• Dr. Fukuyama refers to Vance’s “nastiness” during his Munich Security Conference speech. What is “nasty” about calling out European governments for: their increasingly willing to suppress dissenting views and suppression of legitimate political debate? Uncontrolled immigration and failure to assimilate the newcomers? Arresting tens of thousands of people for merely expressing their opinions? Is it nasty to point out uncomfortable truths? Tough love maybe, but not nasty.
• He points to “two Americas, one reaching back to the overtly religious and nativist understanding of American national identity, and the other embracing the Enlightenment version” of openness, tolerance, and limited government. His implication that is the former are Republicans and the latter Democrats. Really? Surveys show that compared with the former, the latter are significantly less supportive of the First Amendment and more supportive of political violence. And no, Democrats are certainly not the party of limited government. Just ask AOC.
• Dr. Fukuyama seems OK with “Christian heritage” but not with “Christian faith”. So he’s seems fine with cultural Christianity but not with actual belief in and practice thereof.
• That our current government is “authoritarian” is laughable. Under an authoritarian government where political dissent is squashed, Dr. Fukuyama would not have the freedom to write the things that he writes.
• As a Christian and a conservative I find offensive the allegation that “national conservatives mock the liberal belief in universal human equality.” On Dr. Fukuyama’s campus of Stanford University, those with the greatest chance of going to heaven are: the janitors. “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” And from The Imitation of Christ: “The more thou knowest, and the better thou understandest, the more severely shalt thou be judged, unless thy life be also the more holy.”
I agree 100%. Fukuyama’s suggestion that today’s Democratic Party is the heir to the Enlightenment spirit is incomprehensible. The lifeblood of the party today is on the Left, which was born from the explicitly anti-Enlightenment Critical Studies movement. And his apparent ignorance of what is happening in Europe is particularly surprising. The EU is structurally anti-democratic, and members states like Germany are becoming increasingly hostile to the civil liberties of citizens who speak out against mass immigration and deindustrialization. One amusing aside - while F notes that Europe is essentially not even fielding a team in the AI race, he seems to overlook the fact that this is the inevitable result of its hyper-regulatory apparatus and disastrous energy policy. It is home to the highest electricity prices in the world (along with the UK). Not a sensible place to open up the data centers needed for AI. The EU’s anti-democratic climate bureaucrats have sealed Europe’s fate to be a spectator in the AI race. To the terrible detriment of the people of Europe. Cheers to JD for speaking the truth.
Always this tendency towards binary thinking: Christianity is or Christianity is not the driving force behind Western Civ. It's like asking whether the soup is or is not good because of the salt. The salt might not be a huge ingredient but the soup would not be good without it. Yup, Christianity has been marginalized in some ways, but I'd still say that you can't understand Western Civ. without it. I think it was Northrup Fry who said that if you do not know the Bible and Shakespeare you are not educated irrespective of what else you may happen to know.
Liberal democracy contains an inherent structural flaw: it elevates the individual’s personal feelings to the highest source of political and moral authority. That sounds noble, but it means society loses any shared standard for truth or legitimacy. When everyone’s internal experience is treated as unquestionable, people end up living in separate realities, and political disagreement becomes existential rather than negotiable. In that vacuum, individuals predictably turn toward the only forms of order that feel solid and non‑negotiable: ethnic identities and deep cultural identities. This dynamic sits at the heart of the long‑running debate between Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, and the trajectory of global politics has increasingly reflected Huntington’s emphasis on cultural and civilizational fault lines rather than Fukuyama’s expectation of ideological convergence. And it is precisely these deep cultural and civilizational identities — shared historical narratives, inherited moral frameworks, and long‑standing cultural affinities — that have tied the United States and Europe together. Which is Rubio's point.
The problem with all of this is that the variant of Christianity at the foundation of Western civilization is idolatrous, whether in its “religious” or “secular” guises, and its belief, either way, in its “universalism,” a lie that does not apply to the peoples of the Native Nations.
There was an effort to stay true to Christian faith in the sixteenth century led by the Dominican priest and jurist Bartolome de Las Casas. After coming to oppose slavery itself by the end of his life, and calling for the return of stolen lands, Las Casas’ earlier charges that the conquests were “evil,” “essentially anti-Christian,” and “unlawful,” rang true with considerable force. By failing to stand up for the equal national rights of the Native peoples—“in order that barbarous nations might be overthrown and brought to the faith,” in the words of a particularly despicable papal bull—the Roman Catholic Church betrayed both the law and the gospel. To this day, that institution embraces an “international law” that subordinates “Indigenous Peoples” to “sovereign” states. But where did the alleged “sovereignty” of these states come from? From illegal attacks on the peoples of the Native Nations sanctified in a series of reprehensible papal bulls some of which also even sanctified slavery.
