Against Sohrab Ahmari-ism

Subtitle: As Rick Wilson says, “Everything Trump touches dies.”

As I read Sohrab Ahmari’s betrayal of conservative principles in First Things (!), I thought of those who predicted Trump would kill the GOP and conservatism (even this one). If Sohrab Ahmari speaks for Trump supporting religious conservatives, the never-Trump religious conservatives have been vindicated. Here is Ahmari relegating civility and decency to one’s own tribe:

But conservative Christians can’t afford these luxuries. Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.

Ahmari wants to win the culture war and he doesn’t want to be nice about it. For Ahmari, nice in this essay is embodied by National Review writer and religious conservative David French. Curiously, what really set Ahmari off was a drag queen reading a book during a library story time.

I recently quipped on Twitter that there is no “polite, David French-ian third way around the cultural civil war.” (What prompted my ire was a Facebook ad for a children’s drag queen reading hour at a public library in Sacramento.)

I added, “The only way is through”—that is to say, to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.

Ahmari complains that French is too nice and too wedded to pluralism to be of much help in winning the day for Christian morality.

Such talk—of politics as war and enmity—is thoroughly alien to French, I think, because he believes that the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side. Even if the latter—that is, the libertine and the pagan—predominate in elite institutions, French figures, then at least the former, traditional Christians, should be granted spaces in which to practice and preach what they sincerely believe.

Well, it doesn’t work out that way, and it hasn’t been working out that way for a long time…

Here is what I get out of Ahmari’s criticism of David French-ism:

  • Fellow citizens of different faiths and beliefs and moral views are enemies of Ahmari’s brand of morality.
  • To the degree that those citizens disagree with his morality and want to act in accord with that disagreement, they must be opposed without civility and decency.
  • The salvation of individuals is insufficient to achieve the common good.
  • The battle is a zero-sum situation. Ahmari’s team wins or the other side wins. Divergent views of what is morally good cannot coexist.
  • Once the enemy is defeated, the righteous victors (Ahamri’s team) will enjoy “the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”

What else does Ahmari suggest as a conservative answer to moral decay? He leaves a lot to the imagination of his readers. He implies at one point that government might intervene in social media platforms where he believes conservatives have been censored. What about the drag queens? Does he want to violate freedom of expression, speech, and association? If so, how?

What would this re-ordered public square look like? Would businesses close on Sunday? Would store clerks have to say Merry Christmas? Surely, there would be no drag queens in libraries. Would they be allowed anywhere? Who gets to define the Highest Good? Ahmari tells us that culture will never favor Christianity so he must have something more top down in mind. I think he gives us a clue in his piece when he writes:

Conservative liberalism of the kind French embodies has a great horror of the state, of traditional authority and the use of the public power to advance the common good, including in the realm of public morality. That horror is a corollary to its autonomy-maximizing impulse.

This goes back, I think, to its roots in English non-conformism. In Culture and Anarchy, his great Victorian critique of this mode of thought, Matthew Arnold says of the nonconformist that, because he has encountered the Word of God by his own lights, he sees no need for the authority and grand liturgies of a national church (still less the Catholic Church).

But as Arnold notes, while the nonconformist vision of an austere, no-frills, solitary encounter with God might be suitable in one context, it doesn’t satisfy other necessities, such as collective public worship befitting public needs.

Ahmari adds:

Calls for religious revival are often little more than an idle wish that all men become moral, so that we might dispense with moral regulation.

Ahmari doesn’t like French-ism because he claims that French hopes individual salvation will make people moral and lead to a moral culture. Ahmari disagrees. He argues that “public power” and “moral regulation” will “advance the common good.”

So many questions come up. What is this “public power” and what are these “moral regulations?” Is it a state church? A oath to Dear Leader? Would Ahmari regulate drag queens? Libraries? The press? Free speech?

If this is Sohrab Ahmari-ism, I am against it.

David French?

Since attorney French has been a major player in religious liberty court cases, I would never have gone to him as a figure head for Ahmari’s opposition. Apparently, Ahmari doesn’t like French’s refusal to bow the knee to Trump and the fantasy of a Trump crafted “social cohesion.” However, reading French over the past two years, I think he is as fine as anyone to cast as a foil to Ahmari’s grand re-ordering plan. French knows who he is morally and spiritually, but he also writes convincingly about respect for freedom of conscience.

A serious problem with Ahmari’s plan to re-order the public square in his fuzzy image of the Highest Good (note the caps) is that such a re-ordering would have to rely on coercion. Someone’s conscience is going suffer. Ahmari doesn’t want it to be his so to hell with civility and decency. I mean that literally. If it takes hellish strategies to get the job done, then we must be realistic. The other side isn’t squeamish. And remember, the other side is made up of libertine pagans (Ahmari’s words), so they will surely use every demonic method available.

