The Dangerous Neuhaus

Damon Linker, former editor of First Things, has spilled the beans about the dark plans being hatched by his former boss, Richard Neuhaus. He has a long review of Neuhaus's Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth in the New Republic.
 
Linker  spends some time unpacking Neuhaus's journey from activist Lutheran pastor to his conversion to Rome. Neuhaus, you see, needed to make a leap of faith and needs authority, just like, or maybe not quite like, but Linker brings him up anyway,

Carl Schmitt, the political theorist who devoted a great deal of thought to this dilemma, determined that such men have no choice but to make an arbitrary yet resolute decision to obey some authority, any authority. Taking account of the options in Germany in 1933, Schmitt swore obedience to Hitler. Neuhaus, of course, makes an infinitely more respectable decision in favor of the Vatican.

When Neuhaus explains his conversion, what he really "is describing is merely another leap of faith, a melodramatic form of cosmic confidence that derives its psychological strength from its aversion to philosophical thinking."

Gimme a break. I suspect Linker has his own conversion story to tell, but you won't find it here. Instead, we find out that, while he might respect Neuhaus's infinitely more respectable decision, Linker warns that Neuhaus could be unleashing some pretty dangerous thinking into the culture, and who knows? Lesser men than Neuhaus might choose very badly. Perhaps we are even sliding in the direction of an American Christian version of radical Islam. He concludes:

That is the America toward which Richard John Neuhaus wishes to lead us--an America in which eschatological panic is deliberately channeled into public life, in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country's political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence, in which citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority, and in which traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation's public life. All of which should serve as a potent reminder--as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder--that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America's most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it . . . 

"Demonize the country's political institutions"? Yes, how dare anyone claim that the U. S. Supreme Court can make serious mistakes. And now if we could only trust the FBI and the CIA to keep their eyes on Neuhaus.
 

Comments

[Tony Esolen]

Garry Wills, phone home.

By hard experience my wife and I have learned a simple rule: in any controversy whereof we do not know all the details, we decide against the detractor, who is usually also an ingrate. Underneath all that verbiage of Linker's lies a real core of wickedness -- even if everything he says is true, which it is not. He has defamed the man who was his friend and benefactor, regardless of their relations now. Jane Austen would have a few choice words to say about so dishonorable and unmanly a deed.

As for the substance of it, once you clear away the raving exaggerations and distortions, you see that Linker's main point, such as it is, is the tired old "non serviam" of the classical liberal. And it is based on a delusion of radical freedom. He's terribly worried about our having to obey a Church, and not at all worried about what rushes in to take the Church's place once the Church has been booted out by, um, classical liberals. One should have thought that Hitler himself could have given Linker an admonitory example. For it is not a choice between obeying and not obeying, but a choice of whom or what we shall obey. There is no third possibility.

[kate]

Amen to Tony Esolen.
By hard experience I, too, would question Linker’s motives and thus his words: there is an undercurrent of animus in them, which presumably accounts for his over-the-top fear-mongering and amateur psychologizing.
By all means disagree with Neuhaus if you like, but in misrepresenting Neuhaus’s writings, Linker smears Neuhaus, and thus Christ, in treating a fellow-believer in this way.

[Randy Estes]

How could the guy ever have been an editor at First Things? It appears it is so easy to fall away from what you know to be true.

[Terry Bohannon]

Is it not only a smear, but a pathetic revenge?

If his article is a representation of Linker's maturity, I'd replace him too.

I took interest in this:

Neuhaus has sought nothing less than to reverse the fortunes of traditionalist religion in modern America--to teach conservative Christians how to place liberal modernity, once and for all, on the defensive. [Oh no! Not the defensive] Any attempt to come to terms with the religious challenge to secular politics in contemporary America must confront Neuhaus's enormously ambitious and increasingly influential enterprise.

[Maclin Horton]

Not being a regular reader of FT, I've never heard of the man before, but I think his "conversion" would be a more interesting story than the silly stuff quoted here.

This false dichotomy between radical Islam and radical secularism is all over the place now--very much in evidence in the Crunchy Con debate hosted at National Review Online.

