Mitchell is Right to Promote Localism

But he doesn't address the divisions arising from identity politics. Forming real community with those who do not share the same culture or identity is impossible.

The Long Road to National Healing by Mark T. Mitchell | https://t.co/tA2CU5lU68 pic.twitter.com/6eKHxnztkn

— Front Porch Republic (@FrontPorchRepub) October 26, 2020

Revolution Hiding Behind Rights Language

Decouple the language of rights from their theological foundation and rights become mere assertions. https://t.co/ZCpqjrqLSR

— Law & Liberty (@LawLiberty) June 15, 2020

Keys to the Progressive Kingdom by Mark Mitchell

A new definition of justice/rights that supplants traditional morality. Is a Christian intellectual justification necessary for justice/rights? Or merely a Christian political order?

Mark T. Mitchell's New Book

The Limits of Liberalism: Tradition, Individualism, and the Crisis of Freedom

“The Benedict Option: The Problems of Culture in Times of Crisis.”

Academy of Philosophy and Letters Conference - Info at FPR

Rod Dreher is the keynote speaker; other participants include Mark Mitchell, James Matthew Wilson, and Jeffrey Polet, Claes Ryn, and David Walsh). Walter McDougall will be the Saturday evening dinner speaker.

Mark Mitchell on Scale

A Human Scale Future

Related:
Daniel McCarthy on Copperhead: Love Thy Neighborhood, Even in War

See the comment by Aaron Gross - can there be a community despite disagreement on important political questions?

John Milbank, The church offers a holistic solution to child poverty

The Economy Isn't Coming Back

How unchecked capitalism has brought world to the brink of apocalypse and what we must do now

Convergence: A Novel of a Catastrophic Future

The Front Porch Republic Fall Conference

Mark T. Mitchell announces the date and location. It is being held at Pomona College in Claremont, CA - closer to my neck of the woods than the previous conferences, and I am tempted to drive down there, if I can afford it.

Russell Arben Fox Reviews Mark Mitchell's Book

Mark Mitchell’s Politics of Gratitude (Theoretical and Otherwise)

The last liberal at FPR? His main critique of the book:

In terms of putting some fleshing out the implications of his preferences for a culture characterized by greater humbleness and gratitude, Mitchell addresses politics, economics, the environment, the family, and education. Here, while the strong and passionate insights continue, I think his attempt to knit them together into a new political alternative to contemporary American liberalism and conservatism falters somewhat. This is no fault of Mitchell’s arguments, which remain compelling even when I disagree with them (and as someone whose localism and communitarianism is more left-leaning than his, the number of my disagreements mounted as I read). It is, rather, a matter of the missing, common thread through his arguments, one which cannot possibly be supplied by mere political and philosophical argument.

Consider how his argument in the chapter on politics develops. Here his guiding light is Tocqueville, and his prescient observations about how self-government and democracy give rise to demands for equality, and how that demand will likely result in greater centralization, as people look for systems of government and economy capable of ensuring equal treatment across borders. Mitchell correctly observes that the real problem which Tocqueville’s observations lead us to confront is the fact that perfect equality is impossible, at least so long as technology fails to completely overcome nature (which is the heart, as he sees it, of the technological scientistic project), and hence that when the desire for equality runs up against such natural differences, “vast energy will be expended to alleviate the incongruity,” which obviously points towards the creation of a vast regulatory state (p. 85). I respect the author for reluctantly acknowledging that America’s federal arrangement was probably fated, “right from the beginning,” to move power away from the states and towards the national government (p. 94), and his subsequent recommendation that the 17th Amendment–which provided for the direct election of senators–be reconsidered has merit. But in the end, as part of his consideration of subsidiarity, he confess that “a metaphysical account of human nature and human society is necessary for sustaining the independence of various spheres of authority” and that “the revitalization of religious belief may be a necessary long-term solution to the problem of centralization” (pp. 97-98). And while Mitchell’s book never turns to outright proselytism, this becomes a recurring theme throughout the rest of the book: a politics of gratitude will likely be impossible until the American people return to taking as a baseline the fact that they are divinely created beings with a need to be grateful for their lives and livelihoods.

