathe a sigh of relief... and yet that relief
will prove only momentary as the EU's problems run deep, right down to its
foundations.
As mentioned in previous writings, the bilateral Aachen
Treaty signed in January 2019 also signals that even EU powerbroker nations
like Germany and France are making preparations for a day in which both NATO
and the EU cease to be relevant and perhaps even the very notion of Atlanticism
is rendered obsolete.
Listening to a recent episode of LPR's Issue's Etc., I was
hardly surprised to hear that Allan Carlson of Hillsdale College was encouraged
by recent developments in Italy under Salvini. In the same broadcast Carlson
echoed previous statements offering praise for V4 members Hungary and Poland.
His comments are always thoughtful and yet given that he's approaching these
questions from the standpoint of Western 'Christian' Civilisation, I'm afraid
most of his assumptions must be rejected by those committed to New Testament
categories.
He provides what I'm sure many find to be a compelling
narrative. Setting the family as a central theme Carlson dodges and pivots
around and through modern political history, ignoring what many would consider
to be rather important points to raise.
For example he discusses how in the early 20th
century the Democrats were the pro-family, pro-grass roots party and that the
GOP was the party of the feminists and the 'big business' forces which
undermined the farm, family and small town. This all shifted in the 1960's he
admits, something many on the Right are reticent to acknowledge. The parties
were realigned. This is true and yet what he fails to mention is that the
Democratic Party at that time was also the party of segregation. And what also
needs to be said is that the vast majority of those same segregationist Democrats
would shift over to the GOP during the 1970's. From Nixon to Reagan the
Right-wing elements within the Democratic Party joined with the Republicans,
creating today's solidly Republican South. Their reaction to Civil Rights
played a huge role in this. Rather than engage this point, Carlson prefers to
focus on the family as his guiding leitmotif.
Additionally with regard to Salvini, Orban, Poland's PiS and
some of the other movements being lauded by Carlson, there's another point that
needs to be raised. These movements are viewed by many as being proto- or
quasi- fascistic and not a few historians and sociologists are sounding the
alarm with regard to these recent Right wing gains. In Salvini's case there are
some direct connections to Neo-Fascist movements.
Carlson's American audience is incapable of grasping this
fact because in their political metanarrative fascism is a hard-left movement and reflective of the values of today's
Democratic Party. This view is literally laughable if the consequences weren't
so dire. Rather than take the time to dismantle this fiction I will simply
point to a historical reality. There were many fascists of the WWII era who
migrated to the United States and were recruited by elements within the US
Establishment and its various intelligence agencies. In political terms they
formed partnerships and exclusively worked within the Republican Party, allying
with Nixon, Reagan and GHW Bush. They viewed the party as the bastion of their
values and as the political force that was serious about combating Communism.
As fascists they actually worked against the American Democratic Party and
specifically with GOP operatives and Right-wing organisations such as the
Heritage Foundation. It would seem that the actual fascists who survived into
the Cold War epoch and were determined to keep up the old fight, found their
home in the American political Right. The Europeans have always understood this
even if the American public has not.
While America battled a communist phantom and understood
fascism in fictitious terms, the two ideologies have never departed from the
European scene and have ever remained a relevant focus of study and discussion.
Carlson's recent collaborative activities with Salvini and Lega raised eyebrows in Europe. While
many have long suspected that American Evangelicals and the Christian Right possess
at least latent fascist tendencies, such an open concord was something new.
Carlson on the one hand argues for a form of Communitarianism
which in some respects makes more theological and historical sense for a
Christian sacralist who wishes to politically function in a post-Enlightenment
setting. In many ways his ideas resonate with Catholic Social Teaching and the
various Christian Democracy movements and he certainly is willing to say so.
That's not an endorsement by any means... I disagree with his categories
altogether... but I consider it noteworthy when an Evangelical acknowledges the
real problems and contradictions generated by the syncretisation of Classical
Liberalism and what might be called the historic Christian Sacral spectrum
which grew out of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
However it must be noted that the politics of Salvini and
Orban (by most estimations) fall outside the spectrum of Christian Democracy
and instead are on the fringes of Far-Right Authoritarianism. Orban's so-called
'Christian Illiberal Democracy', his censorship, cronyism and certainly the
nationalism and populism represented by both Fidesz and Lega are a far
cry from most understandings of Christian Democracy.
Some have tried to argue that Classical Liberalism is the
legitimate progeny of the Magisterial Reformation but in many ways this too is
laughable. Neither the Reformers nor the Puritans (anachronistically) embraced
the values of the Enlightenment or its notions of freedom of thought, speech,
consent of the governed, the social contract, let alone the economic ideas
associated with Liberalism.
Did they inadvertently open a Pandora's Box that led to some
of these things? Indeed the chaos and wars which resulted from the destruction
of Catholic Christendom fomented the various crises which led to these changes
but they are in reality bastardised philosophical developments not legitimate
outgrowths born of the same kind of theology and hermeneutics which produced
the 16th century Reformation. Rather they were born of the epistemological
chaos generated by the fragmentation of so-called Christendom in general and
the various Reformation movements.
In some ways Carlson continues to dance the theological
two-step, on the one hand arguing for Communitarian and traditionalist forms of
state authority and social organisation but on the other hand he (in keeping
with others of his ilk) still employs the lexicon of Liberalism and its
symbols. Despite my utter disagreements with him with regard to both theology
and history I would respect him more if he would properly inform his audience
as to what he is proposing. Clearly he admires the anti-democratic,
anti-Liberal moves being made by members of the V4 and nations like Italy. And
yet such views applied to a nation like the United States would have profound
and even transformative implications for its politics and jurisprudence. His
audience should know this but it's masked and swept under the rug. He would likely
lose a lot of support if his ideas were clearly understood. Many would view
them as something other than patriotic as indeed in many ways his ideas are a
repudiation of the American ideal, heritage and experience.