[James Englert]

In the Nov 2002 issue of FT, Mr. Linker wrote an essay entitled "Fatherhood" which compared the division of labors in a modern egalitarian marriage, such as Mr. Linker's getting up in the middle of the night, to the more traditional division of prior generations. A letter by Gilbert Meilaender in the Feb '03 issue contained a most interesting observation:

"Finally, there is for my taste just a bit too much slaying of the father going on in Mr. Linker’s essay. He does a disservice, I suspect, to his own father and to many other fathers in his suggestion that only an experience of fatherhood like his own (rather brief) experience can enact or express unconditional love. Working hard to earn a living and thereby to provide for one’s children is surely at least one way to enact such love. With all good will and with the hope that fatherhood may continue to be as satisfying for him as it has thus far been, I commend this possibility to Mr. Linker."

[Gene Godbold]

How many ways can you misread a guy? I've read every single article by Neuhaus to appear in FT since 1992 as well as nearly every blurb of "While We're At It." Linker presents a caricature of the man's positions.

[Randy Estes]

Gene Godbold is right. If you took out Neuhaus' name from the article a person would be hard pressed to figure out to whome Linker refers.

[peter speckhard]

It seems that anything like "the strict separation of politics and religion" which Linker says "we should do everthing in our power to preserve" comes pretty close to being a moral absolute in itself. Maybe people should be worried about Linker's hysterical, absolutist devotion to America's sublime achievements. When the glorious theocratic revolution comes, I'll be ready. Solidarity, brothers.

[Peter Leavitt]

Fr. Neuhaus made a quite reasoned choice to become a Catholic, having simply run out of credible arguments in favor of remaining a Lutheran. The notion that he made a leap of faith out of a longing for authority is absurd.

Linker addresses none of Fr. Neuhaus's serious arguments in Catholic Matters; instead he resorts to essentially a juvenile argumentum ad hominem.

[David Layman]

I remember reading Linker's essay on "Fatherhood" (referenced above, and available here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0211/opinion/thistime.html ) . I thought at the time that Linker simply did not belong at First Things. We really don't know of course, and must try to exercise Christian charity. One can muse that when his modern view of fatherhood was rudely rejected, he turned against his mentor.

[peter speckhard]

I remember that article, too. I was going to write in with an offer to make a deal with Linker-- if he promised to quit referring to my traditional family arrangment as "pre-modern", I would quit referring to his kids' inevitable daycare center as a "kinderkennel". But I never sent the letter because I figured it was too flippant to make a seriour point. But it was clear back then that most of the FT readership wasn't buying his arguments.

[William Luse]

Well, one offense of which Fr. Neuhaus might be convicted, but which Linker does not mention, is the matter of his allowing this fox to gain entry to the henhouse.

[David Layman]

It seems that the issue that separated Linker from his erstwhile colleagues at FT was stem-cell research. A month or two after leaving FT, he wrote "The Problem with John Paul II's Chief Legacy"" in the NEW REPUBLIC (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050404&s=linker040405 ) That problem was that JP II was an "absolutist".

The top example in Linker's brief is the stem-cell issue. He has the following to say:

"John Paul convinced many American conservatives that the union of sperm and ovum instantly produces a unique person who possesses the same dignity (and thus rights) as a mature human being; embryonic stem-cell research, which destroys this person within two weeks of conception, must therefore be prohibited. From this standpoint, those who support such research appear to be immoralists advocating a bloodthirsty "culture of death." But this is far from fair. It is neither nihilism nor a craving for "death" that leads many of us to conclude that we should support research that promises to relieve human suffering when doing so inflicts no suffering of its own. (A microscopic clump of cells in a petri dish is, of course, non-sentient.) On the contrary, this conclusion flows from an intuition embedded in moral common sense."

My question is "what did Linker think and when did he think it?" When did he turn from being Neuhaus' "conscientious, loyal, and exceedingly competent colleague," (Neuhaus' words on announcing Linker's leaving FT) to someone who saw Neuhaus as an enemy of the Republic?

And when did he know that his forthcoming book would be on "The Theocons : Secular America Under Siege" rather than (again Neuhaus' description) "about the people involved with FT and their effort to advance a vibrant religious presence in the public square"?

[Matthew Dundon]

Fr. Neuhaus has yet to riposte on his FirstThings blog. I can't wait...

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I think the best comments have clearly been made here already. All the same, as someone who reads and has written about Carl Schmitt, I can't help but be amazed how his name is now routinely dropped by those on the left as a means for saddling their opposition as "Nazis" due to Schmitt's own waning affiliation with them between 1933-36. The most interesting exercise in this sort of mindless branding came at the expense of former University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss's reputation. Strauss--a Jew--has become a common target for the liberal intelligentsia and his "affiliation" with Schmitt (which amounted to writing a book review and receiving a scholarship recommendation) has never been far from their tongues.