The secular version of this idolatrous variant of Christianity at the foundation of “western civilization” was articulated with particular clarity by the Abbe Sieyes on the eve of the French Revolution: “The nation is prior to everything; it is the source of everything. Its will is always legal. It is the law itself.” That twisted justification for “national sovereignty”—again a false universalism that excludes the peoples of the Native Nations—remains dominant throughout the world today and, especially, the “West.”
There was a brief period when someone like James Wilson—in many ways the primary architect of the Constitution—could remind the continental congress that “We have no right over the Indians whether within or without the real or pretended limits of any colony.” That was the position of the framers of the Constitution, who we know intended to include treaties with the Native Nations—treaties guaranteeing them their dominion and their territories—in the Treaty Supremacy Clause whereby treaties were established as the “supreme law of the land.”
The Supreme Court (mythology to the contrary notwithstanding) relied on fifteenth century papal bulls in order to betray constitutional law and pave the way for land thefts and genocides beginning in the 1820s and 1830s. The spurious claim to a right to dominate the Native peoples and take their lands persists to this day. According to the Supreme Court, the Congress (or in some particularly twisted minds the individual states) have authority—“plenary power” over the Native peoples. This is the false universalism that the imperial powers have embraced since the “Age of Discovery” and that the United States has turned into an art form of self-deluded self-righteousness with, I might add, the support of “Protestant” America.
For those who want footnotes and the gory details, I recommend this recent essay of mine as well as a recent book. No false modesty, they are pretty great and dispose of a lot of stale mythology:
Dr. Fukuyama provides an excellent overview of the tension between our Christian heritage and our Enlightenment foundations. The current Republican leadership is plainly mistaken in its historical understanding. At the same time, America is unique in its commitment to Enlightenment values when compared to most of Europe and Canada. Moreover, neither political party demonstrates a clear understanding the Enlightenment foundations of the United States or a serious intellectual alternative. With the exception of France, I often ask myself if we actually do share values with Europeans or Canada. Thank God for the Bill of Rights.
Sadly, we lost one of the great historians of the Revolution last Sunday, Gordon S. Wood. Our leaders would do well to read his work before making pronouncements on our heritage. I would start with The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
anyone who can burble about how wonderfully moral “institutions” have been is woefully ignorant of the history of the Catholic Church, which as recently as the 1949s declared HH’s birthday a holiday for German “Christians”
• Dr. Fukuyama refers to Vance’s “nastiness” during his Munich Security Conference speech. What is “nasty” about calling out European governments for: their increasingly willing to suppress dissenting views and suppression of legitimate political debate? Uncontrolled immigration and failure to assimilate the newcomers? Arresting tens of thousands of people for merely expressing their opinions? Is it nasty to point out uncomfortable truths? Tough love maybe, but not nasty.
• He points to “two Americas, one reaching back to the overtly religious and nativist understanding of American national identity, and the other embracing the Enlightenment version” of openness, tolerance, and limited government. His implication that is the former are Republicans and the latter Democrats. Really? Surveys show that compared with the former, the latter are significantly less supportive of the First Amendment and more supportive of political violence. And no, Democrats are certainly not the party of limited government. Just ask AOC.
• Dr. Fukuyama seems OK with “Christian heritage” but not with “Christian faith”. So he’s seems fine with cultural Christianity but not with actual belief in and practice thereof.
• That our current government is “authoritarian” is laughable. Under an authoritarian government where political dissent is squashed, Dr. Fukuyama would not have the freedom to write the things that he writes.
• As a Christian and a conservative I find offensive the allegation that “national conservatives mock the liberal belief in universal human equality.” On Dr. Fukuyama’s campus of Stanford University, those with the greatest chance of going to heaven are: the janitors. “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” And from The Imitation of Christ: “The more thou knowest, and the better thou understandest, the more severely shalt thou be judged, unless thy life be also the more holy.”
I agree 100%. Fukuyama’s suggestion that today’s Democratic Party is the heir to the Enlightenment spirit is incomprehensible. The lifeblood of the party today is on the Left, which was born from the explicitly anti-Enlightenment Critical Studies movement. And his apparent ignorance of what is happening in Europe is particularly surprising. The EU is structurally anti-democratic, and members states like Germany are becoming increasingly hostile to the civil liberties of citizens who speak out against mass immigration and deindustrialization. One amusing aside - while F notes that Europe is essentially not even fielding a team in the AI race, he seems to overlook the fact that this is the inevitable result of its hyper-regulatory apparatus and disastrous energy policy. It is home to the highest electricity prices in the world (along with the UK). Not a sensible place to open up the data centers needed for AI. The EU’s anti-democratic climate bureaucrats have sealed Europe’s fate to be a spectator in the AI race. To the terrible detriment of the people of Europe. Cheers to JD for speaking the truth.
