WASHINGTON — From Harvard Law School comes the latest conservative flirtation with authoritarianism. Professor Adrian Vermeule, a 2016 Catholic convert, is an “integralist” who regrets his academic specialty, the Constitution, and rejects the separation of church and state. His much- discussed recent Atlantic essay advocating a government that judges “ the quality and moral worth of public speech” is unimportant as a practical political manifesto, but it is symptomatic of some conservatives’ fevers, despairs and temptations.
“ Common- good capitalism,” Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent proposal, is capitalism minus the essence of capitalism — limited government respectful of society’s cumulative intelligence and preferences collaboratively revealed through market transactions. Vermeule’s “ common- good constitutionalism” is Christian authoritarianism — muscular paternalism, with government enforcing social solidarity for religious reasons. This is the Constitution minus the Framers’ purpose: a regime respectful of individuals’ diverse notions of the life worth living. Such respect is, he says, “abominable.”
He would jettison “ libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology.” And: “ libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources.” Who will define these duties? Integralists will, because they have an answer to this perennial puzzle: If the people are corrupt, how do you persuade them to accept the yoke of virtue- enforcers? The answer: Forget persuasion. Hierarchies must employ coercion.
Common- good constitutionalism’s “ main aim,” Vermeule says, is not to “ minimize the abuse of power” but “ to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well.” Such constitutionalism “ does not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy” because the “law is parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits,” wielded “if necessary even against the subjects’ own perceptions of what is best for them.” Besides, those perceptions are not really the subjects’ because under Vermeule’s regime the law will impose perceptions.
He thinks the Constitution, read imaginatively, will permit the transformation of the nation into a confessional state that punishes blasphemy and other departures from state- defined and state- enforced solidarity. His medieval aspiration rests on a non sequitur: All legal systems af firm certain values, therefore it is permissible to enforce orthodoxies.
Vermeule is not the only American conservative feeling the allure of
tyranny. Like the American leftists who made pilgrimages to Fidel Castro’s Cuba, some selfstyled conservatives today turn their lonely eyes to Viktor Orban, destroyer of Hungary’s democracy. The prime minister’s American enthusiasts probably are unfazed by his seizing upon COVID- 19 as an excuse for taking the short step from the ethno-nationalist authoritarianism to which he gives the oxymoronic title “ illiberal democracy,” to dictatorship.
In 2009, Orban said, “ We have only to win once, but then properly.” And in 2013, he said: “ In a crisis, you don’t need governance by institutions.” Elected to a third term in 2018, he has extended direct or indirect control over courts (the Constitutional Court has been enlarged and packed) and the media, replacing a semblance of intragovernmental checks-and-balances with what he calls the “ system of national cooperation.” During the COVID- 19 crisis he will govern by decree, elections will be suspended, and he will decide when the crisis ends — supposedly June 20.
Explaining his hostility to immigration, Orban says Hungarians “ do not want to be mixed … We want to be how we became eleven hundred years ago here in the Carpathian Basin.” Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, authors of “ The Light that Failed,” dryly marvel that Orban “remembers so vividly what it was like to be Hungarian eleven centuries ago.” Nostalgia functioning as political philosophy — Vermeule’s nostalgia seems to be for the 14th century — is usually romanticism untethered from information.
Last November, Patrick Deneen, the University of Notre Dame professor whose 2018 book “Why Liberalism Failed” explained his hope for a post- liberal American future, had a cordial Budapest meeting with Orban. The Hungarian surely sympathizes with Deneen’s root- and- branch rejection of classical liberalism, which Deneen disdains because it portrays “humans as rights-bearing individuals” who can “fashion and pursue for themselves their own version of the good life.” One name for what Deneen denounces is: the American project. He, Vermeule and some others on the Orban-admiring American right believe that political individualism — the enabling, protection and celebration of individual autonomy — is a misery- making mistake: Autonomous individuals are deracinated, unhappy and without virtue.
The moral of this story is not that there is theocracy in our future. Rather, it is that American conservatism, when severed from the Enlightenment and its finest result, the American Founding, becomes spectacularly unreasonable and literally unAmerican.
George Will’s column is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group.