Of course, there was nothing "arbitrary" about Schmitt's "loyalty" to Hitler in the wake of the crumbling Weimar Republic, just as there is nothing "arbitrary" about anything in Schmitt's writings concerning authority, obedience, and, of course, "the political".

[Joe Strummer]

The emotion I took away from Linker's piece of primarily one of great sadness. Nobody will ever trust him again. He will always carry the stigma, deserved or not, of being an opportunist. Too bad.

[Bender]

Wait, wait, wait one minute -- when did us "classical liberals" (who are modern-day conservatives) become the spawn of Satan? "Non serviam"? Since when do classical liberals, one of which pointed out that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights," say that they "will not serve" God???

You make very good points Tony. I don't see the need to maliciously and falsely smear classical liberals though. Perhaps you mean "classic liberal," which would more accurately describe the modern (nihilistic, "God-is-dead") liberal?

[maria horvath]

Not to get all Freudian about a man's rebellion against a male authority figure, but Damon Linker's malaise reminds me of an old Gypsy proverb: You have to dig very deep to bury your father.

[C. Coleman]

(Previously posted at Amy Welborn)

I can clear up some questions people will have about this situation right off the bat. I will not disclose the sources of my knowledge, but be assured that what I write here is not speculation or uninformed at key points. I am not a First Things employee. I have been informed by those close to it, but not professionally tied to it. My name and email are fake.

Linker arrived at First Things a recent Catholic convert from a secular Jewish background. His ideological make-up was basically neoconservative, and his most recent position prior to arriving was as a speechwriter for Guiliani. I am told that Linker was a happy and energetic defender of the theological and moral teachings of the Church. He did express misgivings about certain points of moral teachings (contraception, notably) but he never gave any indication that he was in any fundamental disagreement with the mission of the magazine. He was, on the contrary, a very eager new member of the Church and the intellectual movement he had just joined. The magazine was pleased to have him aboard and he himself appeared, to all observers, to be even more thrilled to be there.

There was no breakdown in Linker's relationship with Fr. Neuhaus at any point in his employment. Editorial disagreements, yes; fundamental disagreements, most certainly not. When a senior editor left First Things Mr. Linker lobbied strongly to be appointed to the position, despite his brief tenure at the magazine. There were grumblings from certain quarters of the magazine's editorial board, but Neuhaus nonetheless appointed Linker over their objections. Neuhaus was his strongest supporter. Their working relationship was good. Neuhaus trusted Linker, supported his promotion, and encouraged his work generally. Linker seemed grateful for Neuhaus' attentive cultivation, especially since Linker had been turned out of academia and had not found speechwriting fulfilling. The position was in many respects a professional coup for Linker.

Things went along without much ado until the end came--an end which came rather abruptly and left many unanswered questions in the air. Linker had made it clear to all that he was looking to make a name for himself by publishing a serious book (a thoroughly respectable thing to do for an enterprising young writer). I do not know for sure whether Fr. Neuhaus helped Linker in his search for a publisher, but I would suppose so. At any rate, Linker announced, unsuprisingly, that he would be writing on the inetellectual history and composition of the movement in which he held a signature position. This raised no alarums until it became known that Linker received a unusually large amount of money for this project and he resolutely refused to discuss its contents. He promptly left First Things. He departed in basically good standing, but with a big question mark looming over his book project.

This is what I know. I am told that Linker seemed to be a decent fellow but had difficulty getting along with those with whom he disagreed. I cannot address more directly his character, nor do I have sufficient knowledge to charge him with gross opportunism or absolve him of it.

[David Layman]

So "Linker had been turned out of academia and had not found speechwriting fulfilling."

Hhhhhhhmmmmmm.....

I've been an adjunct college teacher since 1993. I regularly teach 7 or 8 courses a semester in order to earn a decent living. Yeh, I'd like a plumb assignment...like editing a major magazine that is at the center of the politico-cultural controversies of the day.

And then to sign a book contract and receive an "unusually large amount of money" simply for signing the contract. I might be tempted to sell my own mother, much less a major public figure who, oh,...did nothing more than give me my big break.

[Tony Esolen]

Hello Bender,

I should clarify: I mean by "classical liberal" the secularizing Whiggish sorts, the ones who look with suspicion upon any liaisons between church and state, and who read back into history man's long slow progress from darkness to freedom and light, a progress that coincides with his distancing himself from faith and allying himself with reason, as if the two were ever at odds. Who fits the category? John Locke, to a certain extent usually exaggerated; Gibbon, Shelley, John Stuart Mill, Macaulay, Gladstone perhaps, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Woodrow Wilson, and yes, Jefferson too, though he was a much better man and President than he was a theologian or philosopher.