Now there is nothing wrong with this connection of religion and political reflection; Tocqueville, among others, does this expertly. But if it is to be done persuasively in our pluralistic, democratic, and individualistic society, it should not, I think, be so entwined with a specific worldview, as it is in this book, whether Mitchell intended to communicate that worldview or not. But communicate it he did: religious humility and gratitude, for Mitchell, is the obvious concomitant of an agrarian, land-center economy, and outside of that kind of economic environment, the rational appeal of religious faith and the persuasiveness of our need for such a revival is simply not much there. Though Mitchell insists that “many of the virtues” he praises can be “encouraged by owning a small business,” he gives no convincing examples of how that might be so (p. 120). His discussion of neighborliness makes reference to barn raising (p. 122); his discussion of the natural world becomes most impassioned when talking about growing a garden (pp. 147-148); his discussion of the family revolves around personal examples of families escaping technological tools and engaging themselves with the land (pp. 164-166). Again and again, the grateful sensibility he urges upon his readers is connected to turning towards a more rural, more agricultural, less specialized and complex, more earthy and religious way of life.

Fox believes that Mitchell's agrarian, localist vision that is laid out in the book is insufficient:

But what it does not do is sketch out an alternative “conservative” political language which could move our modernized, pluralistic society away from an over-reliance upon individualism and towards a different kind of politics. Rather, it is a call for an alternative way of living, a return to a context where politics occupied an entirely different space in our lives–a less important, more participatory, more republican one.

With his obvious sympathy for the ideas of Jefferson and Tocqueville, Mitchell is clearly moved by republicanism, especially in its classic form as a recipe for polities which were small, land-based, agrarian, and religiously (or at least morally) homogenous. But if that was his aim in this book of political theory, one which was obviously addressed to the America which presently exists, then the development of a better language of politics needs to wrestle with the applicability of republicanism and conservatism to our current moment, and there is not much evidence in this book that Mitchell is actually interested in addressing the arguments of Benjamin Barber, Richard Dagger, Philip Pettit, Michael Walzer, or really any other contemporary republican theorist (though he does briefly touch on the ideas of both Rousseau and Hannah Arendt). In short, this book, lacking an applicable comprehensive political theory, but containing instead a host of powerful and evocative arguments on behalf of a constellation of alternative “conservative” positions–mostly united through an emphasis on a return of farming and God–is really more about exploring and advocating on behalf an alternative attitude and lifestyle, rather than providing real, plausible answers to our contemporary ideological stalemates. The language of gratitude alone cannot create or sustain the agricultural or pious conditions by which its rightness will be understood; on the contrary, it is by being pulled by the power of Mitchell’s language into a greater involvement with God or gardening that the rightness of his points about gratitude become likely to be acknowledged.

So how much dialogue with liberalism or political theory is necessary? Is Mitchell preaching to the choir? Or is there a chance that those who are aware of having certain desires for a more agrarian, republican way of life, might be inspired by the book to take action to make this more of a concrete reality in their own lives? For those with enamored with liberalism or pluralism as a good in itself, can anything persuade them of the rightness of another view? Or is liberalism less a governing ideology than a convenient rationalization for how they live? How many inhabitants of the Uhmerican megacity are willing to question their desires and reflect critically upon their lives?

So far Mitchell has not responded to the review - maybe he won't.

R. J. Snell Reviews The Politics of Gratitude

A Prophet of Goodness: Review of Mark T. Mitchell’s The Politics of Gratitude: Scale, Place and Community in a Global Age

Potomac Books

I have my copy, but have not been able to start the book yet. As someone I know pointed out to an essay talking about the importance of place (over at FPR?) - it's more than place, it's the people. This is contrasted with the Uhmerican extreme (exemplified in some respects by the attitudes of Vox) - Vox) - living the life of a wealthy transient, moving from place to place and possessing no strong ties to other people, no sense of bonds, duties and obligations. I will look at Mr. Mitchell's book to see if he covers identity and the notion of a people, which must be present before an attempt at exhorting to greater solidarity can be made. It is a key point that is not addressed by most, with the exception of the paleos and ethnonationalists.


On the recent wedding between Brent Burke and the daughter of Rhonda Vincent: A royal bluegrass wedding in Tennessee.