Yet another example of the EU exhibiting the Enlightenment spirit in its promotion of liberal democracy. https://www.public.news/p/eu-demands-sweeping-censorship-to
Always this tendency towards binary thinking: Christianity is or Christianity is not the driving force behind Western Civ. It's like asking whether the soup is or is not good because of the salt. The salt might not be a huge ingredient but the soup would not be good without it. Yup, Christianity has been marginalized in some ways, but I'd still say that you can't understand Western Civ. without it. I think it was Northrup Fry who said that if you do not know the Bible and Shakespeare you are not educated irrespective of what else you may happen to know.
Liberal democracy contains an inherent structural flaw: it elevates the individual’s personal feelings to the highest source of political and moral authority. That sounds noble, but it means society loses any shared standard for truth or legitimacy. When everyone’s internal experience is treated as unquestionable, people end up living in separate realities, and political disagreement becomes existential rather than negotiable. In that vacuum, individuals predictably turn toward the only forms of order that feel solid and non‑negotiable: ethnic identities and deep cultural identities. This dynamic sits at the heart of the long‑running debate between Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, and the trajectory of global politics has increasingly reflected Huntington’s emphasis on cultural and civilizational fault lines rather than Fukuyama’s expectation of ideological convergence. And it is precisely these deep cultural and civilizational identities — shared historical narratives, inherited moral frameworks, and long‑standing cultural affinities — that have tied the United States and Europe together. Which is Rubio's point.
The problem with all of this is that the variant of Christianity at the foundation of Western civilization is idolatrous, whether in its “religious” or “secular” guises, and its belief, either way, in its “universalism,” a lie that does not apply to the peoples of the Native Nations.
There was an effort to stay true to Christian faith in the sixteenth century led by the Dominican priest and jurist Bartolome de Las Casas. After coming to oppose slavery itself by the end of his life, and calling for the return of stolen lands, Las Casas’ earlier charges that the conquests were “evil,” “essentially anti-Christian,” and “unlawful,” rang true with considerable force. By failing to stand up for the equal national rights of the Native peoples—“in order that barbarous nations might be overthrown and brought to the faith,” in the words of a particularly despicable papal bull—the Roman Catholic Church betrayed both the law and the gospel. To this day, that institution embraces an “international law” that subordinates “Indigenous Peoples” to “sovereign” states. But where did the alleged “sovereignty” of these states come from? From illegal attacks on the peoples of the Native Nations sanctified in a series of reprehensible papal bulls some of which also even sanctified slavery.
The secular version of this idolatrous variant of Christianity at the foundation of “western civilization” was articulated with particular clarity by the Abbe Sieyes on the eve of the French Revolution: “The nation is prior to everything; it is the source of everything. Its will is always legal. It is the law itself.” That twisted justification for “national sovereignty”—again a false universalism that excludes the peoples of the Native Nations—remains dominant throughout the world today and, especially, the “West.”
There was a brief period when someone like James Wilson—in many ways the primary architect of the Constitution—could remind the continental congress that “We have no right over the Indians whether within or without the real or pretended limits of any colony.” That was the position of the framers of the Constitution, who we know intended to include treaties with the Native Nations—treaties guaranteeing them their dominion and their territories—in the Treaty Supremacy Clause whereby treaties were established as the “supreme law of the land.”
The Supreme Court (mythology to the contrary notwithstanding) relied on fifteenth century papal bulls in order to betray constitutional law and pave the way for land thefts and genocides beginning in the 1820s and 1830s. The spurious claim to a right to dominate the Native peoples and take their lands persists to this day. According to the Supreme Court, the Congress (or in some particularly twisted minds the individual states) have authority—“plenary power” over the Native peoples. This is the false universalism that the imperial powers have embraced since the “Age of Discovery” and that the United States has turned into an art form of self-deluded self-righteousness with, I might add, the support of “Protestant” America.
For those who want footnotes and the gory details, I recommend this recent essay of mine as well as a recent book. No false modesty, they are pretty great and dispose of a lot of stale mythology:
https://files.jcrt.org/archives/25.1/schwartzberg.pdf
Dr. Fukuyama provides an excellent overview of the tension between our Christian heritage and our Enlightenment foundations. The current Republican leadership is plainly mistaken in its historical understanding. At the same time, America is unique in its commitment to Enlightenment values when compared to most of Europe and Canada. Moreover, neither political party demonstrates a clear understanding the Enlightenment foundations of the United States or a serious intellectual alternative. With the exception of France, I often ask myself if we actually do share values with Europeans or Canada. Thank God for the Bill of Rights.
Sadly, we lost one of the great historians of the Revolution last Sunday, Gordon S. Wood. Our leaders would do well to read his work before making pronouncements on our heritage. I would start with The Radicalism of the American Revolution.
anyone who can burble about how wonderfully moral “institutions” have been is woefully ignorant of the history of the Catholic Church, which as recently as the 1949s declared HH’s birthday a holiday for German “Christians”