Mr. Coleman, thanks for the information. But you could not convict Linker more surely than if you had been a prosecuting attorney. Nobody here knows the man's heart -- and I retract anything that might suggest that I know it. My judgment is based on the action. A man who betrays a former friend and benefactor is, well, a traitor. For all I know he may have a soul as bright as that of an apostle. Not likely ...

[Joe]

His review is wildly inappropriate considering the help he received while at First Things. I agree with the poster that said he will never be trusted again. Remote shades of David Brock.

[Fr. Robert Hart]

Is Damon a Greek name? If so, it all makes sense.

[jayman]

I wonder if anyone who knows the inside of such things better than I would comment on the significance of this piece appearing in TNR.

I haven't read the review yet, but it's publication in TNR feels like an attempt to read Neuhaus, FT, and perhaps related organs like the Ethics and Public Policy Center, right out of Respectable Opinion as Whitaker Chambers did for Ayn Rand so many years ago. The comparison with Carl Schmitt is particularly suspicious. I think it was Jonah Goldberg over at National Review who pointed out that once you have made the Nazi comparison with regard to your opponent dialogue is over. I'm as curious as to why TNR published it as to why Linker wrote it.

[mt]

The funniest thing is that the comment box rules over at TNR say that you can't libel or slander anyone, AND that since the TNR does not publish ideological pieces, the comments should not be ideological!

And then they publish the most slanderous thing I have ever read by a frothing-at-the-mouth ideologue!

Really, if you haven't read the article, you should. It is astonishingly bad. Just the stuff about freedom ---- he quotes Matthew Arnold as an expert on freedom as "play" when he (Demon, oops, Damon) really means "total license to do whatever you want whenever you want for whatever reason you want), and he disparages ANY shred of the Aristotelian/Aquinian/Catholic idea that freedom is fulfilled in excellence and virtue; that is, you are truly free to fly after MASTERY of the good....

As for the FT connection - this is patricide, pure and simple.

[radiofreerome]

It's a real pleasure to see the unholy alliance among neocons, clerical fascists, and reconstructionist filth falling apart. Hang on for the backlash; I'm going to enjoy it.

[Juli]

The funniest thing is that the comment box rules over at TNR say that you can't libel or slander anyone, AND that since the TNR does not publish ideological pieces, the comments should not be ideological!

But it looks like the First Things page doesn't even permit comments ....

[Damon Linker]

This has been fun.

Just for the record, allow me to clarify a few things.

1. I was not "turned out" of academia. Like many young aspiring academics, I grew tired of temporary (non-tenured) positions and decided to do other things.

2. Neuhaus had nothing to do with helping me find a publisher for my book.

3. Neuhaus and I were not "friends." He was my boss at a magazine about ideas -- ideas with which I came to have considerable disagreement. Reading the comments here, I'm reminded of Churchill's remark, when told by an opponent in parliament that he had changed his position: "Yes, sir, when I discover I've been wrong I change my position. And what do you do?"

4. I harbor no ill-will against Neuhaus, who was always unfailingly generous to me. My break from his ideological project had nothing to do with personal animus. It was about ideas and their practical effects. Once I became convinced that the ideology promulgated by the magazine for which I worked was having a significant negative influence on the country, I reluctantly concluded that I had to do what I could to counteract that influence. Loyalty to the truth and devotion to the good of the nation demanded nothing less.

[Tony Esolen]

So change your position. Who then asked you to make money and gain notoriety from the change? So go on and fight against what you think Neuhaus promotes. Who then asked you to attack him personally? He put you on the map, didn't he? Friends or no, he was your benefactor, wasn't he? Shakespeare was right. The fundamental human sin is ingratitude. Color it as you will.

[William Tighe]

And so did you change your religion as well? If you are indeed a Catholic, you seem to subordinate your adhesion to the truth which you professed upon entering the Church to considerations of a political order. At best, that can be termed Erastianism; at worst, hypocrisy.

[Al Kimel]

I harbor no ill-will against Neuhaus, who was always unfailingly generous to me.

You say you bear Neuhaus no ill-will, yet you write a review that any fair person immediately recognizes as defamatory and malicious. Sir, do not pretend to noble motivations. You are guilty of maligning a good man and benefactor.