For Ahmari, these pagans aren’t just fellow homo sapiens who happen to see the world differently. On the other hand, French and his fellow French-ists respect the Constitutional freedoms available to all citizens. In his rebuttal to Ahmari, French made a point that is foundational to our ability to be one nation.

My political opponents are my fellow citizens. When I wore the uniform of my country, I was willing to die for them. Why would I think I’m at war with them now?

I agree. I get that Ahmari doesn’t like it when other people see the world differently and act on that difference. Most of us try to make the world more comfortable for us. Our founding documents ensure equal treatment before the law to pursue our aims. Ahmari also wants very much to do that for himself and those he likes. However, his ode to group serving bias isn’t a way forward for me, even though we may share some similar doctrinal beliefs. I can’t reconcile it with basic Constitutional freedoms which conservatives claim they want to conserve.

39 thoughts on “Against Sohrab Ahmari-ism”

  1. It seems that you are constructing a model of what Ahmari’s vision of conservatism might become. There is no way of knowing. We do know what French’s model has become – the collapse of the moral order of America and an anemic GOP that cannot escape its almost sole preoccupation with international capitalism that has hollowed out the American working class, a class that is essential to democracy, complete with the collapse of the family, drug abuse, powerful identity politics, runaway death solutions to America’s ills in abortion, infanticide and euthanasia fantasies, a tidal wave of loneliness in collapse of community, etc. French is a good man, a great man, who does the things we should be doing. I think Ahmari is simply saying ‘not enough.’ The MO of the aggressive left is that liberal proceduralism is dead. There are no rules. Win at all cost. Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, Rod Dreher, RR Reno, and many others are saying that the conservatives must move to occupy the public square, even as has the aggressive left. From where I stand at age 70, it appears that Ahmari’s analysis is the correct one. In any conflict, there might come that moment where the only answer is to win – the dialogue is over and the compromise is impossible. Ahmari seems to be saying that using government for the common good is ‘game on,’ not as a model of preference but as a response to how the left has stormed the ramparts and is no longer interested in coming off its perch for rational dialogue. What to do? That’s a fair question, and for someone to say we should do what we have always done as America slips into a black hole seems a non-answer. Maybe some don’t want to be in that world and want it to be otherwise. That’s an option that is not on the table.

  2. Those who fight monsters must beware they too don’t become monsters thereby.

    Giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    He’s lost the plot, missed the point. 1 Corinthians 13 applies.

    Those who oppose his views must be careful we too don’t fall into the same trap. That we pass the test, and remain Galadriel.

  3. So the argument is about how to fight having homosexuals dressed up as women reading queer books to children in libraries and French is to nice and Ahmari is to mean and it’s the end of conservatism caused by Trump?

  4. I’m sorry..I got stuck trying to wrap my head around the idea that David French is ‘nice.’

  5. You know that things are bizarre in Evangelical intelligentsia when David French becomes a voice of reason.
    I still remember 2012, when he and his wife turned their Patheos Evangelical blog into what was basically a Mitt Romney campaign site.

    1. Sounds like that YouTube comment regarding a scene from Man in the High Castle:
      “You know things are messed up when Heinrich Himmler is the only one talking any sense.”

  6. Reading the 2 articles, I’d say French’s rebuttal is a lot more coherent. Granted French’s rebuttal is mostly knocking down the straw-men Ahmari set up. However, Ahmari’s article seems like an angry screed by someone upset that everything isn’t going his way.

    1. Amazing considering that Trump is President, Mike Pence is Vice-President, Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader and most of the judges from the Supreme Court on down are all Judicial Watch nominees thanks to those two.

  7. I was not previously aware of Sohrab Ahmari’s writings. Based on the few passages shared above, he seems close to a cookie-cutter replication of Jay Sekulow and his self-serving, authoritarian, Dominion Theology. Not sure if these comparisons and connections hold or not.

    More importantly, Sohrab Ahmari might want to imagine a biblically-grounded theology that leads him away from being triggered and instead leads him toward learning more about the Drag Queen Storytime, about LGBTQ children’s books, and why the educated staff at the Lavender Library in Sacramento was motivated to sponsor an event for queer families and allies. Jesus taught his followers to Seek. So what’s keeping Ahmari and his followers from doing so?

    1. “…what’s keeping Ahmari and his followers from doing so?”

