White Christian ethno-nationalists like Rubio and Vance are indifferent to the Enlightenment which inspired our Founders- and also- curiously, to St. Paul in the glorious Epistle to the Galatians
This is why I despair. We are probably deadlocked on this. Frank, you make important points. But so does he. What of these irreconcilable differences?
You will no more convince Rubio and Vance (and tens of millions of like minded) that the Enlightenment is core to western values than they will convince you (and tens of millions of like minded) that the Christian faith is.
So - what does history say of empires riven on values? On what’s important? What’s worth fighting for? What’s not?
This seam down the western middle is ripping. And because we believe fundamentally different things.
In marriages - we divorce for irreconcilable differences lest the house descend into domestic violence.
What of these irreconcilable differences in the west?
They're not actually irreconcilable because Vance and Rubio do not actually believe what they say. Or, at least, they don't have the courage of their "post-liberal" convictions. This is a core problem with this movement on the right. It doesn't want to actually do anything very drastic to upset our liberal order. (Thank goodness!) Neither Rubio nor Vance want to institute an actual theocracy, nothing like. If they do, they have no hope of doing so, so entrenched is the liberal idea of freedom of religion.
I don't think Rubio believes in the ethnicity thing either. I think he'd be pretty happy to include Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in "the west," despite them decidedly not having european ancestry.
According to David Hackett Fischer's Liberty and Freedom, both those concepts are of (for lack of a better word) "pagan" rather than Christian origin. "Liberty" comes from the Romans, "freedom" from Nordic cultures. Christianity would adapt those principles to its own belief system, but they didn't invent them.
Since you are quoting from the New Testament, Jesus also said, Render unto Caesar what is Casaer's, and unto God what is God's. So, he's making a distinction between the spiritual and the corporal. Similar, if I'm not mistaken, between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan. You can actually recognize two parts to the world we are born into.
There's also nothing in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, about "human rights." There's nothing in Greek philosophy or myth about this strange invention by 18th century intellectuals. By human rights I mean privilege without obligation. One merely has to be born in order to acquire privilege.
Which even Modern Liberals don't believe in as in what exactly is "hate speech?" Nor do they believe that the haters, bigots, sexists, racists, homophobes, fascists, etc. are equal in any way, shape or form in their system of morality.
The fact is the West has deluded itself with the zany ideas of equlity and human rights. It worked for a while when most Westerners were Christians and genetically similar but we are not living in that world any more and attempting to apply these 18th century concepts to the current culture is insane and suicidal.
The irony of today's effort to topple a theocracy in the Middle East is that conservative Christian Nationalists are desperately trying to create one here.
This essay feels to me as if Mr. Fukuyama’s target is really Vance. There are a lot of words here to argue the difference between « faith » and « heritage. » I would have said heritage in Rubio’s place, but dredging up the Habsburgs because Rubio is Cuban, all to label him a reactionary and a Christian nationalist, is pedantic at best. I agree that Rubio should not have taken the « end of history » cheap shot, but I think that Mr. Fukuyama’s exceptional talents are being wasted in this response.
Excellent!! And spot on
White Christian ethno-nationalists like Rubio and Vance are indifferent to the Enlightenment which inspired our Founders- and also- curiously, to St. Paul in the glorious Epistle to the Galatians
This is why I despair. We are probably deadlocked on this. Frank, you make important points. But so does he. What of these irreconcilable differences?
You will no more convince Rubio and Vance (and tens of millions of like minded) that the Enlightenment is core to western values than they will convince you (and tens of millions of like minded) that the Christian faith is.
So - what does history say of empires riven on values? On what’s important? What’s worth fighting for? What’s not?
This seam down the western middle is ripping. And because we believe fundamentally different things.
In marriages - we divorce for irreconcilable differences lest the house descend into domestic violence.
What of these irreconcilable differences in the west?
They're not actually irreconcilable because Vance and Rubio do not actually believe what they say. Or, at least, they don't have the courage of their "post-liberal" convictions. This is a core problem with this movement on the right. It doesn't want to actually do anything very drastic to upset our liberal order. (Thank goodness!) Neither Rubio nor Vance want to institute an actual theocracy, nothing like. If they do, they have no hope of doing so, so entrenched is the liberal idea of freedom of religion.
I don't think Rubio believes in the ethnicity thing either. I think he'd be pretty happy to include Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in "the west," despite them decidedly not having european ancestry.
According to David Hackett Fischer's Liberty and Freedom, both those concepts are of (for lack of a better word) "pagan" rather than Christian origin. "Liberty" comes from the Romans, "freedom" from Nordic cultures. Christianity would adapt those principles to its own belief system, but they didn't invent them.
Since you are quoting from the New Testament, Jesus also said, Render unto Caesar what is Casaer's, and unto God what is God's. So, he's making a distinction between the spiritual and the corporal. Similar, if I'm not mistaken, between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan. You can actually recognize two parts to the world we are born into.
There's also nothing in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, about "human rights." There's nothing in Greek philosophy or myth about this strange invention by 18th century intellectuals. By human rights I mean privilege without obligation. One merely has to be born in order to acquire privilege.
Which even Modern Liberals don't believe in as in what exactly is "hate speech?" Nor do they believe that the haters, bigots, sexists, racists, homophobes, fascists, etc. are equal in any way, shape or form in their system of morality.
The fact is the West has deluded itself with the zany ideas of equlity and human rights. It worked for a while when most Westerners were Christians and genetically similar but we are not living in that world any more and attempting to apply these 18th century concepts to the current culture is insane and suicidal.
The irony of today's effort to topple a theocracy in the Middle East is that conservative Christian Nationalists are desperately trying to create one here.
This essay feels to me as if Mr. Fukuyama’s target is really Vance. There are a lot of words here to argue the difference between « faith » and « heritage. » I would have said heritage in Rubio’s place, but dredging up the Habsburgs because Rubio is Cuban, all to label him a reactionary and a Christian nationalist, is pedantic at best. I agree that Rubio should not have taken the « end of history » cheap shot, but I think that Mr. Fukuyama’s exceptional talents are being wasted in this response.