Anglospherics

NO CREATOR, NO REPUBLIC:

Are These Truths Really Self-Evident? A Q&A with Rémi Brague (Nathaniel Peters and Rémi Brague, 6/25/26, Public Discourse)

Rémi Brague: Declaring these principles as if they were self-evident truths required some nerve. They were not so for the ancient world; on the contrary. As for human equality, for instance, we read In Homer’s Odyssey that when a man is enslaved, he loses the half part of his wits. The Founding Fathers, who were steeped in the classics, knew that full well. Consequently, they had to ground the principles on an idea they borrowed from the Bible: the will of a benevolent Creator God.

TEAM MENSCH:

Camus and Columbo? The Unlikely Link Between European Existentialism and American Detective TV Series: The television series Columbo and Camus’ novel ‘A Happy Death’ were directly inspired by Dostoevsky’s classic novel of existential guilt, ‘Crime and Punishment.’ (Simon Lea, 6/25/26, The Collector)

The detective in Crime & Punishment is Porfiry Petrovich, the head of the Investigation Department. Just like Lieutenant Columbo, Petrovich never bullies, harasses, or even outright accuses his suspect. Rather, the psychologically astute detective seeks to confuse, provoke, and trap Raskolnikov into confessing. In addition, in Levison and Link’s television series, Colombo also refrains from showing animosity towards the men he knows to be murderers. Often, Colombo sets clever traps designed to force the murderer’s hand and draw out a confession. In Dostoevsky’s novel, Petrovich does so too. […]

Raskolnikov and Patrice both see their society’s laws and moral restrictions as obstructions to be overcome by superior people. For them, people are ultimately free to do what is best for them and have a responsibility to take control of their own lives. Both characters consider themselves to be stifled by a lack of funds and take it upon themselves to acquire what they need without concern for other people’s rules. The murderers in Columbo all think the same way.

ACCEPTING THAT MAN IS FALLEN…:

English Comedy and French Tragedy: Marriage and Adultery in the Nineteenth-Century Novel (Daniel Hadas, 06/11/2026, Cafe Americain)

Before the Russians’ late entry into the scene, almost all the great novels of the nineteenth century were written in only two nations: England and France. Each of these two nations then showed a marked preference for one of the two stories: English novels are about the formation of marriages, and French novels are about adultery. By the same token, and in line with the inheritance of ancient literature, the English novel (until Thomas Hardy) is almost always in part comic, and the French novel tragic.

…makes life a comedy. The Rationalist refusal of that truth makes life seem a tragedy.

TOUGH BEAT FOR iDENTITARIANS:

The meaning of “All men are created equal” (Lewis Waha, 6/11/26, Center for Faith & Freedom)

A century later, Martin Luther King, Jr. again invoked that same truth. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King expressed the hope that “this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed … that all men are created equal.”

There’s a solid throughline from the Declaration to the Gettysburg Address and to King’s speech. It’s America’s championing the God-given reality of human dignity. Whereas some dismiss dignity as sentimental fluff, and others count it a useful fiction, Americans understand human dignity as self-evident truth.

Christians in particular understand human dignity as due to all human beings bearing the image of God. It’s a natural inference from the Declaration of Independence to the book of Genesis. All men being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator” evokes the moment when God said, “Let us make man in our image.”

WAIT, I CAN’T HATE MY NEIGHBOR?:

J. D. Vance’s Contemptuous Conversion Memoir (Jessica Winter, June 19, 2026, The New Yorker)

The invocation of “explicitly Christian arguments” is one of several instances in “Communion” when Vance’s approach to political campaigning and governance can seem borderline theocratic. One of his everyday challenges as Vice-President is to figure out “how to take an accepted moral principle and apply it in the real world as a Christian leader.” This conflation of public service with puffed-chest religious crusading is especially jarring when he writes, at length, about his 2025 visit to the Vatican, shortly before the death of Pope Francis, and his tense interactions with officials there, mainly over U.S. immigration policy. “Here I was, the most senior Catholic in the United States government,” Vance recalls, affronted, “and the Vatican seemed unwilling to move its moral guidance past the point of trite platitudes.” He goes on, “I’m one Christian statesman who would welcome an institutional faith less focused on platitudes and more focused on reality.”