      In a word, fear! It’s much safer to have all your beliefs tightly boxed up and labelled with the word, “Certainty”. That way you can wage your crusade against ‘the world’ with a clean conscience, convinced that you are really doing it all for the greater good. (With the added bonus of the ends justifying the means…)

  8. What a thoroughly horrible way to live a life. See everybody who isn’t exactly like you as an enemy–out to do you harm, not just to live their lives in a different way. Oppose them at every turn, until they surrender and live the lives you want them to live. Be forever at war with the rest of humanity. Ugh. No.

    1. “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”
      — Cersei Lannister, Game of Thrones

  9. One way to be Constitutional about these things is to have a public free-for-all in the libraries, in which no one is able to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate. IMO, the best way to be Constitutional about these things is to not have public libraries.

    1. Unclear how that resolves anything. Someone could then do drag queen readings in the public parks and the same argument would apply. Is your argument that there should be no public spaces? And would you be calling for the same thing if it was a reading by a pastor and why?

      1. The library has to basically be open to everyone or no one. It’s the Church of Satan thing, where they petition to install a monument to Satan so that people can see why a cross in the town square might not be welcome by everyone.

        I just do not believe libraries represent a legitimate use of public money.

        The idea that the government needs to maintain a repository of books, the selection of which is inevitably curated by the government and involves the government both buying and lending everything from religious materials to Marvel blu-rays, is long past its due date. I know publishers like it, because it guarantees sales of certain materials.

        I also think public schools are unconstitutional, so there’s that.

        1. The library has to basically be open to everyone or no one.

          They basically are unless you are being disruptive to others.

          I just do not believe libraries represent a legitimate use of public money.

          Libraries are typically funded at the local level via levies. They are about the most legitimate use of public money since the public in most cases directly votes on the funds for them or for the lawmakers who choose to allocate funds for them. Unclear how that can’t be a legitimate use of public money.

          The idea that the government needs to maintain a repository of books, the selection of which is inevitably curated by the government and involves the government both buying and lending everything from religious materials to Marvel blu-rays, is long past its due date.

          Why is this past due and what made it past due?

          I know publishers like it, because it guarantees sales of certain materials.

          Actually they hate it. I spent six years working directly with publishers. They do everything in their power to restrict the ability of libraries to lend out books as it is a single sale being read by hundreds or thousands of individuals. Every single program I ever worked on around lending to end users was opposed by the publishers, even when we could demonstrate certain programs increased actual sales.

          I also think public schools are unconstitutional, so there’s that.

          Much like libraries, public schools are largely funded locally. There are federal grants and direct funding but typically that ranges from 10-12% of public school funding (10.8% in 2013 for instance). Unclear how programs largely directly chosen by the public to be funded can possibly be unconstitutional or a poor use of public funds.

          1. I’m surprised he has time to comment. Doesn’t his one-way flight to Somalia depart soon?

          2. There are many publishers whose books serve niche markets, and those publishers exist only because a percentage of the 100k libraries buy their titles. I’m sure that publishers of best selling books do not like lending libraries, although digital distribution brings the prospect that they could be paid for every instance. It also brings the prospect that a library could be the size of a shoe box, which is the other reason I think it is ridiculous for public funds to be poured into library buildings and campuses. That’s just my opinion.

            As with use of public school buildings, there has to be an all or nothing approach to use of the facilities, etc. As our culture increasingly fragments and the ability of the internet to connect and sustain small pockets of community grows, the idea that the government can be capable of distributing/instilling content which is free from unconstitutional bias is going to become more untenable.

            It’s like marriage. When we all largely agreed on marriage, the unconstitutional intrusion of government into that sphere was not very apparent. As beliefs diverged, those problems came into relief. And we are still not finished driving government out of it, because the “definition” of marriage now being enforced is even MORE arbitrary than the one it replaced, and we’re still hammering out the impact on religious freedoms.

            With the advent of digital distribution, there is going to be far less need for the government to maintain a costly physical infrastructure for education, because there will be better ways for kids to learn. That’s my opinion. Additionally, it will become impossible for the schools to educate in a way that is truly neutral and Constitutional. I think that is evident.

            Sometimes open access doesn’t work. For instance, with the practice of police cars being decorated with references to scripture about “my brother’s keeper” etc. In that case, the better solution is no references at all. If you actually want your local government buying Focus on the Family publications for lending to your community (which they often do), you have an odd understanding about the proper role of government.

          3. There are many publishers whose books serve niche markets, and those publishers exist only because a percentage of the 100k libraries buy their titles.