And yet this sort of thinking is on the rise. As long as it's
able to wear the clothes of Classical Liberalism and utilise its lexicon, it's
able to resonate with certain segments of the Christian Right. The truth is
both the Catholic and Protestant forms of Sacral Christianity are incompatible
with Classical Liberalism. Rome realised this from day one and thus utterly opposed
Liberalism until the 20th century. Its capitulation is a story in
itself. The Protestants have always been split over this question. The Liberal
model could function in happy inconsistency as long as there was something of a
social consensus. Notions such as 'rights' and 'consent' could be safely appealed
to when there was a general societal agreement with regard to the categories of
thought and legislative and juridical applications of the Constitution... large
parts of which were conveniently ignored.
With the continued breakdown of the social consensus which
really finds its genesis during the Civil War era, the once seemingly mighty facade
is no longer viable. Would be political Christians must choose between a
Christian order rooted in egalitarian and democratic principles and born of Enlightenment
epistemology or if this is a problem, they must turn toward some form of anti-liberal
authoritarianism. And it is at this point that we need to pay attention to
people like Carlson and some of the more intellectual Evangelicals who get
behind people like Steve Bannon and Rick Santorum. Trump represents a bull in a
china shop that is furthering some of their ideas and yet Bannon, Salvini and
Orban represent more principled expressions of their hopes and expectations.
Regardless of whether one likes Salvini, Orban and the PiS or
not, they represent an authoritarian posture, ever pushing toward specific
forms of moral legislation, political manipulation and outright corruption.
These 'moves', these otherwise unethical and illegal maneuvers are permissible
because they serve the community interest. The fact that they're viewed as
anti-liberal, anti-democratic and even outside of the law is of little concern
to their followers. Republicanism, democracy, liberalism and pluralism are all
becoming secondary (if not rejected) concepts by the followers of these
movements. Rule by law, the will of the people, the social contract, principles
of human rights and tolerance for dissent are neither ideals nor virtues under
these communitarian models.
Some forms of communitarianism have the potential to tilt
left and enter the socialist spectrum. But that's not what's happening in
Europe and that's not what Carlson is arguing for. This kind of
communitarianism that argues for Economic nationalism and for the community to
be placed over legal ideal, principle and precedent represents another force
we've also seen before and I fear that many Christians both in Europe and
America have been primed to embrace this kind of thinking. It is critical to
remember that fascism need not be equated with the Third Reich and its
genocidal policies. At this point in time Franco and Mussolini are probably the
more relevant examples.
With regard to Salvini and Lega, there are Right wing forces in the Atlantic Establishment
that resent his rise to power. Again this is not because they're secretly Left
wing but rather because Salvini represents a movement, a far-Right insurgency
within the West that is challenging the post-WWII Atlantic order, what we can
rightly call the Establishment. This order is represented by our contemporary
banking and economic system and the militarist policies of NATO. Salvini has
brushed off the EU ruling apparatus and he has infuriated France one of the
leading powers within it. He has angered the NATO security establishment and he
has annoyed the economic Establishment by signing OBOR deals with Beijing.
Rooted (at least ostensibly) in Enlightenment Classical
Liberalism the Atlantic order is being challenged by growing forces of
Anti-Enlightenment traditionalism and a mixed bag of other ideologies and
packages of social metanarrative and historical revisionism.
If there's a Leftist/Progressive element to the
Atlantic/Western order it's in the realm of morality. Militaristic predatory
Capitalists are neither Left wing nor progressive and yet this Establishment
also represents moves toward feminism, sodomy, multiculturalism and
epistemological materialism. These points are being countered and rejected by
the new far-right insurgency and thus its affinity to Western Evangelicalism is
explained. Many within the larger Evangelical movement are guided by
Dominionist principles and thus will share in some of the other
Anti-Enlightenment Anti-Classical Liberal values of figures like Salvini and
Orban. And yet for many more it comes down to moral values and their social
outworkings and consequence. For others it's a simple gut instinct, a visceral
reaction to the changes taking place in society with regard to immigration and
globalism's destruction of local and traditional economies.
Though many will scoff at the suggestion, a study of the
Weimar period (1919-1933) is probably the most instructive in order to
understand the present hour and the potential threat. Weimar represented a
society turned on its head, one that had lost its moral and ideological roots
and while some reveled in the hedonism and libertinism others... nationalists,
Christian traditionalists (of the Sacral stripe), cultural traditionalists and
others were alarmed and appalled. The economic and political conditions fed the
beast and gave birth to monstrosity. These same forces were at work outside
Germany. Italy led the way but there were also movements at work in Spain, Hungary,
Romania, Ukraine, France and much of the rest of Europe. Hitler had little
trouble in finding allies. Germany receives all the blame for the war and
indeed Hitler certainly was the prime motivator. However, fascism was a phenomenon
that was widespread, even finding many fans and aficionados in places like the
UK and United States.
Here's the real danger. To be faithful to the ideology of
Scripture we as Christians must reject the values of Classical Liberalism. For
generations this package of lies and false epistemology has clouded the
thinking of the Western Church. It has functioned as an idolatrous humanistic
overlay and rival to the Scriptures. And yet, a rejection of Liberalism must
not be interpreted as a call to embrace pre-Enlightenment political
authoritarianism. For many Christians it's an either-or dilemma. In reality
there is no dilemma for us. For those committed to the Kingdom of Christ as
represented by the Apostles on the pages of the New Testament, the only option
is... neither. We're outside of this fight, or rather if we are 'in' the fight
it is on a spiritual level... we fight through prayer and bearing witness
against the evil represented by all sides of the political spectrum.
Rejecting one evil we must be careful not to embrace another.
See also: