RIDING ACADEMY:

Religion and American foreign policy: In the United States, evangelicals are the neo-cons of Christianity, says John Hulsman. With its streak of religious certitude, we should never underestimate the centrality of moralism to the country’s foreign policy. (John C. Hulsman, 21 - 12 - 2004, Open Democracy)

By all standards measuring religious fervour – church-going, beliefs, and the role of religion in one’s everyday life – the US seems to hail from a different planet from that of its European allies. In terms of the advanced industrial societies, the United States is by far the most religious. Nor does this trend show any signs of abating. While polling has Europeans becoming ever less connected to religion in their daily lives, America, if anything, grows more devout. This is particularly true of evangelical Christians, whose numbers are increasing at the fastest rate in the country. It is this group who give secular Europeans the willies. Evangelicals tend to be confident in their faith, express their religious feelings (here is the crux of the matter) freely, and are eager to have you adopt their religious orientation. In terms of Christianity, evangelicals are the neo-cons of the movement.

This is a point Javier Solana, former secretary-general of Nato and European commissioner for foreign affairs acutely commented on earlier this year. Differences regarding religion are a major part of the values divide between America and Europe. This has obvious foreign-policy ramifications. It is little wonder that evangelicals in the Republican base from the first supported neo-conservative impulses in the Bush administration. Both groups have a messianic streak not common to standard conservative thinking. Both, as with Wilsonians in the Democratic party, see moralism as a key component of international relations. And both see the world largely in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. [...]

[U]nderestimate evangelicals and other American utopian movements at your peril. For in many ways, Thomas Paine is not that far off. Certainly in the latter days of 1918, at Normandy, and during the cold war, American exceptionalism was a vital factor in motivating Washington to do what would have seemed hopelessly naïve to harder-eyed realists. In 1918, why should America intervene in a European war? In the dark days of 1940-41, why should it support the UK economically and with material when such largesse was bound to fall in the hands of a victorious Hitler? In the post-1945 world, why should the US risk nuclear annihilation to buttress our resentful impoverished allies (the UK and France) and our erstwhile enemies (Germany and Italy)?

Yes, in each case I as a realist think it was in America’s interests to behave as we did. But you understand little about the country if you don’t acknowledge that “because it was the right thing to do” was also part of the answer lying behind American foreign-policy initiatives. Europeans may be uncomfortable with moralism (goodness knows I am) and the deep wellsprings of religion such views emanate from in American society. But there is little doubt we have all benefited from the “naïve” optimism that has enabled America to do amazing, beneficial things not just for itself, but also for all mankind.

Quite insightful except for one common mistake--Mr. Hulsman puts the cart before the ass. As our theoconservatism is the enduring feature of American history, it should be obvious that the neocons are a part of the wider movement, not vice versa. Indeed, neoconservatism is best viewed as a kind of Evangelicalism for non-Christians.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 26, 2004 12:19 PM