Abstract
In "A Catholic Showdown Worth Watching" Patrick Deneen identified and elaborated upon an important division within "conservative" American Catholicism. That division turns on competing conceptions and evaluations of liberalism, and, by extension, America. A parallel division exists within American conservatism more generally. On the one hand are what can be called "Front Porch Republicans" (named after the website around which these conservatives are organized). Front Porch Republicans regard liberalism of any kind as inherently corrosive, and because liberalism is written into the genetic code of the American political order, they are also critical of the American regime. On the other hand are what can be called "Natural Law Liberals" (a term coined by Christopher Wolfe). Natural Law Liberals distinguish between a positive form of classical liberalism that is continuous with the natural law tradition, and a form of modern liberalism that is not. For Natural Law Liberals, the principles of the American founding embody a form of Natural Law Liberalism. Whereas Front Porch Republicans often appeal to Alasdair MacIntyre in defense of their arguments, Natural Law Liberals often appeal to John Finnis. That such a division exists between MacIntyre and Finnis is often taken for granted. But a close examination of their writings suggests more common ground between them than either Front Porch Republicans or Natural Law Liberals usually acknowledge. In this paper I attempt to identify that common ground by exploring MacIntyre and Finnis's conceptions of morality, politics and the common good. I also attempt to indicate places where there is disagreement, and where further clarification is required. This essay is intended to be the first word, and not the last word, on this subject. It is a call to conversation, rather than a showdown, between Front Porch Republicans and Natural Law Liberals.