Human Scale and Humane Politics

via Mark T. Mitchell, video of his lecture at Villanova on the theme of his recent book:

Four Years of FPR

Mark Mitchell:

Our desire to promote the ideals of place, limits, and liberty through fostering political decentralism, economic localism, and cultural regionalism has touched a nerve. We have been praised in the pages of The New York Times and The New Republic, and we’ve have been dismissed as hopeless romantics (or worse!) by others.

Nevertheless, we remain convinced that human apprehension of the true, the good, and the beautiful through the cultivation of virtue is best realized within a dense web of meaningful family, neighborhood, and community relationships. For decades, if not centuries, a powerful and ever-growing centralized state, along with the cultural and economic institutions with which it exists in a mutually reinforcing network, has eroded these vitally important relationships—and diminished human liberty, community, and happiness as a result.

We believe that we are in the beginning stages of a “new traditionalist” moment that will help revitalize American discourse and community and civic life by reclaiming important aspects of the Western tradition long ignored—or detested—by most Western elites. Even though much in the news suggests that ours is a badly damaged republic, there are hopeful signs. It is our intent to highlight and nurture these good things as we seek to champion human scale, the “little platoons,” respect for the natural world, and reverence to God.

Mark Mitchell on the Coffee & Markets Podcast

Discussing The Politics of Gratitude. (mp3)

The FPR Editors on the Election

Considering the Alternatives: The Editors on the Election

Another Skirmish in the Culture War?

Mike Huckabee has called for a buycott of Chick-Fil-A tomorrow. If there were any stores around here, would I go? I've been to one in Phoenix, and I wasn't impressed, despite supporters claiming that it was "healthier" than other fast food options.

It is almost as if Christians have to participate on 8.1.12 in order to show the opposition that their threats of boycotting Chick-Fil-A will not harm the business. Have we been reduced to showing supporting corporations in order to make a statement about what believe or where we stand on certain issues, to posturing through token actions?

It may be a corporation that is run by a "true-believing" Christian but it is a corporation and chain nonetheless, with its own interest. Does it rely on local suppliers or corporate supply chains for its chickens? It is said that it donates some of its profits back to the communities in which stores are located. How much? And for what causes or groups?

So what if they lose business? It's not as if they hire only Christians to work at their stores. One could argue that we should at least patronize businesses started and run by Christians or help them out when others threaten to put them out of a job. But a corporation?

Should Christians be working for alternate economic structures? What was the economy that made the growth of the early Church possible, despite occasional persecution? Did the early Christians possess sufficient economic freedom? (How about the ownership of homes in the early Roman Empire?) Do our property laws and the burden of usury limit us in our goals of building a community of authentic witness to the Gospel?

Should we be thinking about unified action on a nation-wide level in this manner? And what about the oppositional mindset? Are we headed towards a flashpoint for greater conflict, maybe even violence? Mark Mitchell's essay, Culture War No More is apropros. Is Mr. Mitchell correct about the use of war as a metaphor to describe the conflict in beliefs? It goes beyond mere intellectual opposition. While "anticulture" may be a clever rhetoric, it won't be accepted to those who believe that they are working in favor of "love" and "community."

Are we who uphold traditional morality right to feel besieged? And if that is the case, should our response be that of a "siege mentality," withstanding and buffering the attacks of our opponents and planning some sort of counter-attack? Many envision the culture war as being a struggle to impose their values on the other, who are wrong. But this is not about "winning" or showing who is right through coercion and the power of the state. The young believe they are right in their understanding of love and equality. This is a struggle for hearts and minds, but if we cannot persuade people, should make a statement about morality through the power of the national government? Would it not be better to let them go their own way, if possible? But the problem is that those who hold power would never allow this sort of tolerance through separation to occur. The so-called Democratic Party is drafting a pro-SSM plank for their platform. What can we do but struggle to resist this at all levels? At the same time, we should recognize that the outcome may turn out to be in their favor. Many in the urban areas are already convinced of the novel definition of marriage, and the great social reset may not happen until after the rejection of traditional mores has become a legislated fact. The mass media is against traditional morality, and do what they can to replace it through propaganda.

Even if something like the Exodus movement seems too extreme an option, why shouldn't Christians consider living with other like-minded folk? There may be the option of strengthening communal witness where one lives presently, but that requires even greater heroism and may come to naught with respect to success as the world understands it. But until the Church gets serious about revitalizing parish life and finding ways to counter the economic pressures associated with wage slavery, Christian communities will remain in danger of fading away.