It’s hard to imagine a reality-based conversation about the intersection of Catholic ethics and immigration policy with a man who campaigned for the Vice-Presidency by spreading calumnies about Haitian immigrants eating the pet cats and dogs of their neighbors in Ohio. Or who, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a mother of three during the agency’s siege of Minneapolis, condemned the victim as a “deranged leftist” whose death was a “tragedy of her own making.” Or whose career has been largely bankrolled by the co-founder of Palantir, which has a thirty-million-dollar contract with ICE to provide A.I. surveillance and data-mining technology for hunting and deporting immigrants. Or who uses Elon Musk, the tech trillionaire and former Department of Government Efficiency overseer whose cuts to public-health agencies and infrastructure are projected to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide, as an exemplar of how “immigration can bring benefits to the host country in its own right. Just think of Elon Musk and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that trace directly to his decision to come to the United States.”

BUT THEY DID FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE…:

Brexit 10 Years Later: The Economic Collapse That Never Happened: Voters were warned that leaving the EU would trigger recession, mass unemployment, and lasting economic decline. Comparing Britain’s performance with its G7 peers suggests a more nuanced picture. (John Phelan, June 19, 2026, Daily Economy)

Why did Brexit fail to live down to the economic warnings?

First, the EU is an economic laggard. As Figure 3 shows, since 2011, the EU’s economy has grown by 20.6 percent while the US economy — the second biggest destination for British exports after the EU in 2016 — grew by 39.9 percent, nearly double the rate.


Second, Britain’s economy was one of the least reliant on its EU colleagues. As Figure 4 shows, in 2015, just 42.3 percent of British exports went to the EU, a share lower than in each of the 27 other members. This is partly because, as Luis Garicano, a former member of the European Parliament, noted recently, the “Single Market” is largely a myth.

…of the opportunity to massively deregulate business and expand free trade.

NO CREATION, NO UNIVERSALISM:

Reading the Declaration of Independence as Holy Text: How the American creed emerged—and evolved—over 250 years (Kathryn Lofton, 6/08/26, Yale Review)

To achieve independence in 1776, the founders needed people besides themselves to believe in it and practice it. The message of their Philadelphia story could have been many things. Social coherence is something religion provides, often through repeating a story and asserting its moral. Creed is the word scholars use for those incantatory phrases that convey and perform adherence. all Men aRe cReated equal is a creed, in gOd we tRust another. libeRty is a third. Saying a creed publicizes commitment, claims distinction, and tests orthodoxy. A person can have a creed they describe as personal, but a creed is ultimately corporate, something other people can hear and repeat back: “Me too.”

WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT?:

The Forgotten Foundations of Constitutional Law (Nicholas Aroney, 6/08/26, Public Discourse)

Sir William Blackstone once observed that “Christianity is part of the laws of England.” Although this statement struck the mind of Thomas Jefferson as a kind of “judicial forgery,” Blackstone was expressing an idea that was commonplace among English lawyers. The question is not so much whether Christianity is part of the common law, but what parts and in what respects it is, or has been, integral to the body of law as a whole. And what can be said of the common law in general can also be said of constitutional law in particular. Certain important parts of our contemporary inheritance of constitutional law have been shaped decisively by Christian beliefs, practices and institutions, and the whole body of constitutional law, in its variegated national forms, reflects numerous specific Christian influences.

Christianity is not, of course, the only influence on the common law and on constitutional law in particular. Many interweaving historical influences have shaped modern constitutional law. Among these, four broad strands stand out as especially influential: Greek philosophy, Roman law, Christian theology, and Enlightenment principles. While the exact contribution that each of these has made—and should continue to make—is a matter of debate, there is little doubt that each has contributed substantially to how constitutional law is conceived and practised in our day.