            The lobbying power of such publishers is nil and certainly not nationwide and community to community as would be required to keep a national system of libraries together that is funded almost entirely at a local level. Also, such hypothetical publishers who can somehow survive on only a few thousand printed copies of a book at reasonable prices while still maintaining a national lobbying effort would be crushed by the constant lobbying of major publishers to stop funding libraries and other such programs.

            It also brings the prospect that a library could be the size of a shoe box, which is the other reason I think it is ridiculous for public funds to be poured into library buildings and campuses.

            Libraries these days do both physical and digital. A large percentage of library users are not into digital books and like most public projects libraries exist to serve their users. Also, digital library lending is a thing, Overdrive is the main technology provider for those services.

            As to the point you make about public funds, again you are basically asserting that communities are being ridiculous for choosing to allocate funds to things they believe are good uses. You are welcome to your opinion, but it is at odds with most communities.

            As with use of public school buildings, there has to be an all or nothing approach to use of the facilities, etc.

            Again, this is already the case. You can go reserve a space at a library for a public prayer hour, or a political meeting (local political groups here often do this) or anything else. The space is available to the public and part of why libraries are considered a public good.

            Unclear what you mean about marriage. Nothing was changed for anyone who was married. The franchise was simply extended, much like voting rights have been in the past. It is consistent with past actions by the government.

            With the advent of digital distribution, there is going to be far less need for the government to maintain a costly physical infrastructure for education, because there will be better ways for kids to learn.

            Perhaps, but that does not change the need or desire for public education. It may change forms, but it is an overwhelmingly popular service for state and local governments to provide.

            Additionally, it will become impossible for the schools to educate in a way that is truly neutral and Constitutional.

            Schools are not obligated to educate in a ‘truly neutral way’ and there is nothing in the constitution demanding such. Neutrality is a shifting theoretical middle ground. Most school districts attempt to teach the skills and facts needed for adult life, sometimes that conflicts with various individual and groups opinions or preferences, but schools are under no obligation to cater to them, and when localities decide they want more control they empower a school board to make such decisions. Public schools are the epitome of local control, with very few boundaries (although there are some as they are paid for with public money).

            If you actually want your local government buying Focus on the Family publications for lending to your community (which they often do), you have an odd understanding about the proper role of government.

            Making something available is not the same as promoting it, or excluding other views. I have zero issue with a library stocking bibles, magazines put out by Focus on the Family or High Times. I would have a large issue with the library system choosing to promote one set of material or dissuade from another, that is not their role.

          4. On the marriage thing, I just mean that if marriage is a container for certain rights and benefits and is not grounded in a specific biological function/purpose, then to exclude people from “marrying” for any reason, ever, seems to be highly discriminatory. I would rather that the government just legally recognized households of any number of adults and dropped all commitment to retaining some approximate form of traditional marriage. If a mother and her son want to share the legal benefits enjoyed by married couples, I do not understand why they need to conform to an arbitrary governmental definition of legitimate relationship. If people want to get married and pledge their love and fidelity to each other, they can do that in church (or in the woods).

          5. There are people making that case, strongly. I also have advocated for it. But we have literally hundreds of years of laws dating back to prior to the formation of the United States itself that would need to be rewritten at the federal, state and local level, as well as international agreements for travelers abroad (just ask gay and lesbian couples about how it works when they leave the US for a country that does not recognize their marriage).

            Originally I took the position to just abolish marriage as a government recognized concept. Then after researching the situation I realized we have literally decades of work before that would be feasible due to the massive patchwork of laws at all levels that would need to be rewritten. I couldn’t let a theoretically ‘perfect’ solution be the enemy of the ‘better’ which was just letting LGBTQ people get married and worry about writing better laws later.

            Honestly in my ideal world there would be a simple form outlining the common rights granted by various government recognized arrangements/relationships, ranging from business to personal to medical and financial, and I could put a list of names in order of priority on each section and file it with an agency somewhere to be consulted upon any triggering event ranging from taxation to death.

            Long way away from that though.

          6. There are many publishers whose books serve niche markets, and those publishers exist only because a percentage of the 100k libraries buy their titles. I’m sure that publishers of best selling books do not like lending libraries, although digital distribution brings the prospect that they could be paid for every instance. It also brings the prospect that a library could be the size of a shoe box, which is the other reason I think it is ridiculous for public funds to be poured into library buildings and campuses. That’s just my opinion.

            As with use of public school buildings, there has to be an all or nothing approach to use of the facilities, etc. As our culture increasingly fragments and the ability of the internet to connect and sustain small pockets of community grows, the idea that the government can be capable of distributing/instilling content which is free from unconstitutional bias is going to become more untenable.