Building a Culture of Religious Freedom by Charles J. Chaput

Related:
James Antle, Bullying Chick-fil-A
Chicken Gate – An Exercise in Media Induced Hysteria and Fascism…
Paul Gottfried, Chick-fil-A Eats Crow
Tim Stanley, Chick-fil-A vs gay marriage: how a chicken restaurant became a culture war battleground
Eat more hyperbole…on Chick-fil-a
Rod Dreher, Bonfire of the Chick-fil-A and Christians, These Cities Don’t Want You

No real investment in America?

Several weeks ago, a reader of VFR sent in a contribution on Indian immigrants: ARE INDIANS A MODEL MINORITY?

He writes:

Indians, like the Chinese, are not “model minorities,” as they do not and cannot identify with the US. This is land formed by the blood, sweat, toil and tears of the Western European man. They share nothing in common with them. Additionally, with leftism as our new religion, they are able to act out their frustrations and figuratively humiliate the historic majority—the people who created all they enjoy, and all they could never create—for the crime of letting them settle in their land and affording them the opportunity to amass fabulous wealth and enjoy a standard of living undreamed of in their native land.

When push comes to shove, these model minorities will jam-pack the airports gouging each others eyes out to get out here as the world comes crashing down. Such are the vibrant, diverse “citizens” of the Republic.

But I am not worried about them. They are the enemy in the sense that they are easily identifiable and will self deport when this house of cards comes crashing down. The real danger are white liberals. They can’t go anywhere and nobody wants them. Nor will any white man deport or exile his people which means we’re stuck with them.

(Someone may think that there is a little self-loathing going on here, but he subsequently responds to this charge. Besides, that he may not actually get along with Chinese wouldn't be unexpected. Others do not get along with Chinese as well, and Chinese people have their own chauvinism.)

There are plenty of Chinese and Indians living here in the San Francisco Bay Area. If things get tough in California (or in the United States as a whole), how many of them will leave? How many of their children will go with them? While those who are older, the immigrants or their parents and even maybe a few of the first generation natives, might be inclined to leave, I do not think those who have assimilated to some degree will wish to do so. Because of the strong ethnic ties of the Indian community (interracial marriage is still relatively rare among Indians?), I think Indians may be more likely to leave than ABCs. Most ABCs have adopted the Yankee liberal mindset -- some may preserve an awareness that they are different from their white counterparts. While the cultural differences may be slight, separation because of group or racial identity is no less real and sufficient to prevent real mixing of two peoples. If the children stay, the parents will probably stay as well, unless it is not evident by then that long distance separation may become rather permanent, in which case some may go back to their native countries with the foolish belief that they can continue flying back and forth on airplanes to visit their children.

"Liberal" Robert Lindsay has put up critiques of [Hindu] Indian culture which fault it for the continued misery and poverty of the lower classes. How different are the Indian Christians? I am reminded of AM and her two brothers; they returned to India with their mother while their father stayed here. Economic hardship? I didn't ask and she probably is too young to know. Her family attended St. Mary's Knanaya Mission in SJ, not the Syro-Malabar church in Milpitas.

The OP talks about the different groups collectively called "Indian." Is there more of a sense of a unified identity for immigrants who come to the United States? Who uses the Indian Community Center in Milpitas, for example? It is clear that there are differences between Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs because of their religion. Caste distinctions might be relevant for Hindus in the U.S., but I suspect that those who come here are mostly or all from the higher castes. Is the assimilation rate different between these different religious groups?

(See Lindsay's post on Italian dialects.)

I don't think I posted a link to this piece by Mark Mitchell, did I? The Unmaking and Making of Community

*Someone else writes, "The lack of dissent and the inability to handle dissent is a unique Indian problem (though it is even worse among the Chinese)." I have been wondering whether the concept of face and the practice of saving face (or taking care to save the face of others) arose as a means of mitigating social conflict or strife between kinship groups.

Mark Mitchell, Why We Need Jane Austen or How to be a Gentleman with Examples Good and Bad

Mark Mitchell, Wendell Berry and the New Urbanism: Agrarian Remedies, Urban Prospects