Greek philosophy introduced a taxonomy of constitutional types and the concept of the rule of law. Roman law contributed the crucial notion of jurisdiction, a fundamental aspect of contemporary constitutional law. Christian theology provided a framework that qualified the authority of civil government by a higher natural or divine law, with the church’s spiritual authority placing practical limits on temporal powers. The powers of civil and ecclesiastical rulers were tempered through various means, including the administration of oaths of office and the issuing of charters guaranteeing the rights of religious, social, economic, and civil associations of many kinds. And while the Enlightenment is rightly associated with the modern principle of the separation of powers and the establishment of written constitutions enforced by judicial review, these principles also owe much to practices established prior to the Age of Enlightenment, especially those developed and extended during the Reformation. Despite important Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment contributions, constitutional law would not be what it is today if it were not for the influence of Christianity.

After Magna Carta the rest follows.

TOO EXTREME FOR FELLOW EXTREMISTS:

Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right (Maggie HabermanJonathan Swan, 6/15/26, NY Times)

The man who outlined his concerns in the memo, Mr. Scharf, was no resistance figure. A trim, balding, Harvard-trained lawyer who had run for office in Missouri, he had bemoaned John McCain as too moderate for the 2008 Republican nomination, and believed Mr. Trump had been vindictively prosecuted after his 2020 election loss.

He had helped develop the Trump team’s legal arguments behind the successful effort to get the Mar-a-Lago classified documents indictment thrown out, as well as the arguments behind the presidential immunity case that prevailed at the Supreme Court. He had embraced the most contentious elements of Mr. Trump’s agenda, but was quickly coming up against the limit of what the Constitution, in his reading, could be made to bear.

The Constitution, Mr. Scharf wrote in his memo to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, permits suspension of habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion or invasion. Courts have almost uniformly held that only Congress can do it.

He added: “Even where Congress has explicitly suspended habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court has held that some alternative process must be provided to defendants, with procedural safeguards akin to a habeas corpus action.


“It prevents, in effect, governmental actors from detaining, imprisoning or executing individuals arbitrarily,” Mr. Scharf wrote.

Always bet on the Deep State.

CAPITALISM/DEMOCRACY/PROTESTANTISM:

What happens when liberalism loses? (Mani Basharzad, 9 June 2026, CapX)

Liberalism loses when it attaches itself only to economics. Yes, it is easy to blame the populist movements of both Left and Right that seek to undermine liberalism. But on one point, liberals should look at themselves. A liberalism that defines itself solely in terms of economic freedom cannot win the battle of ideas. Free markets are part of classical liberalism, but they are largely a by-product of the more important principles and institutions of a free society. When you have the rule of law, you can have property rights and effective contract enforcement. When you have the liberal attitude of tolerance, you can have the Royal Exchange, of which Voltaire wrote that when you enter, ‘all nations assemble for the advantage of mankind’, and ‘the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian bargain with one another as if they were of the same religion, and bestow the name of infidel on bankrupts only’.

To win the battle for liberalism, liberals must not confine themselves to the material benefits of free markets, but also emphasise the moral superiority of free societies. Hayek met Churchill only once, after ‘The Road to Serfdom’ had gained popularity. Churchill knew of him because of that book. When they were introduced, Churchill was, as Hayek put it, ‘stock drunk’. Churchill said to him: ‘You are completely right [about ‘The Road to Serfdom’]; but it will never happen in Britain’. As Hayek continued, ‘Half an hour later he made one of the most brilliant speeches I ever heard’.

Why, despite travelling some distance down the road to serfdom, did Britain never lose its political freedom? Why, in Churchill’s words, would this ‘never happen in Britain’? Because there is something more to liberalism than economics. Those deeper foundations resisted the road to serfdom in Britain, and they enabled its revival through Thatcher’s conservative revolution.

Liberals have failed to shape the climate of opinion and practical politics, relying too often on what Russell Kirk described as soulless ‘pleasure and pain equations’. China today is the example of a state that, viewed solely through an economic lens, appears impressive, yet has become a threat to freedom.