Political battles vs. sacrificial service: The Brooks paradox revisited

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Jul 02, 2015

My colleague Phil Lawler has identified a problem in David Brooks’ tactical recommendations for social conservatives (see ’Helpful’ advice for social conservatives: ignore causes, deal with effects). I agree that there are grounds for suspicion, but I am not at all sure that Brooks’ advice is wrong.

It just so happens that on several occasions I have given the same advice myself—no, not to “ignore causes” and “deal with effects” (that’s an oversimplification), but to recognize that in an era in which good politics is all but impossible, the perennial Christian path of direct spiritual and social service to our neighbors beckons. To sample my argument, see especially The New Evangelization: What Does It Look Like? and The Credibility Wars: Where We Go from Here.

Now clearly one can see good reason for Phil Lawler’s caution in Brooks’ frank admission of his position on the narrow left-right political spectrum: “I am to the left of the people I have been describing on almost all of these social issues.” This means that, despite his professed admiration for “social conservatives”, Brooks in fact broadly opposes the political implementation of their traditional Christian values regarding marriage, family, sexuality, and life issues.

When somebody who claims to admire but emphatically disagrees with Christians argues that they will be best served by abandoning politics, it is prudent to question the motivation. Moreover, surely the analogy in Phil’s closing paragraph raises serious questions that a Christian ignores only at his peril: It would be paradoxical to work hard to rescue those who are harmed by modern secularist policies without attempting to do what one can to change those damaging policies.

Paradoxical, yes: But it would still be the best course if there were no way to change those policies.

The Question is a Strategic One

Still, disingenuous or not, Brooks claims to be making a strategic or tactical argument: Stop putting energy into political battles which prudence suggests there is no way to win at present; instead concentrate on transformative social and spiritual projects which are far more likely to help real people at the present time. Such projects also provide superlative opportunities for successful evangelization, which just might create a subculture that can one day wield political muscle (though that would not be the very best motivation).

To illustrate this advice with a single example, we are talking about the difference between putting one’s resources into crisis pregnancy centers (which work) and putting one’s resources into attempting to restrict or eliminate abortion by law (which does not work, and has not worked now for nearly two generations).

Of course, it would be wrong to insist that those with a genuine calling to and aptitude for politics should not “waste time” looking for political opportunities and mobilizing like-minded voters when and if such opportunities arise. But surely it is right and good, as a simple matter of prudence, to concentrate most of our energies on evangelization and social service in a period in which, by every significant measure, political success has proven to be all but impossible.

It is true that some very responsible people argue that we have been making headway against abortion at the state level, pointing to the many laws and regulations that are adjusted each year. Unfortunately, I disagree. Such adjustments are typically infinitesimally small and, if they have any significant bite at all, they are quickly invalidated by Federal courts. And what of the questions of contraception, pornography, homosexuality and gay marriage? Nothing.

There is almost no significant local politics in the twenty-first century West, and until that changes—or until our culture is converted from the bottom up—political progress will remain essentially impossible. In our current cultural climate, the number of ordinary folks who care enough to risk their political liberty, their economic well-being, or their social standing is extremely small. This is a climate in which the vast majority of leaders in every sector accept the values of the dominant secularist worldview. Accordingly, they find ways to penalize those beneath them who do not say and do the “right” things.

Political outcomes in recent years have therefore always been less favorable than even the best polls would suggest. And nowadays we are increasingly losing even in the polls.

Brooks Revisited

With Phil Lawler, then, I reject any refusal to acknowledge political causation, or any refusal on principle to engage politically when there is a chance of success, especially out of fear. I also eschew any confusing false dichotomies. It is possible to work in more than one area at the same time, emphasizing now one thing and now another as opportunities allow.

But my assumption is that all of our efforts will be moral efforts. If that is so, then it falls to prudence to determine which paths offer the greatest chance of real success. We must never do evil but, in doing good, we must also remember that a failure of prudence is a deficiency of a virtue. To draw on Scripture, we are called to be not only innocent as doves, but wise as serpents (Mt 10:16).

At the same time, it is not a bad thing to escape our modern preoccupation with politics. We Christians can be as guilty as our secular neighbors in accepting the contemporary myth that only political victories really matter. Without ignoring politics, I would argue that a thorough rejection of this myth is necessary not only for more effective Christian witness, but also for living a fuller Catholic life.

If we propose to continue our preoccupation with politics going forward, we could easily put all our energies into “religious liberty” on the assumption that this political question is more important than anything else. And if this political fight distracts us all—bishops, priests and laity—from evangelization and direct service to our neighbors, the Devil will be very, very pleased. Again.

And so we return to David Brooks. I had already pointed out in 2013 that the “culture wars” metaphor was a political dead-end. Therefore, I can hardly fault Brooks for suggesting the same thing. He may be, as he alleges, a friend, or he may be our worst enemy. But in either case he is at least two years late with his advice. In hindsight, there may be good reasons to suspect he is twenty years late.

Unfortunate as all Western politics is, do we really think it is the primary source of our problems? Do we really think that to be less active politically is to ignore the root cause? I would not recommend whatever is good in this advice as a retreat. I would recommend it as an advance.