            It’s like marriage. When we all largely agreed on marriage, the unconstitutional intrusion of government into that sphere was not very apparent. As beliefs diverged, those problems came into relief. And we are still not finished driving government out of it, because the “definition” of marriage now being enforced is even MORE arbitrary than the one it replaced, and we’re still hammering out the impact on religious freedoms.

            With the advent of digital distribution, there is going to be far less need for the government to maintain a costly physical infrastructure for education, because there will be better ways for kids to learn. That’s my opinion. Additionally, it will become impossible for the schools to educate in a way that is truly neutral and Constitutional. I think that is evident.

            Sometimes open access doesn’t work. For instance, with the practice of police cars being decorated with references to scripture about “my brother’s keeper” etc. In that case, the better solution is no references at all. If you actually want your local government buying Focus on the Family publications for lending to your community (which they often do), you have an odd understanding about the proper role of government.

        2. The library has to basically be open to everyone or no one. It’s the Church of Satan thing, where they petition to install a monument to Satan so that people can see why a cross in the town square might not be welcome by everyone.

          Actually, that was “The Satanic Temple”, which always struck me as guerilla theater.
          Kind of like The Discordian Society.

      2. Other than playing Teh Fag Card off the bottom of the deck, just what is the focus on “drag queens in libraries” all about?

        1. For whatever reason Christian Conservatives seem terrified of men wearing clothes perceived as female. I equate it to irrational fear of clowns, not because drag queens are equivalent to clowns per say, but because some people are irrationally afraid of people who dress differently or in ways that stand out.

          To be fair, this seems to be the last line for them, they spent a good chunk of the last century freaking out about women wearing clothing perceived as being too male after all.

          1. I’m only afraid of bad drag queens. And brother, there are some really bad ones.

  10. This is an extreme though hardly unique example of the current state of conservatism. It is profoundly unAmerican and anti-Constitutional. I have to think that Constitutional Law is a requirement at Northeastern University Law School, so I am flummoxed to figure how Ahmari even sees himself as American. He doesn’t have the excuse of ignorance of the founding principles of the United States.

    And this is important: Current popular conservatism is deeply anti-American. It fears the sovereignty of the people because it is beyond its control. It despises the very words of the Declaration of Independence. Modern conservatism does not believe “all men are created equal”, and it endeavors mightily to ensure equality’s demise. It openly desires theocracy. And at its core, it lusts only for power and license, the license to live as the privileged few – equality for me, but not for thee.

    We are much closer to losing our republic than at any point I can remember. This sort of conservatism is on the verge of taking away the nation we are taught we live in. More worrying is that it less and less even tries to pay lip service to constitutional principles or democratic ideals. It ignores the Constitution when it is convenient (just ask Merrick Garland), and actively and openly undermines the democratic process in order to seize and hold power. It is lawless, while demanding lawfulness from everyone else.

    This is the rot, right here. And it will continue too grow and infect until it is stopped.

    1. What I wonder is this: does Ahmari’s (or “trumpism”, formerly “conservatism”) position come from feeling emboldened by Trumpism or does it come from a place of fearful/cornered minority? Would Ahmari be selling this if he and his fellow authoritarians were really an insignificant minority with no political power at all? Would he/they be more pragmatic? I tend to think it’s the first option, but I’m not sure. And as a believer in Constitutional/Bill of Rights, rights I want to give Ahmari some space to exercise his rights, but these sentiments also beg to be checked… but given his attitude, such discipline may further incite his ilk… Tough and rotten situation to be sure. And I completely agree with your basic assessment that modern “conservatism” is anti-Constitutional/Bill of Rights. My personal discussions with close acquaintances with Ahmari’s sentiments bear this out repeatedly.

      1. I think neither. There’s nothing new about Ahmari’s thinking. It’s born of a theocratic certainty in himself, as well as a particularly obnoxious arrogance.

    1. You’re describing the logic of a DC comic villain like the Joker. Will Sohrab Ahmari’s religious allies follow the Joker or Jesus?

      1. Actually, being an old fart, I was paraphrasing this.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-02-09/destroying-a-quote-s-history-in-order-to-save-it

        But, you’re right. That is the logic of comic book villainy where someone has to be the villain so that there can be a hero to save us.

        And, come to think of it, I remember hearing that reason for voting for Trump from several sources, that those dreadful liberal villains had made it “necessary to destroy the town to save it,” and Trump was just the person to do that.

        1. Like Daenerys Targeryen liberating King’s Landing.
          And her starry-eyed speech afterwards.

          1. Makes one wonder: why is the logic of comic book villainy and Game of Thrones mad queens so popular among today’s religious fundamentalists?

Comments are closed.