Nathan W Schlueter

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.

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.

According to them, the alternative is ownership by another. Libertarians claim that it is compatible with a wide range of ethical, philosophical, and religious viewpoints, so long as these do not involve coercion.\n As Buchanan and Brennan put it, "the maintenance of the standards of public life, it could be argued, may require a heroic vision of the 'statesman' or 'public servant,' because only by holding such a vision can the possibility of public-interested behavior on the part of political agents be increased."

In it the authors draw deeply upon both theoretical research (Douglas Johnston, Donald Shriver, and Olga Botcharova are three names that appear often) and practical experience in conflict resolution and international relations to make a convincing case for why "societal forgiveness" in political diplomacy is not merely a moral or religious ideal but also a pragmatic strategic consideration of global realities in the post-Cold War world. According to the authors, this secular bias, along with the cultural "differentiation" between religious and secular orders, has in fact exacerbated political conflicts around the world. In sum, Forgiveness in International Politics is a refreshing reminder that a truly effective Realpolitk must be based upon a true understanding of human nature, in which human beings are not simply individualistic utility maximizers but are complex persons who long for truth, meaning, community, and transcendence. [...]actors in global politics integrate this more realistic anthropology, there can be little hope for a world at peace.