[Terry Bohannon]

Mr. Linker,

It may have been better to let the criticism ride off. By responding, those who read your article negatively will more likely remain confident in their position.

It's a lose/lose position, whether or not to respond. To let things go without responding to it and , or responding to criticism to then be perceived as defensive.

[peter speckhard]

The phrase from Linker's article that most intrigues me is "inner obligations of freedom". Can anyone explain what that is or how it works or where it comes from? It sounds to me like something the N.I.C.E. would expound upon in Lewis's "That Hideous Strength".

[David Layman]

Mr. Linker says:

"I was not "turned out" of academia. Like many young aspiring academics, I grew tired of temporary (non-tenured) positions and decided to do other things."

Whether you were actively rejected, or simply didn't get a job, the psychological result was the same: you want to be famous and make a lot of money. You temporarily hitch a ride with a notable public intellectual, and when you have all your ducks in a row--the title of Editor of his magazine for a short time (which gives you credibility), a VERY well-paying book contract, turn on him.

Your explanation does not exonerate you.

[Terry Bohannon]

To let things go without responding to it and , or responding to criticism to then be perceived as defensive.

I was in a rush out the door and just realized I didn't finish my sentence. "and allowing what you perceive as personal attacks go unanswered, or _"

But, case in point, look at the responses to his comment. He would have been better off remaining silent.

[Mark Gordon]

The forgettable Damon Linker is getting just what he wants: attention! Let's let him slink away into well-earned obscurity. He will forever be known merely as the dwarf who tried and failed to trash Richard John Neuhaus.

[Davey More]

Writing in Policy Review in 2000, Linker wrote that Garry Wills's book Papal Sin "is particularly noteworthy, both for its venom and for the transparency of the author’s theological-political agenda."

Apparently, that was no criticism but something to which Linker thought he should aspire.

[Dave]

I have suggested that this was an attack masquerading as a book review. Here is my article.

[CMA]

I was not "turned out" of academia. Like many young aspiring academics, I grew tired of temporary (non-tenured) positions and decided to do other things.

Sure, if that makes you feel better about it. In the faculty lounge after you left, the more common verdict voiced was "well, he just couldn't hack it."


Neuhaus had nothing to do with helping me find a publisher for my book.

Because before the FT job came along, you found so many publishers falling over each other to give cash advances to failed post-docs? Geez, bone up on your ability to make less transparently ingenuous arguments. If you think we're bad, just wait until the print reviews come out in September.


I harbor no ill-will against Neuhaus, who was always unfailingly generous to me.

And I always analogize my benefactors with Nazis, it's just the camaraderie.

Loyalty to the truth and devotion to the good of the nation demanded nothing less.
You owe me a keyboard, I guffawed so much at the self-righteousness of this one. Come down off the cross, Mr. Linker. It's nothing compared to the coming crucifixion you will get at the hands of the reviewers of the New Yorker or Harper's. You may think your defection will make them give you a free pass, but they'll recognize and savage crummy writing when they read it.

[William Sulik]

Mr. Linker writes above,

Reading the comments here, I'm reminded of Churchill's remark, when told by an opponent in parliament that he had changed his position: "Yes, sir, when I discover I've been wrong I change my position. And what do you do?"

and

My break . . . was about ideas and their practical effects. Once I became convinced that the ideology promulgated by the magazine for which I worked was having a significant negative influence on the country, I reluctantly concluded that I had to do what I could to counteract that influence. Loyalty to the truth and devotion to the good of the nation demanded nothing less.

I guess one good quote deserves another. "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only [one] it has reached?" I Cor. 14:36

Or, to paraphrase Robert Bolt's Thomas More, Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you're a passionately opposed. We must just pray that when your head's finished turning, your face is to the front again.

[Christopher Johns]

Mr. Linker,

As has been pointed out in this and other threads on the subject, it's fine to disagree with philosophical and political positions. But you're article in TNR was not simply a catalog of your disagreements with Neuhaus, it was a journalistic hatchet job, replete with exagerations, distortions, and knee-jerk level fear mongering.

If you were truly worried about "negative influence on the country", you'd engage in serious and civil debate, not the kind of muckraking journalism for fun and profit and the crass name-calling that has done this nation far more harm.

I have been reading FT for only a short while, and I myself often disagree with Neuhaus and and many of the articles that appear there, but both he and they are thoughtful, civil, and informative. The worst critique I can make of your article is that I did not recognize the man you were describing.