BOOK REVIEWS

The Conservative Soul: Sullivan’s public writings what he knows. How We Lost It, How to constitute an internal monologue At fi rst instance he seems to argue that so-called ‘theoconservatives’ Get It Back externalised, intent not so much with projecting a world view or are simple determinists, before by Andrew Sullivan adhering to a party line, but rather relenting and presenting the more Harper Collins with acting as a psychic check nuanced idea of vocation or arête New York, 2006 on Sullivan’s previously stated that Catholic scholars, namely US$25.95, 304pp positions. Augustine and Aquinas, perfected ISBN 9780060188771 Just what it checks for, however, from Aristotle. However, Sullivan and the way this curious mechanism attaches Darwinian overtones, impacts his public claims might be ‘… to realise his fullest potential the most interesting insight to as a member of the species Homo ne thing should be stated spring from his latest book. sapiens’, where no natural lawyer immediately in any review O His wider claim—that would speak of personhood in of Andrew Sullivan’s books: he is a conservatives in America have lost such narrow terms. famously inconsistent writer. their ‘soul’ because they too often This particular tone probably For instance, he stridently worship at the shrine of a false fi ts better with Sullivan’s wider supported the 2003 invasion of conservative idol—is premised argument that all fundamentalists Iraq and lionised George W Bush on an historically interesting, if are similar, whether Christian after 9/11. In the 2004 election, reasonably untested, assertion. ‘theocon’ or Nazi eugenicist. however, he dumped Bush for Sullivan argues that natural He comes close here, and at Kerry, mainly because Kerry wasn’t lawyers in union with Christian other times, to adopting the Bush, and he now laments the fundamentalists nomenclature and style of . He calls his messianic secularists. earlier support ‘stupid have formed a bastard What is more, he appears to and premature’. What take issue with what might be prompted this shift? (‘theoconservatism’) that has, under George W called an ‘infallible second level’ Similarly, across a of natural law reasoning where Bush, gained ascendancy number of key issues, things like ‘inalienable rights’ over more traditional including abortion and are posited while ignoring or strains. That’s right, neo- gay marriage, Sullivan’s overlooking the theory’s third conservatism isn’t the refusal to adhere to the level that treats of more mundane, word, it’s the ‘theocons’ conclusions his stated political subjects. who run the Bush political and religious beliefs What Sullivan misses is that at Administration. would generally entail has made this third level, characterised by Critics—including Sullivan— him a compelling, self-consciously fallen-world uncertainties and characterise this ascendancy as Orwellian but increasingly confl icting claims to fl ourishing, leading to everything from the frustrating voice in American the dogmatism and universalism ideas. No one seems to know ‘failure’ in Iraq to betrayals of the he resents in natural law thinking is where he will line up, and perhaps previous conservative preference often qualifi ed if not jettisoned. more importantly, why. for small government. Sullivan Natural law, when properly The thing to ask about Sullivan, takes greatest issue, however, articulated, speaks on this third then, is whether he is really with the importation of moral/ level then only of regimes, convinced by certain political or Christian values, via natural law, policies, laws and paths. The religious claims, but too often into the public square. plural here is paramount. These disappointed by political parties On natural law Sullivan is acquire authority and encourage and leaders, as he now claims. generally unconvincing, although obedience only if they tend toward Or is he a completely different, better informed than most other the common good. A law or more nuanced creature from the non-academic critics. In explaining idea, simply by virtue of being conservative pundit we have—and the theory he seems to be learning promulgated by the Pope is not, perhaps he has—come to expect? as he goes or at the very least he as Sullivan erroneously claims, For there is a sense in which is sloppy with how he expresses rationally binding and probably

POLICY • Vol. 23 No. 1 • Autumn 2007 63

AAutumn_Policy_07-1.inddutumn_Policy_07-1.indd 6363 99/03/2007/03/2007 11:08:2611:08:26 AMAM BOOK REVIEWS

not exclusively theologically respects, more conservative than attempt by an obviously clever compelling. Otherwise, natural obviously liberal. It should appeal man to explain exactly why the lawyers would be positivists and to conservatives, but it doesn’t. most obvious conclusion—that he theologians solely inquisitors. Therefore, Sullivan’s wider public is just sore about gay marriage—is They are typically neither. performance and the tone of this not indeed the motivation for Natural law simply does not book seem to argue, those who this book and the litmus test that equate with the ‘’ disagree with his ideas on gay informs much of his otherwise Sullivan describes as: marriage just aren’t conservative. puzzling political posturing. The rest of the book is spent He fails, but readably so. And at …a total system in which fl eshing out what could only be least we know now where Andrew everything is explained described as a phantasmagoria, Sullivan stands: somewhere and everything is capable a veritable ‘vast Right-wing between an idiosyncratic reading of ultimate harmony. Our conspiracy’ that Sullivan suggests of Oakeshott on faith and Andrew only choice is whether to rests on numbers-heavy but Sullivan some months back. live against the grain of this somewhat dim fundamentalist Wherever that is, it is not nature—or in accordance with Christians in bed with Jesuitical with the Pope and not where its patterns and direction. Catholic intellectuals. These most Republicans currently sit. people, he claims, have led his party This is something real American After introducing natural law and his adopted nation astray and conservatives, the men with the Sullivan claims that it is, at ‘the away from true conservatism. numbers and nominations, have nitty-gritty’, often wrapped up in Away, indeed, from gay marriage. been telling Sullivan for some debates about sex. This claim, he It is too perfect. time. feels it necessary to quickly clarify, In the absence of any binding is a statement of fact, not the document, or a creed for instance, Reviewed by John Heard fruit of less rational conclusions: that dogmatically sets out ‘I don’t raise this issue right away conservative beliefs, conservatism for prurient or personal reasons’. is generally held to be just that Anyone familiar with Sullivan will which most self-identified pause here. conservatives support. Sixty years What he means is that his ago Sullivan’s small government claims are not based on personal solutions were alien to other prejudices against natural law ideas war-infl ected conservatives like on sex, specifi cally the rejection of Churchill or Eisenhower and they gay marriage. are less compelling for terrorism- It is, however, an intriguing oriented George W Bush. There idea and useful explanation of is no ‘soul’ that conservatism can his positions—one that not even lose, only votes and voters. Sullivan can resist entertaining. The Republican Party is not It helps to know that Sullivan currently unpopular because it has championed gay marriage rejects gay marriage or listens to since the 1980s, but that he natural lawyers. Sullivan also fails argues for this innovation from to deal with the fact that most a peculiar position. He wants natural lawyers, including the homosexuals to achieve a tortured Pope, and certainly those outside notion of bourgeois ‘normalcy’. the American conservative power His arguments—articulated in bases he identifi es in this book, : An Argument explicitly rejected the Iraq war About Homosexuality—generally as a contravention of just war chill libertarians, dissatisfy social principles. conservatives, contradict the What remains of Sullivan’s book Vatican and disappoint radicals. is a sometimes charming, often But the reasoning is, in many contentious, always interesting

64 Vol. 23 No. 1 • Autumn 2007 • POLICY

AAutumn_Policy_07-1.inddutumn_Policy_07-1.indd 6464 99/03/2007/03/2007 11:08:2711:08:27 AMAM