What the Heck are they Thinking Anyway? № 2
Small c-conservative thought: Sweden's COVID Strategy, Catholic Integralism goes Mainstream
Has Sweden Found the Right Solution to the Coronavirus? - John Fund - The National Review
As many of us have heard by now, Sweden has taken a very different approach to the COVID19 crisis. It’s position, favoured by conservatives the world over, is to put in place as few social and economic restrictions as possible, and instead let the virus work it’s way through younger, healthier people in order to develop herd immunity for the elder ones. The consequence to this approach in Sweden is a significantly higher death rate (7.7%) compared to their immediate Scandinavian neighbours Norway (1.46%) and Denmark (3.21%). Whatever you may think of this approach, and the difference in death rates should tell you something, it’s important to understand how the argument is being made. Here is John Fund writing in the National Review:
Sweden is developing herd immunity by refusing to panic. By not requiring social isolation, Sweden’s young people spread the virus, mostly asymptomatically, as is supposed to happen in a normal flu season. They will generate protective antibodies that make it harder and harder for the Wuhan virus to reach and infect the frail and elderly who have serious underlying conditions. For perspective, the current COVID-19 death rate in Sweden (40 deaths per million of population) is substantially lower than the Swedish death rate in a normal flu season (in 2018, for instance, about 80 per million of population).
In the first “What the Heck are they Thinking?” I briefly looked at two arguments for the intellectual way forward for conservatives, particularly in the United States. One of them contained a discussion of Catholic Integralism, a train of thought that, while still in a minority position, seems to be growing in popularity. In that piece, Tanner Greer explained, using an Integralists own words, what these folks care about: “The young conservative is attracted to integralism not because they think its vision of the good is attainable, but because the integralists unapologetically advance a vision of the good.” Matt Ford provides further background information about the authoritarian tendencies of the Integralists:
The Emerging Right-Wing Vision of Constitutional Authoritarianism - Matt Ford - The New Republic
It’s tempting, perhaps, for those on the left to read Vermeule as an expression of the secret desire lurking within every legal conservative’s heart. He is not, however, an originalist or even a standard American conservative. He is a proponent of integralism, an arcane strain of Catholic political thought that draws upon 19th-century critiques of modernism and revolution. Integralists reject liberalism as a political philosophy, preferring hierarchy over egalitarianism and autocracy to individual rights. They eschew the modern secular nation-state in favor of something more closely resembling the confessional states of early modern Europe, or perhaps the Habsburg empires.
Finally, we get to the substance of Integralist thought: the state has the authority and power to advance a specific conception of the good. Here’s Adrian Vermeule in The Atlantic.
Beyond Originalism - Adrian Vermeule - The Atlantic
This approach should take as its starting point substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution. These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society.
As someone who is on the left-centre, I often hear arguments about the ‘biased press.’ I’m not one to buy into the latest conspiracy theories, but I do think it is significant that an argument for conservative authoritarianism was welcomed and published by mainstream, reputable publication. In my view, that says something about the Overton Window that should not be overlooked.
Dinner Table Don’ts is a curation of News, Commentary and Analysis from Peter Thurley. Named after his first blog started while in university, Dinner Table Don’ts is a conversation about all the topics you were told to keep away from the dinner table.
While the Dinner Table Digest newsletter will be FREE for the first while as I get the kinks sorted out and onto a regular posting schedule, it will eventually transfer to a paid subscription model. It will be inexpensive, only a few bucks a month. As my capacity increases, so too may new subscription opportunities.
Learn more about what makes this newsletter special here.